Talk:Christianity/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Denominations

I need to point out that the "Denominations" sections may be confusing. What does "unia" stand for, "united"? Also, if it does not, then protestantism should split-off of Roman Catholicism (it arises from Reformation, after Luther's 95 theses), though have "roots" in original doctrine (i.e. justification by faith: Eph 2:8,9--see http://www.carm.org/catholic/faithalone.htm for an idea)

Changes to the article

I've made a change to the article, added some pages linking to Islam so people can see the differences and distinguish between the two faiths. It'd be great seeing both religions and letting people be informed of both, it's better for the world and will cause less conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.94.110 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 Februarly 2006.

I've removed it. Sorry, but this article is about Christianity, and your link was not to a website that compared the two faiths: it was to a a website that was just dedicated to Islam. By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ann it's fixed now, it was the wrong site but both equally are good. 69.156.94.110 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Steve

Does anyone have any specific changes to the article they would like to suggest? I think it would be easier to gain agreement for limited, incremental improvements. Maybe we could workshop a paragraph or two here. Is converage of the Orthodox perspective adequete? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I brought up changes that I want with my reasons, as a starter, in the section called "Giovanni33's Edits." That serves, as a start, for some changes I'm looking for. Giovanni33 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is one of my issues. With regard to the language, this article was using the Wikepeaia narrative voice to speak from the perspective of the Church, or rather a supposed one true Christianity, which I have endeavored to change in keeping with NPOV policy. For example, see a clear remnant of the old version with this POV coloring that is in the current article it says: "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." This is problematic because there "heresies" also contained Christians, like the Gnostic Christians. They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians, sometimes being only a matter of one vote determining who would be branded as not being "true." Wikipedia should not take sides, but report objectively. Compare with my NPOV language that gets reverted: "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one merged with state power and tried to extterminate its rivals. This fact describing the new orthodoxy merged with State power should be placed in this connection historical accuracy, not decontexualized under the persecutions section. Giovanni33 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." This seems to imply there are multiple, equally valid versions of Christianity, some that accept the divinity of Christ and some that don't, for example. Do you mean Wikipedia should state as fact that "heresy" is just a name people in power use as convenient?

"They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians..." surely it would be as objective to say they are only Christians from the point of view of some heretics.

"The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one merged with state power and tried to extterminate its rivals." This is hardly neutral language. I suppose there are academics who hold that view, but I do not think the minority view should dominate. In fact, I think all of this is far too detailed for the general article on Christianity. It might go better on History of Christianity or Early Christianity. I do not think it belongs here. I would rather see the history section made less prominent, and maybe recast along the lines of KHM03's suggestion: First century, Constantine, Schism, Reformation, Ecumenism, link to History of Christianity. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the voice of Wikipeadia should not comment about which version of Christianity is valid or not valid. It should simply report that there were different groups (list them) that called themselves Christians (maybe even list their differences), and that then one group was able to get enough votes to brand the other one heretical. This is NPOV language. And, I disagree that it would be objective to say, "they are only Christians from the point of view of some heretics." To do that assumes the POV one group--the one with the power to enforce the labels. Why do we assume their voice? We should only report it from an objective 3rd person narrative. About the particularly intolerant nature of the new Christian church after it assumed power, this is not POV, it simply a fact. It should be properly attributed, and if anyone disagrees that this is a fact, then we can talk about it. It might be time to start getting out sources for this point. And, one sentence is appropriate in the history section that gives an understanding of an important defining characteristic of this winning version of Christianity as it would have a huge impact.Giovanni33 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Gio, WP should not judge on this, but it should report on historical events and on what historians say, reflect historical reality and research. Not to use the accurate epithet heresy in order to kowtow before some relativistic zeitgeist is not NPOV. And this isn't about getting enough votes (as I explaine above). But even if it were, do you think we should not note Helmut Kohl as the winner of the 1994 general elections in Germany? You could call him a loser as he lost votes, but ...

What you call "the particularly intolerant nature of the new Christian church after it assumed power" (not disagreeing with the reality behind this wording) is already covered, was already covered before you appeared.

A third person isn't objective, BTW. Str1977 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that WP should not take sides but resport on historical events accurately based on what historians say that reflects historical reality and research. I never said not to use the word that was used against the losing Christians. We should stated that they were defined as hersies. That is what my version says. We should say who called them that, and maybe even why (noting differences probably goes beyond the space here), but we can list several groups as examples. And, then what they did to them. In this way we hold back our judgment and report what happened, from a NPOV. In some cases it was determined by a single vote. Regarding your analogy same thing (although it has limitations): we note what happened, that he won. We note how, etc. If after he wins, then then calls everyone he disagrees with "terrorists" do we assume they are terrorists and call them by that label too, as if it were a fact? No. We simply report so and so were label as "terrorists" by Kohl (maybe even give the reasons why, and and state their differences); then report the action that was taken. This is all basic NPOV langauge. I don't see why its a sticking point here. Giovanni33 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal would bloat the section even further and would distort reality by kowtowing to relativism (as I explained above). And, please, could you provide evidence for your "single vote" legend? As regards to my analogy: we don't say according to the Bundeswahlleiter (Federal election supervisor) Kohl won the 1994 elections, we say he won the elections - and that despite the facts that the official result gives only votes and seats for parties. In our case: the relevant body issued decisions (in 2nd and 3rd century this was not one Council but a series of concurring decisions by bishops and councils) and we report them. Str1977 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think changing the language for NPOV would bloat anything. Even if it did a bit, never was there a better reason to do so as its mandated by the NPOV policy. You did not explain how my simple language reflecting who said what, i.e. "The church defined as heresies,"is a distortion of reality, much less "mumbo-jumbo." What you call relativism is really just NPOV language, which is a form of relativism, quite true, but its quite needed. You have failed to provide any rational counter argument, other than simplistic name calling, which I think is telling of the weakness of your argument. To instead say (your version): "Christinaity (which is a set of beliefs), dealt with heresies" is not only POV in that it assumes the voice as one POV, but it also doesn't make sense since: Christianity is what people decide it to be, it's not an objective entity like a person that exists that can then "deal" with "heresies"---its people, its the institution, the church, which "deals" with other pepole, in this case other Christians because of their differing Christian beliefs by defining them as heresies,and thus giving them a basis to attack them. It was an attempt to get rid of differences both of non-Christians and among Christians. This is not only accurate and makes sense, but it's NPOV---reporting what who actually did what, without assuming their voice. Your version obscures reality with fuzzy language and is blatant POV. Your analogy as I explained does not fit since its not so simple as who won or lost, its about who gets the power to define another group. That is why we should report it by stating who defined who what, esp. if its negative. Those who were defined as heretics, certainly did not view themselves in such a light. In your analogy, the party that did lose, would agree they lost, no? It's clear cut and not subjective. That why when Kohl won in 1994, they didn't try to kill each other.

Irrelvant - the SPD lost regardless of whether they admitted that or not. And killing each other is totally beside the point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, its not and you miss the point. It was made to further illustrate your bad analogy of the elections being in nature something that was objective, agreed to, and thus the results are legitimate, unlike the branding of heresies which were more arbritary, related to political power. The result is that in the former instance, there is acceptance, including the losing party; the latter there is no acceptance and further conflict ensues. This highlights the need to adopt NPOV language in not taking one side in this dispute over another.Giovanni33 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

About the vote "legend" I prefer not to get into tangents, unless we are going to go into this level of detail in this aricle, although its still interesting. I know that the Council of Nicea made women "human" by *one* vote, too. I think the main point is that this was political. It was due to Constantine's desire for unity that he ruthlessly enforced his particular brand of orthodoxy among the various Christian groups - there was just no way he would allow them to be weakened as a political force through internal strife or disagreement. Constantine appropriated this authority for himself, ofcourse by declaring that he was a "bishop, ordained by God." That is why he logically moved first to eliminate the external challenges posed by paganism, destroying their temples and books. After that, he ordered that those Christian groups which had been deemed "unorthodox" also be eliminated, thus removing internal challenges. Very quickly, theological disagreements which had been a part of the Christian experience became "unchristian." For Constantine, religious differences were impediments to the power that had replaced Maxentius and Licinius. In this way, choice ("heresy") to be religiously different became defined as treason, a political crime, later to be punishable by death. This explains the differences in how Early Christianity treated "heresy". So long as Christianity itself was persecuted or powerless, greater freedom of thought was tolerated. However, once Chrisitanity became the state religion, disagreements over doctrine became threats to political and social stability in the empire. As a consequence, those who failed to uphold orthodoxy and fell into heresy were treated as enemies of the social order and tolerance of differences of opinion was no longer very great. Infact, the conflict between the some groups and the more "orthodox" Christians got so bad that open warfare erupted in cities like Constantinople and Alexandria. The violence was so extensive that historian Will Durant argued that more Christians died at the hands of other Christians in 343 than during all of the persecutions suffered by Christians at the hands of pagan Roman authorities.

About the other so-called "legends," I suppose its time to start to pull out references, again. So, I'll do that soon. First the POV issues need to be fixed, though, then I can present a list of some very important facts and argue why they are should be included, after I show they are facts as proven by cited sources. Giovanni33 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep my answer brief:

If "Christianity is what people decide it to be" then the question is who decides - and my proposal is to stick what we leave this to the Christians at the time. That doesn't mean that they were right (I guess the thought that Christianity might be wrong is not foreign to you) but only that they decided it that way. If you can provide a wording that includes both the decision making process in a concise manner without indulging in relativism.

As for the one-vote legend - I don't know what books you read but they are misleading you. There never was a vote that "made woman human", let alone by one vote. There was a local council (in Gaul) sometime in the 2nd century that had to deal with the question whether women had souls. The council forcefully affirmed that women had souls. That doesn't mean that this was denied before, only that the question wasn't asked before. In Nicaea nothing of the kind was voted on - Nicaea dealt with Arianism, the Easter date, some organisatory issues - none of this was decided by a margin of one vote.

You are somewhat right about how Constantine saw himself (and later Emperors cointinued in that vain) but that doesn't mean that it was right. It was a novel thought in the 4th century. He however did not eliminate Paganism etc. Also, yes, Constantine aimed at unity and hence was displeased with these theological dispute. He therefore pushed the bishops towards making a decision (moving the council from Ancyra to his residence Nicaea) but he didn't make that decision. It was a bit like the conclave, locking the relevant men up to force them to decide - but the decision is still theirs, and it was a decision in line with previous tradition (however with a problematic wording). After that, Constantine put all his force behind that decision but also tried to achieve maximal reconciliation, re-admitting Eusebius of N., Theognis of N. and even Arius, while banishing Athanasius, who to the Emperor was merely disturbing the peace. Though Athanasius' suspicion turned out to be right, Constantine doesn't look like your exterminator to me.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The book I read where I learned of the women's soul was Simone de Beauvoir, famouse "The Second Sex." She may be wrong, but I don't want to get off on this tangent (maybe later). My point about heresies and the role of Constantine (and later other emperors) is one of political power. From very early on Christianity was full of bitter ideological disputes and competing sects with conflicting claims. The sect that "won" this internecine propaganda war achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The way you present it is as if the Constantine just threw everyone together (which supports my argument about the political need for unity), but isn't it true that First Council of Constantinople 384, all 186 bishops who attended were from the East - none from the West and no representatives of Pope Damasus I were there? And then for the Second Council of Constantinople, weren't almost all of the bishops who attended from the East? This meant that for a while Pope Virgilius was forced to accept Justinian's condemnations. And for the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which was used to condemn the teachings of Photius, the Eastern Orthodox Church didn't not recognize its authority, and instead recognized the authority of a separate council held in Constantinople which did approved of Photius, annulling the decision made at the other council. Infact didn't Catholicism and Orthodox church both delcare each other as heresies in the Great Schism? Such renders the category "heresy" less than objective, and highlights the need to identify it was a political label, rather than a revelation of the "truth" as its proponents would like to claim. Its not NPOV to take sides and treat one version as the truth and deny the Christian label to all other Christians simply because of these political power machiniations.

This ties in with my other point regarding their particular intolerance, i.e. Christians who persecute, torture and execute those whose only “crime” is having a different belief (even a minor difference), their acts reveal the nature of their piety. The proceedings of that council were conducted by Constantine and its no accident that and one of the positions which he insisted upon, and got---to make Pistis a doctrine of the new church. Gnosticism could not be tolerated, because it encouraged its members to question authority. Pistis was thus politically expedient, because it forbade questioning. Your comment about the Arians being less tolerant, I don't think is true as I find this reference in Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [1]

where Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Giovanni33 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, there you have it a totally unreliable source is at the heart of it. She was no historian and probably didn't have a clue what she was talking about. But anyway...

Why is it that people think that this is all power struggle and propaganda war. I wonder what would happen if I entered a science seminar discussing this and that and I interrupted by shouting "propaganda war, power struggle"

I never denied your take on why Constantine got involved. He was not intellectual either. But he didn't dictate the outcome (because he was no intellectual either). Emperors who did this were his son Constantius, Theodosius II, Justinian. In Constantinople 381 (!)there were only Easteners (actually only from some parts of the East) because elsewhere there was no dispute - no dispute in Egypt, no dispute in the West. So the Easterners brought their dispute to a close. We reckon 1st Constantinople as an Ecumenical council because it was later accepted as such.

At the 2nd Constantinople bishops from all regions were present.

As for Photius, not his teachings were condemned at 4th Constantinople but his elevation to the See of Constantinople. This was accepted by the entire Church, including the Eastern Churches. Only later, when Ignatius was dead, was Photius was reinstated on that other council and only later did the Eastern Orthodox Church count this as the Eighth Council.

Reportin events accurately is not taking sides. Levelling everything down is taking side, the side of the "it's all bullocks" ignoramus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot something: that heretics are more tolerant is one of the most common but nonetheless false prejudices - the Arians have proved their "tolerance" in the 4th century, ask Catholics/Orthodox, ask Pagans, in the 5th and 6th century the Artian Goths and especially the Vandals were certainly not more tolerant than the Franks ... Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 03:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the other versions of Christiatnity were tolerant. I only said that the winning orthodoxy was less tolerant than all the rest. Your comment about the Arians being less tolerant, I dispute and provided a reference to support that claim: Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [2] Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Now, saying this is not true, then please cite me a schoarly work which says this. Your giving giving examples of being intolerant fails since it does not give a comparision. Your analogy about going into a science lab is another flawed analogy since Science doesn't operate in the same way. Sure, there are affects of power, also (who gets funding, grants, and what areas of of interest for investigation(, but the method and results are objective and legitimate, where all will accept. Its not based on arbitrary power, its based on what is proven by evidence. More about how Christianity determined who was right take a look at this section: [3] Lastly, reproting things with POV language that assumes the voice of only one side is taking sides. My language reports it from a 3rd person perspective.Giovanni33 08:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, don't twist my words. When I denied that "that heretics are more tolerant" then the Orthodox I meant just that (BTW, your relativistic lingo would render your sentence nonsensical). Heretics are not more tolerant per se and the 4th Arians proved that with their unprecedent intolerance.

Also, I didn't say that theology works like (natural) science - it doesn't. But it works according to its own set of rules, of which you are appearently ignorant of. I phantasized of being an ignoramus too and walking into a science class.

I don't care about what your scripture (infidels.org) says, as they too have no clue what they are talking about. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't twist your words. You claimed tht the Arians were "quite more intolerant." I asked for you to back that up with a reference, as I was able to do that suggests that what you claim is untrue. You seem to miss the point that this is not about one side being tolerant and the other being intolerant. Rather my point is that one was noted for beign particularly intolerant (for whatever reasons). Note this means comparative, relatively speaking. You seems to only want to deal with absolutes and don't like relative thinking but its an important intellectual understanding to have. The reference above makes this point, in particular in comparision to the Arians, who are also noted for their intolerance. If you contest this then you need to provide a reference and quote, otherwise concede the point. The other reference I gave you has nothing to do with "scripture." You are again confusing secular scholarhip with religious methods. I'm not trying to convert you. You refusal to even look at his arguments is indicative of your own intolerance and dogmatism, sad to say. Richard Carrier has an M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, with a graduate major in historiography, religion, and intellectual history, and has several years experience in Greek linguistics, including palaeography and papyrology. But what matters most is not what letters he has behind his name but what the merits of his arguments are. I thought to save space by just giving a link, but if you insist, I'll copy and paste. The arguments and points are valid, and if you want to refute it you need to do so logically and rationally.Giovanni33 02:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You still don't read what I wrote. I was speaking comparatively too, saying that Arians were not less but more intolerant than their Orthodox/Catholic counterparts. Historical events back up my claim, while yours is merely based in modern Enlightenment "Heretics are cool" prejudice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did read what you said and you have been flip-flopping. Now that you are stating what you originally said again, then I will point out that you need to provide support for your claim as I have. Name calling won't do. I provided a reference to support my claims, and I've asked you to do the same many times but so far you have failed to do so. My soure again: Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [4] Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Since you are saying this is not true, then please cite me a schoarly work which says this. Note that simply giving giving examples of being intolerant fails since it does not give a comparision, like my quotation above does.Giovanni33 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a detail Gio alluded to in the Great Schism. Rather than East and West excommunicating each other or declaring each other heretical, the actual excommunications were much more limited in scope. The Pope's representative delivered a bull of excommunication directed specifically at the Patriarch of Constantinople, who in return anathematized (East-speak for excommunicated) the papal representative, but not the Pope himself. It was not immediately evident to people at the time that this pivotal exchange would turn out to mark the beginning of a schism that lasted 1000 years, and these excommunications aren't the only reason for the schism. In fact, they were mutually rescinded in the 1960s by the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, but that alone obviously hasn't ended the schism, though it was an important step in that direction. Wesley 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wesley, and in fact, the Patriarch never was excommunicated legally, as the death of Pope Leo had rendered his legate's authority void. But in the 1960s some historians (it can even be pinpointed to one individual, but I have forgotten his name) thought otherwise and influenced the Holy See to mutually rescind the act. I agree that 1054 is not the one and all of the Schism, hence my inclusion of the deeper causes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my 2 cents. As I follow the conversation I understand that Gio has recommended that the language use to describe heresies be adapted to ensure that there is not a POV problem. That sounds reasonable to me. The period identified was noted for mulitple beliefs that may have contradicted other beliefs. Councils were held in which some belief systems were identifed as heretical. Str1977 and Wesley, surely this could be accomodated. Constantine appears at most to be lukewarm in his doctrinal beliefs. He was a political entity a the time that sought unity of the empire and not a religious leader. History strongly supports that claim. Please Str1977, I know that many of these topics are sensitive to you and we respect them. Let us find a middle ground and not trade accusations with others; I am not asking you to forfeit your strongly held beliefs and understanding of history, but I am asking you to allow that there room for other legitimate viewpoints. Storm Rider 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't object to that. What I object to is relativistic talk like "alternative versions of Christianity", as if all were equally valid (on a Christian basis - that doesn't say anything about whether this or that is right), and with the implied undercurrent of "it doesn't matter anyway" or "victory was merely political power play". We wouldn't discuss any other topic like this, we shouldn't do it here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you StormRider for your reasonableness. That is exactly my point and it is what Str1977 is objecting to. He wants his POV that his version Christianity be given the only right to claim a legitimate name, and to speak from that POV. My solutionis to not takes sides but simply report the facts. Hence, "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." Str1977 objects that this allows the reader to come up with their own possible POV about these other version of Christianity, and question the fact that the label of "heresy" is jut that: a label that one group put on another. I don't argue that my POV about it being a struggle power, that all versions of Christians have an equal right to be respected and accorded with the title of being Christians just as much as the other (thats my POV), should be included here. This stems from a particular understanding of hisotry , how the process of right vs. wrong take place. This legitimate POV is expressed here, as an example:[5] Str1977 refuses to even consider it. I leave that up to more open minded readers, and not not argue the point for inclusion becaue this article is not getting into these quetions on that level.Giovanni33 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a legitimate issue in providing sources that are deemed reputable. However, I have a difficult time determining which sources meet the standard and which do not. I prefer to allow most edits that are referenced unless it is obvious to even someone as dim as me that the reference is not worthy of being quoted. However, it is also recommended to follow policy and small minority positions may be mentioned, but are appropriately not given equal "billing" in the article (length of article, etc.) I believe that STR's objective is to insist that the historical Christian church be presented in an orthodox manner. For example, his issue stated above that, "alternative versions of Christianity" and more importantly that, "it doesn't matter anyway" in speaking about the respective groups. History states which were eventually deemed heretical and which were not. My recommendation is that it would be acceptable to state that there was a transitionary period in early Christian history that a diverse set of beliefs developed as the gospel spread out from Jerusalem. Councils were called by the early church leaders to identify and promote what they deemed correct doctrine. Only after the councils could a belief rightly be identified as heresy and which were correct. If I am not mistaken the Councils at times reversed themselves on some doctrines. STR and Wesley, is this both accurate and acceptable? Gio, we need to work diligently to write things in a manner that does not identify truth, but be repectful of history. You will find both STR and Wesley very knowledgable, at times they may be rigid, but they will work with you. Few them as collegues; when you feel like you are hitting a wall seek help from others until a consensus is reached. I say that from experience and trust both of them even though we may disagree on certain pionts. Keep working at it. Storm Rider 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Storm Rider, my objection is not, regardless of how Gio may paint me, against possible ways of making it more NPOV (though I think it is NPOV enough right now), but against such wordings like "alternative versions of Christianity" that are in themselves POV. That has nothing to do with picking sides of who's right or wrong, but with historical accuracy and the best way to do this is to understand each time out of itself (Ranke) without introducing foreign thoughts or even PC. The problem is that Gio dosn't allow (or rather hasn't allowed thus dar) for any meaningful definition of Christian.

SR, you are right that a heresy is only "formal heresy" after it has been debated and condemned (and hence problematic passages in Church Fathers, possibly containing "matieral heresy" don't make them heretics); Councils somewhat disagreed with each other, but the point is to find out the legitimate ones, e.g. accepting Nicaea but not things like the latrocinium. You are however wrong in asserting (if you do) that these different versions spread out from Jerusalem. Some even didn't exist in Jerusalem, such as Gnosticism.

Note also that "heresy" is not POV as the heretics also labelled the Orthodox as heretics and themselves as Orthodox. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, your very example--the fact that each group has labeled each other as heretical only proves it's a POV. This is why I say we must adopt NPOV language and not assume it as true just because someone hurls the label. Its easy to just say they called them such. Also, you are wrong that I don't allow any meaningful definition of Christianity. I just allow a broader defintion that encompasses the different versions of Christianity, while you, adopting the POV of the winners, wish to say they were the only true Christians and speak from their voice to the exusion of others. That is what is more POV. It's like Catholics saying that protestants can not be called another version of christiaity. Nonsense. To acknowelege different versions of Christianity is not POV. Even if you wish to make the extreme case that it is (in some way it is), then we can solve this by simply claiming that each of these groups claimed to be Christians. I think most reasonable people can adopt a broad based definition of a Christian being one who calls himself a Christian, professing belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord, etc. That is good enough for most reasonable people. Accordingly, lets not deny that there were other versions, and that calling them heretical was a matter of being defined as such by a particular version that was particularly intolerant and wanted to wipe them out of existence. Giovanni33 00:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We are in accord. My contention was that as the gospel spread heresies developed over time. I believe only one gospel spread out from Jerusalem, but then as new converts entered the "body" diverse beliefs developed. I also think that heresies took time before they were identified as such. I think we are on the same page. Storm Rider 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is one valid interpreatation. But others have argued that Gnostics were the original Christians, and that the resulting bureaucracy and literalist orthodoxy was a corruption and vulgarization of it to serve the imperial politics of the state. I don't take a side but simply wish that we respect the Christian traditions off all versions of Christianity by adopting NPOV language that reflect who did what without assuming that "winner" was right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 February 2006.

Storm Rider, I think that that's one way that some of the, er, diverse belief systems developed, but not necessarily the only one. Gnosticism likely predated Christianity by at least a few decades, and some Gnostics borrowed some names and terms from Christianity, and thus we had "Gnostic Christianity". This wasn't a fork or divergence from the gospel that spread out from Jerusalem, but entirely different in its historical development. Something similar may have happened with some Jewish groups that viewed Jesus as "just" a good human teacher, like some so-called "Essenes" or "Nazarenes." These groups may or may not have had a historical connection with Jesus' immediate followers, though they certainly knew of him and used his name. Early Christians did identify and denounce false teachings without waiting for a council to debate it; see the epistles of Paul and John in the New Testament, and the writings of Ignatius and Irenaeus for examples. Sometimes these denunciations were controversial, and had to be discussed and ratified in council; Arianism is certainly an example of this. But in many instances I don't think they were, when enough of the church's trusted leaders were in agreement. Still, Str1977 is I think right about "formal heresy" being something officially denounced through a council. Wesley 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, for pointing this out.

Heresy is a term used by historians. That it was heresy according to the Church is understood, but who is to decide if not the Church.

I don't know where Gio gets the legend that heresies were condemned by mere majority rule, let alone by one vote. He should cite such an example. All Councils decided with large majorities and mostly got the consent for decisions even of those who voted otherwise before (Nicaea had two opposing votes!). This is the way Ecumenical Councils still work. But, in the cases we are addressing here there was no one decision that condemned say Gnosticism or Marcion or Montanus - it was a quite longish and thoughtful process.

In any case, Gio's suggestion is permeated by a very narrow POV (even when in accord with the Zeitgeist): "In religion there is no right or wrong but only subjectivity." Or what else is it to say there were different versions of Christianity. The real Christ only taught this and that and he didn't teach the opposite. To call both alternative different versions is relativistic POV. We should report on how Christians then saw it and how scholars think about it, but not indulge in a relativistic mumbo-jumbo.

As for "the more intolerant" made it: again any nice legend to hit those who made it (as more rewarding victims) but quite different from the truth. The first bishop who used political power for his aims was Paulus of Samosata, a condemned heretic. The Arian party, in power during much of the 4th century, was quite more intolerant than any Catholic bishop. It was the Arian Constantius II who tore down many temples, it was the Arian Valens who persecuted Pagans, philosophers, Catholics. IMHO, Arian intolerance contributed to its eventual downfall.

Finally, regarding proposals for cutting back the history section. I am open to that but I don't see much room for that, based on the current version. What is it you would want to delete? (Please anwer the last issue at the bottom of the section). Str1977 23:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, per above, you still need to provide support for your claim as I have. I provided a reference to support my claims, and I've asked you to do the same many times but so far you have failed to do so. My soure again: Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [6] Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Since you are saying this is not true, then please cite me a schoarly work which says this. Note that simply giving giving examples of being intolerant fails since it does not give a comparision, like my quotation above does.Giovanni33 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The resources list is way too long. In the past, we tried to keep it relatively brief...a theology resource or two, a couple of histories, etc. There's an inordinate amount from Gio's POV. I would ask that when the article is unprotected, Gio go through and pick two or three of the best of those to keep. The mainstream side could, of course, list dozens or hundreds of resources, but that wouldn't accomplish much. If Gio can do that, it would be nice. KHM03 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Infact, I'd even let you pick out the best three. The only reason why I went overkill with the sources was because I was being told that my view was original research or that it was fringe, etc. So, I piled on the sources. :) Giovanni33 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us which the three best were? Str1977 23:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion...Burton Mack, Edwin Johnson, and it would make some sense to add Elaine Pagels. KHM03 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm much too worried about other articles to make specific suggestions right now, but I'll let you know when I have the time. I mainly stumbled around here in thinking I saw other religion articles having an informative table, finding I was wrong, but intrigued by the whole protection thing.

KV 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "table"? What examples can you suggest? KHM03 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of the filioque looks fine to me (for this article). Two small changes I would make in the Nicene Creed section would be removing the quotes from the phrases "sin and death" and "General Resurrection", as the quotes seem to suggest that these exact phrases appear in the Creed, while in fact they do not. "General Resurrection" could be replaced by "resurrection of the dead" since that's the phrase used, but it's not really a big deal. Wesley 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My view is as previously stated.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to succinctly summarize that view for my benefit? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That it should be factually accurate, NPOV and helpful to people who may not know much about the subject. That's the answer to the question, but to help things along a few key points that I'd like to see mentioned are that there were many creeds in the Early Church. That the Nicene creed was not the earliest. That the term Nicene Creed is now used to denote any one of three different texts. That there should be some indication of the Orthodox position on the filioque (as per Orthoxox Wikipedia). I'd also like to see references inter alia to the books: The Making of The Creeds and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I got this idea from KHMO3, who is not at fault if I misunderstood him, or express it badly. My concern is that the article as a whole has become too retrospective. I think we might limit the history section to five paragraphs: The First Century; Constantine; The Great Schism; The Reformation; and Modern Times. We would give up most of what is now in the second and fourth paragraphs, and some of what's in the fifth. This looks more radical than it really is. None of the material would be lost, just moved to History of Christianity or Early Christianity. I hope this new outline would be more accessible to the casual reader who is not interested in arcane theology and ancient politics. Having fewer handles to latch on to, it might also be more resistant to bloating. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, as for your proposals:

• 2nd paragraph: we need the spreading sentence IMO and Gio will certainly oppose the removal of the rest.
• 4th paragraph: we can get rid of Beowulf, but we cannot get rid of the conversion of Western and Eastern Europe.
• 5th paragraph: we cannot ommit the secular conflict with Islam.

I hardly see arcana theology in the current version. But please specify what you want to cut.

Str1977 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is probably too ambitious at this point. Maybe I'll revisit it later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Add more Teachings, Summary of Christianity

There are many notable differences between this article and other articles such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which both provide much more information about the beliefs of those religions. The Christianity article, however, consists mostly of historical information.

I think that the sections on the teachings of Christianity should be expanded, with significant references made to the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, which summarizes the Christian beliefs. Basic beliefs which should be discussed include:

• Original Sin
• The call of Abraham
• The exodus from Egypt
• The Ten Commandments and the Law
• Fighting the indigenous people to claim the Holy Land
• The birth of the Jewish nation
• Priests and Judges
• Prophecies concerning the Messiah
• The 400 years of silence between the Old and New Testaments
• The writing of the Septuagint
• The birth of Jesus
• Jesus defeats the devil's temptations in the desert
• Jesus' public ministry
• Jesus' death on the cross
• Jesus' ressurection and ascension
• The missionary journeys of Paul
• The prophecied Second Coming

DanielMcBride 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how its organized, I'd like to see a secular thought to balance the POV balance added to the interpretation and meaning of teachings where appropriate. I'm not sure if its appropriate but it's something we can think about how to do. Giovanni33 21:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of that; the history section here should be abrief overview...4 or 5 paragraphs hitting the major points (1st century, Constantine/Nicea, Great Schism, Reformation, maybe modern ecumenism), with a link to the History of Christianity article, where there's more space for development.

I also think we should talk about beliefs, and would concur with some of your suggestions. I guess I wouldn't go too far in talking about Abraham through the 400 years of "silence"...that's better discussed elsewhere (we should explain the strong connection to Judaism, of course, but concisely). A brief overview of Jesus & Paul, then important historic doctrines (Grace, Sin, Salvation, Incarnation, Trinity, Bible, Resurrection, Eschatology, Parousia). Worship, too, and a few modern things (ecumenism, maybe Pentecostalism).

Of course, we could redirect the article to Methodism, too.  ;) KHM03 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the history section should be kept promiment, if not expanded. To imbue Historical thinking in general is always a good thing. Hence my pushing for the Beowulf point. Giovanni33 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can cut much of the history section (with the exception of Beowulf), as we even have to put quite some energy into defending it from further bloating (see above). However, I always thought that the history section should be moved down to just above the persecution section.

As for the points raised by Daniel, some are already mentioned in the article but could be expanded (Jesus' death on the cross, Jesus' ressurection and ascension, The prophecied Second Coming). Some are difficult to include (Jesus' public ministry or missionary journeys of Paul). I don't know as they might be too detailed a redendition of the Biblical account (Jesus' temptations). Even more questionable are retelling of the Old Testament history (Abraham, exodus, Ten Commandments ...) - if this should be done most summarily. "Writing of the Septuagint" is completely irrelvant IMHO, and a "400 years silence" is POV.

Str1977 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a pro History bloater, and I don't think we should move it down. It should be the starting point---to undertand what is, we have to understand what was. Giovanni33 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. The History of Christianity is so important that it deserves its own article; but it should not dominate every article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, not dominate just remain prominent. Giovanni33 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03 that the history section is too long. I wonder if it might enjoy broader support and be more bloat-resistent if it were shorter. I also think moving it further down the page is a good idea. If I could make only one change, I would make the article less retrospective. I also like Daniel's suggestions, subject to the constraints of space and neutral presentation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority on this question, unless all my alleged sockets chime in, as Im sure they will in due time. Giovanni33 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind covering history first, but we just should keep it to a general summary, with a link to the main history article. KHM03 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Giovanni33

Giovani33, Would you mind dropping me an e-mail at trollwatcher@gmail.com and then the following day make a note below confirming the title of the e-mail so that I can be sure its from you. Thanks. Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovani33, Apologies, that e-mail address should have read trollwatcher@hotmail.comTrollwatcher 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, has anyone noticed that text on this page has been moved around and in some cases deleted? Anyone know who's doing it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trollwatcher (talk • contribs) .

What does the page history say? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr T, if you are referring to my edits - it is called archiving. The page was very large and I archived various sections [7] into the archives 24 [8] and 25 [9]. I moved your request for Gio, which would have been archived, down to the 2nd section called "A Simple Question" to ensure that Gio could read it. [10] Sorry, if I have confused you. Str1977 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So, it now turns out that you have in fact been deleting material without consulting anyone else and also inserting bogus section headings. You have failed to post any note to indicate what you have done, and your response claiming that you've been merely archiving is, let us say, slightly less than the whole truth. I hesitate to call this troll-like behaviour, but no other description springs to mind. Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A Simple Question

Just a question about the users on the Christianity page and this discussion page:

Are you a non-Christian who habitually contributes to this page ?

If you are, would you mind noting your own userID below and optionally adding "yes" or "no" to the following question: Do you feel that the Christianity page succeeds in being NPOV and that the majority of principal contributors to it genuinely try to be NPOV ?

If you do not fall into the category being addressed, or want to add anything further, please start another section so as not to complicate responses.

I'm non-Christian, and I do post on the discussion every so often.... in the past week... and I think the whole problem with POV is that Christians and non-Christians alike are in conflict over points that neither documents, so no gain towards the truth happens. The Christians keep out Giovanni33's posts, he reverts them, neither documents and so we have deadlock. So, documentation is the key to any POV.

KV 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that analysis; we all need to be better at documentation. KHM03 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for AnnH

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what this means and what significance it has.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I would appreciate your observations on the fact that almost all of the main contributors to this page are accused of being either sockpuppets or trolls, and that any apparently normal people (Sophia is just the latest of many dating from well before Geovani showed up) soon give up and go away. Why do you think that is ?Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation into whether they are. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Clayworth ? Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

KHMO3 and DJ Clayworth the same!? Nah! Have you never heard of the Documentary hypothesis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollinator (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2006.

That's funny, coming from a user with 14 edits to their name.

Brian:You are all individuals!

Crowd:We are all individuals!

Lone voice:I'm not.

DJ Clayworth 17:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I should answer this, as it seems to be like feeding trolls, but anyway, for the benefit of others who may wonder:

1. In my experience (and I don't claim expertise, but this is accurate enough), a person with a dial-up connection will change IP address every time he connects to the internet, but the addresses will be similar. It may also happen that on Thursday of this week he may have the same IP address that he had on Tuesday two weeks ago. But the addresses will be similar. For example, if you have an address like 84.329.48.42 today, you may have one like 84.329.48.27 tomorrow. But you won't have 36.30.289.11 tomorrow. The starting digits will be the same; the final digits will differ. Someone who does a WHOIS search will find that the two addresses can be traced to the same internet provider. People who have an internet account do use the same internet provider. So it's quite plausible that the same edits, the same reverts, the same votes and arguments on talk pages, when they come from IP addresses that are identical in the first few digits, are actually coming from the same editor. MikaM acknowledged here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is almost certainly the same person, as it's a very similar address and the edit is one which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the Transubstantiation talk page. MikaM reverted twice on 12 February(to Giovanni33's preferred version), and then 69.107.21.3 reverted three more times. I asked MikaM on this talk page to state whether or not he/she was behind the last three reverts, but he/she refused to answer. It can, of course, be checked by someone with checkuser rights, but as Mika was subsequently blocked anyway, and as there is a huge backlog of requests, I decided not to press the matter. This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.
2. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your references to "normal" people. If there's an implication there that SOPHIA is normal and the people who are still on this page are not normal, I don't think you're displaying very good manners. Let's keep our speculation of who is and who isn't "normal" off Wikipedia. (And I'm pleased to see that SOPHIA is back.) It's not at all uncommon for people who spend all their energy on one article when they arrive to get burnt out and leave after a few days or weeks. Such people have a single issue which they want to promote, rather than a wish to contribute to Wikipedia in general, and when it doesn't all go their way, they get fed up and leave. I've seen it happen on other articles. All the people (pro and anti) who left Wikipedia after contributing extensively to a euthanasia-related article had contributed to very little else. In my view, it's healthier to try to edit lots of different articles. But of course if someone is here because s/he so badly wants to publicize either that Christianity is good or that it's bad, that person is not going to want to spend hours doing copyedits of Agatha Christie and Vitamin C. I've been on this page for a while, and have no recollection of people leaving except for single-issue editors. And such editors often leave after a while no matter what their single issue article is.
3. I don't have checkuser rights, so I haven't checked anyone. But one good reason why KHM03 and DJ Clayworth haven't been checked is that there has to be some plausible reason for suspecting sockpuppetry. If you were to submit a request concerning those two editors, I can guarantee that it would be refused. They are both well-respected editors with a completely independent editing history. KHM03 has been here for over a year and has over 7,000 edits; DJ Clayworth has been here for over two years and has over 17,000 edits. Neither of them behaves like a sockpuppet. Some of the new users on this page have behaved like sockpuppets. If one of your very first edits is a revert, you can be sure that people will wonder, as new users don't normally know how to revert. (My first revert was about my seventieth edit, and it was a revert of vandalism. I had been here for over two months and had well over two hundred edits before I actually began to revert edits to articles by other editors, apart from vandalism and edits that violated the Wikipedia Manual of Style. And my proportion of reverts was much lower before Giovanni etc. arrived.) If your contributions indicate that your sole (or main) purpose on Wikipedia is to ensure that a particular user gets his way, then that will raise suspicions as well. While Str1977, KHM03, Tom harisson, and I have all reverted to each other's version, we were in general reverting controversial large changes that had been inserted by one user (and later by his newly-registered supporters). Each of us frequently edits articles that the others never come near. We also each spend a fair amount of wiki-time on things that are not related to our POVs.

AnnH ♫ 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages

Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article.

Not sure what you're getting at here. There has been a couple of weeks of intense accusations about sockpuppets, including a comment that that two IP addresses were similar - clearly designed to suggest something about the contributors in question. I'm wondering why you didn't make this comment during the weeks and pages of witch hunting - but you do now, as soon as someone pitches in in with a genuine question which might be of interest to all non-techies.

Mediation requests are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and you can also contact the the Mediation Cabal for assistance.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanksTrollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollwatcher, please do not interpolate your reply within my original comment. It makes it hard to untangle who said what. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd Goings On

At 11.45 on 18 February Str1977 appears to have deleted an entry on this page (ie the talk page) inviting new arrivals to visit this user page.

I wonder if it is permissable for any individual user to do this. I can't believe it is, otherwise anyone could simply delete anything they didn't happen to like. For example can Giovani delete any comments that he finds offensive or insulting ? Can I ? Shall we all start doing it ? Is there a formal Wikipedia policy on this ?

Also, if it is permited to delete material, can there ever be a justification for not leaving a note on the page mentioning the deletion, or even a note on the relevant user's talk page explaining it. Or is this just another example of one rule for members of the Federation and another for everyone else ? John1838 23:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove this attack on other editors: [11] Deleting personal attacks or spam is, as far as I know, in line with Wiki policy. BTW, your linked page and your edit summary is a personal attack as well, which goes against Wiki policy to say nothing about decent human behaviour. Apart from that, what purpose did your "link" serve in regard to editing this page? However, I am submitting this to the community - what do others think about this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think John's contributions to this page are inflammatory and have nothing to do with discussing possible improvements to the article. I have often seen such remarks removed from talk pages by users, administrators, bureaucrats, arbitration committee members, and even, on one occasion, a steward. The vast majority of John's contributions are inflammatory attacks on other users, and do a lot to undermine his credibility as a genuine new Wikipedian here to build up the encyclopaedia, and with no axe to grind. AnnH ^(talk) 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann, Good to see you back. I guess you missed the following questions:

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what this means and what significance it has. Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I would appreciate your observations on the fact that almost all of the main contributors to this page are accused of being either sockpuppets or trolls, and that any apparently normal people (Sophia is just the latest of many dating from well before Geovani showed up) soon give up and go away. Why do you think that is ? Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation into whether they are. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Clayworth ? Trollwatcher 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. Especially coming from someone with 14 edits to their name. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Editting the Article

Tom Harrison asked for my input on the article, and so I'll give what little I can. Now I should state that I am not Christian, though I was raised Roman Catholic, I'm Hermetic. These are the views of a non-Christian on the article.

The article is currently at 38.3kb, which allows it another 11.7 kb approximately to be within the realm of suggested Featured Article size. As such, it should be added to where there are multiple views.... to make the article NPOV, it must include several, well-documented POVs. History and Origins seems to be the part of the article under controversy, and so there should be multiple views put into that, perhaps seperated by different subheadings.

1. Specifically, I think that Hypathia might be mentioned, seeing as she was an early opponent of Christianity, specifically a pagan martyr on the subject, being killed in 1415 CE for preaching against the church.
2. Gnosticism is misrepresented in my opinion, as it wasn't so much a belief that secret knowledge would lead to salvation, but rather that raising one's knowledge of God (much surely coming from secret mystery schools) and through gnosis of God, and reality, came ascension. Also, calling it a heresy is rather POV, rather it should be said that it had been deemed a heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which is what I believe happened, but also why we look for documentation.
3. The roots of Christianity beyond Judaism may want to be explored, or at least pointed to another article right away for Judaism's roots and so on. Much of that can be traced to Ancient Egypt and the Hermetic Mysteries actually, as explained in Hermetism#History.
4. The geography and split of the Roman Empire which was behind the schism in the church should also be explained.
5. There's no mention of Peter and Simon Magus, and their battle (which it is interesting to note that the text of the battle is pretty much the same in the mainstream Christian and Gnostic texts, only the names are flipped, including who won.)
6. The challenge of converting the northern tribes should be mentioned, and it's impact on the Church using a lot of idolatry it hadn't prior to that. The Catholic Church has statues of Jesus's crucifixion and the Orthodox their pictures, as I remember finding from a History professor, as a way of signifying to the new converts, who were seen as too stupid to understand, when to sit, stand, and kneel by way of "Christ on a stick", as the professor put it.
7. There were many cases of politics playing the reason for conversion to Christianity..... such as Poland converting for the sake of preventing invasion by Germany, and subsequently, the high importance of Mary in Poland who was seen as similar to the fertility goddess of high popularity prior. Such political moves changed how Christians saw Christianity.
8. There is also no mention of the Crusades and Inquisition, which is POV by way of whitewashing history. A primary facet of Medieval Christian was blind faith and fanaticism (coupled with the whole blind, not understanding what you say you believe, faith part which was prominent then) which led to horrible events. To keep it from seeming as POV against Christianity, mention the apologies put out.
9. The early Christian Church, according to the book of Acts, was a strict and authoritarian, communal society. This should be mentioned, at least simply in passing. The early ideals of the Church and the Christian societal values are important in understanding the rest.
10. The decline of a central Christian organization through Protestantism should be mentioned, noting primarily that many of the Christian religions of today would be considered heresies back then, and would have been wiped out.... without putting a spin on whether or not this is good or bad.

Look over Giovanni's changes, and try to find what might be valuable and could be implemented in...... I suggest you all go on a citation hunt to cite everything you possibly can in this controversial section. Myself, I'm working too hard on Hermetic stuff to bother with doing that for you, or to implement any of these changes should this become unprotected. Wherever there are multiple views, one Christian, one non-Christian....... try to show BOTH, noting the difference.

This should be a guideline to begin with, until you see too much information being a problem with size, then it's time to look at how to condense. A larger article called History of Christianity may also allow for less detail in that section if it is immediately linked as Main Article: etc.

Think over my reccomendations and I'll see what you discuss about them.

KV 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vegita, let's see:

ad 1. Hypathia is mentioned (though quite frankly I believe she is given too much prominence) as an example for persecution, in the section on persecution (which I guess you haven't read).

ad 2. If Gnostic doctrine is misrepresented it should be rectified. However, calling Gnostics within Christianity a heresy is not POV - I have already argued this over at Talk:Early Christianity.

ad 3. We have already covered theories about non-Jewish roots and influences - any further bloating would be wrong, apart from the dubious nature of anything associated with Hermetism (with all due respect).

ad 4. Further explanations of the split should be very brief and concise.

ad 5. Well, some might call this battle a legend and I would call it a detail (and possibly a legend).

ad 6. KV, please be careful what you are saying. "Idolatry" is something else, even if what you wrote were accurate. And again to much detail.

ad 7. Again too detailed and partly POV and peculative (fertility goddess).

ad 8. The Inquisisition is covered, though not mentioned, in the persecution section. The crusades, which are no subject for whitewashing anyway, are mentioned in the history section in the context of the conflict with Islam. Your classification of Medieval Christians itself is POV and worse and complete inaccurate.

ad 9. Too detailed.

ad 10. We can mention that Christianity was broken asunder by the Protestant Reformation (but I don't know what others think), but the rest is pure speculation.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to trim the history section, not enlarge it. A lot of that could probably be effectively included at History of Christianity. In a brief overview, I can't see mentioning Hypathia, for instance; hardly more important than the Great Schism or the Reformation. Ditto Simon Magus, Poland/Mary. Also, if Hermetism influenced Judaism, it needs to be discussed at Judaism, not here or Islam or any other religion which had been influenced by Judaism (maybe it is already mentioned there). We should mention the Crusades, though, and perhaps the Inquisition. KHM03 11:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But we first have a look into the actual text to see what's already in there: Hypathia, crusades, persecution of heretics (though the word Inquisition is not mentioned). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't look over too much, I was asked for input and so I gave the best that I could, when I was partially tired. so

1) No I hadn't read the persecution, I've only busied myself looking at the history section which seemed to be the part in controversy. If Hypathia is mentioned, I think that that's a good allusion to similar events as well, so that part is already covered then.

2) Calling Gnosticism a heresy is POV for saying that it is specifically wrong. Saying that it was seen as a heresy would be NPOV, because it states what the Church decided without taking a position confirming or conflicting that decision. It's all in the language.

3) I feel a separate article on non-Jewish roots, the roots of Judaism, seeing as the roots of Judaism are also the roots of Christianity and Islam, would be a good addition. But it by no means is necessary, it was merely among the suggestions I had, when prompted.

4) Brief and concise, yes. But a single sentence can put a lot more comprehension into why it happened.

5) A minor point, but the legend view I would imagine is more of a modern view while it would have been accepted in days past, seeing as people were much more believing in such things back then. However, I don't see this as very important, just would be a nice touchup.

6) I may have the wrong term, but I do know that it was seen as sinful prior to those actions, by Christians, and it began as a means of convenience.

7) Well, I got this from a Polish, Christian professor teaching the culture of Poland.... it's very accurate and is the reason for much of the expansion of Christianity. I know that you may feel that it is POV because it suggests that Christianity couldn't spread on it's own merits, but that can be balanced out by showing other examples in which it did expand on it's own merits. However, in such a case, Christianity didn't, and it does explain a part of history. However, it might not be proper for the Christianity article proper and may go into the History of Christianity one.

8) Well, I do believe my "POV" veiw of Medieval Christians to be accurate, I could cite sources which suggest the very same. Blind faith was an important part of getting uneducated and ignorant people, which made up the masses of Medieval European society, to accept something. And the persecution is very much evidence of fanaticism. Truely, there should be a sentence at least about persecution in the history section linking to the persecution section....... or make the persecution section a subheading of the history section.

9) That's not too detailed at all, and it is vital in explaining the roots of Christianity and Christian belief. The very level to which the beliefs were carried out. My impression, right or wrong, is that this is left out because too many Christians stray from these beliefs these days, thinking about improving themselves without regard to others, which is the result of modern politics. Unable to reconcile both, this is often ignored by Christians.

10) I think it would be a nice touch, but not a major issue. I think it does add insight though, perhaps seeming less harsh on so-called heresies.

But, anyways, if you want to trim the section, be sure to be very, very stringent in giving a neutral view that covers all events. Eventually, I'll look at what may be overemphasized.

KV 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vegita, I only want to address some of the points:

1) That's allright. That's one of the reasons I wanted to move the history down, to set it alongside of the persecution. But someone reverted it and I didn't persist. Setting them side by side might also solve some of point 8.

2) I don't think calling it a heresy declares it be wrong per se, only wrong on the basis of Christianity. But my main concern is to avoid a "relativist" POV which declares all things to be equal (as Giovanni proposes)

6) Idolatry is a grave sin (then and today), but the mere setting up of statues or images (icons) is not idolatry per se. BTW, the Frankish Church was much more anti-icon than the Greeks, so I dare to doubt what you wrote.

7) There were always political motives involved when a ruler adopted Christianity (or when he had to decide which denomination he should chose), but we shouldn't convey the (false) idea that it was only about politics. Not even in Poland.

8) Sorry, we differ about the Middle Ages. Maybe you equate faith with "blind faith". Also, what kind of fanaticism are you talking about - was it based on Christian ideas or was it pagan remnants (as the witchhunts that anyway took place in the early modern period). But we may disagree here.

9) I was concerned as what you wrote above was not quite intelligible to me. If we make it understandable it may become bloated or it may be a bit POV. But try your worst.

10) I stand by my rejection of contrafactual historiography.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2) heresy has a very negative connotation, and is defined in the common vernacular as being "wrong".. however, a much bigger point of contention is your claim that you want to avoid a relativist POV.... without realizing that a relativist POV would be NPOV. In your own roundabout way, you just said that you wish to avoid NPOV. From a relativist POV, or NPOV, you look at Gnosticism, and you do not say whether it is right or wrong, you merely state what it is and hold no absolute truth about whether it is a good or a bad set of ideas. Departure from this tells people whether it was right or wrong, not simply that it is or was. For example, and I think this may be an official example, you don't say Hitler was evil or did horrible things in his article, you merely state what he does and let the reader decide if it was evil and horrible. "As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

Hence, you would want this "relativist" POV to be NPOV.

6) In reference to this, the Ten commandments article gives a clue to what I'm talking about: "while Protestants (except Lutherans) separate all six verses into two different commands (one being 'no other gods' and the other being 'no graven images')." Now, the whole no graven images is what I am saying that both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church broke in order to create these depictions of Christ, and from my understanding, understood that they were doing it, but for the greater good.

7) In Poland, it was completely political.... the conversion happened all at once at the behest of the Prince who ordained that they were all Christian...... Just in wikipedia I point out Baptism of Poland and we have the opening line of "In the first centuries of its emergence in the 10th century, the Polish nation was led by a series of strong rulers who converted the Poles to Christendom," in History of Poland. The average person had absolutely no choice, it was directed from above, who had political motives. Now, there's no need to focus only on this, as I said, but something to the effect should be mentioned, even in a simple sentence such as "Christianity spread throughout Europe through both reason and force, sometimes coexisting, sometimes not."

8) I equate faith that isn't based on probability (such as the faith one has that gravity will not reverse, destroying everyone in the process..... or faith that the police will come when you call 911) as blind faith. When people believe without thinking about it, just simply believe because they are told, that is blind faith, and it was prevalent in the Middle Ages. Prior to that, religion had been based upon reason and philosophy, and it is returning to that somewhat today, imo. I have met Christians with both blind faith and reasoned faith..... but I find it highly unlikely one would find a Christian with reasoned faith in Medieval Europe.

By fanaticism, I mean the the witch burnings (which were 2 parts paranoia and 1 part a reaction to pagans in the area who used magic, though much of that is misunderstood, for most of that magic was equivalent to prayer) and the massacre of people of other CHRISTIAN beliefs, and then we have other Inquisition practices. Now, mind you the words I use are not going into the article, nor did I intend for them to be, I am simply trying to convey the idea.

9) To make this intelligible... the early Christians had a strict sense of iminent duty to share all in common, everyone living up to the ideal that somehow got confused with communism, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability", and helping each other out WHENEVER possible. There is a part in that book that relates a couple that didn't sell all of their land and thus were put to death (though perhaps not a literal death, and certainly if so it was done by supernatural powers) for not giving themselves fully. This is right out of the book of Acts, and if it is POV, it is not my POV, as it would be a Christian POV coming from a Christian text, a Christian account. This should be clashed with the Medieval and Modern Churches.

10) There was a sect of Christians killed for nothing more than a belief that they should never give into violence, even to save their own lives...... obviously they didnt' resist... there is no need to speculate that many protestant movements... rejecting the authority of the Pope, Mormons adding in polygamy and the like, the wide diversity of beliefs....... they vary from official Church doctrine more than that non-violent sect..... and it is obvious that they would be called a heresy, like the Gnostics, whether or not they actually are.

KV 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2) I'm ok with saying the church identified/described/defined various variations/deviations as heretical. That the early church (according to Acts) was authoritarian and communal, also seems reasonable. Suggesting that there were many competing 'kinds' of Christianity seems at odds with these observations though. My impression is that Gnosticism for instance slightly predated Christianity, and as it rubbed shoulders with Christians, incorporated some of its names and language into their existing belief structure. In other words, they borrowed some names and terms, but didn't initially 'split off' from Jesus' followers, though they may have converted some as they went along. Wesley \

6) At first Christians did depict Christ just as Jews were in the habit of sometimes painting certain famous scenes from the Old Testament. The use of some form of icons and relics began quite early, as evidenced by the house church in Dura Europa (sp?). Centuries later when use of icons was seriously questioned (8th century), defenders said the commandment against worshipping images didn't apply to Jesus because Jesus was God incarnate, and didn't apply to the saints because they were being conformed to the image of Christ etc. See Icon and Iconoclasm. Wesley \

7) Even in instances like Poland where the conversion was initially led by the rulers, who may well have had political motivation, this does not rule out the possibility of religious conviction as well. There should be a simple way to describe all the known and probable or alleged motivating factors in such a case; I would agree it would be a mistake for the article to try to ignore probably political motivations. Wesley \

8) In medieval europe we see the rise of scholasticism, especially in the West, and a rediscovery of Aristotle and renewed attempts to explain theology in rational, well understood terms. See Thomas Aquinas and his systematic theology, for instance. Similar scholarly efforts occurred in Judaism. In the East, Gregory Palamas argued that direct divine revelation was superior to such reasoned out understanding, which I suppose you might equate with "blind faith." But his views did not generally prevail in the West, I would hold that Palamas' ideas were also grounded in philosophy as well as patristic theology. Wesley \

10) As an Orthodox believer, I think the roots of the Protestant Reformation begin with the Great Schism and the West's insistence on papal infallibility. First the Romans said that the Pope could decide himself what was right, without having to defer to a council. The Protestants extended this principle by making each person their own pope, each individually capable and responsible for deciding what was right (sola scriptura), leading to tremendous fragmentation. But this POV is quite subjective and certainly not the only way of viewing history. Wesley 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

List of suggestions

This is just a summary of where I think we are now; it is not an invitation to vote. If I have misunderstood anyone's suggestions, please correct me. This is meant to be a succinct list for reference, not a general statement of each editor's philisophy. I would appreciate it if additions could be kept to one or two lines. It might be easier to read if discussion took place in another section.

These are what people have suggested:

• Change "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." to "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies."

• Shorten the History section.
• Move the history section down the page.
• Add more on Christian teachings and beliefs.
• Add material on the secular interpretation of Christian beliefs.
• Shorten the list of resources.
• Include more in-text citations.
• Discuss creeds other than the Nicene.
• Provide more detail on filioque and the Orthodox position on it.
• Add two references, "The Making of The Creeds" and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."

In addition to these, King Vegita has provided a list of suggested changes that we can refer to without my summarizing them here, but if someone wants to include them here for completeness, that's fine too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Describe political nature of the new Orthodox Church that arose out of its marriage to state power, specifically that it was particularly intolerant. Giovanni33 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Same church before and after, same empire intolerant of some religions before and after. The empire's list of approved and unapproved religions changed, that's all. It changed back with Emperor Julian the Apostate, and after him returned to favoring Christianity. Even when Christianity was supposed to be legalized and enforced, the Patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom died on his way to exile for criticizing the imperial court. So even while the empire was 'persecuting' pagans, it also punished Christians who preached sermons critical of the empire or the emperor. Wesley 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. While the specifics you mention are true, and certainly anyone who was critical of the imperial court, or seen as a threat the the harmony of the empire, were punished in various ways, there is a fundamental difference between a basic toleration of different public religious beliefs (unless you refused to show respect to the empire), and the complete intolerance of any other religious beliefs by the Christians once they assumed state power, on purely religious grounds, instead of just polical concerns. For these Christians there could be only one religion available to the public. The others had to be stamped out by whatever means necessary. This is what was different and notable. This account here basically accurate that illustrates this point: [12]If this source is disputed I can provide other sources to support these points. They are farily well known and accepted.Giovanni33 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an informative link. I think it's important to distinguish between religious and political intolerance. Christians were always intolerant of other religions, at a religious/philosophical level. As that article says, Christians simply were not pluralistic; Christianity did change from being pluralistic to not being so in the fourth century. Now regarding political toleration, I still maintain that it was the empire establishing and enforcing decrees, not the Church. Constantine wasn't even baptized until the end of his life, and some historians say that he asked to be baptized by an Arian bishop. The link you gave makes no distinction between the actions of the church and the state; granted, the line was more blurred at some times than others, but there was still a line, especially in the Byzantine Empire. Also, the empire did not try to stamp out the Judaism the way it tried to stamp out paganism, so it's plain false to say that no other religions were tolerated. The worst your own article can say in this regard is that some laws "laid a foundation" for later anti-semitism in Europe, but this is hardly the same thing. Wesley 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your' welcome. I don't agree that Christianity was always intolerant (at least not all versions equally); we do see different behavior relevant to this question reflecting the different Christian strains (literalist interpretations and belief that authority can not be questioneD), and relfecting it's political possition within the empire. For example when Christianity was itself being persecuted there greater freedom of thought was tolerated. However, once Chrisitanity became the state religion, disagreements over doctrine were much less tolerated. This marked difference between the intoration of other beliefs and the persecution of the Empire in previous times do not compare equally. For example conflict between the some groups and the more "orthodox" Christians who were very intolerant got so bad that the resulting violence was so extensive that historian Will Durant argued that more Christians died at the hands of other Christians in just one year, 343, than during all of the persecutions suffered by Christians at the hands of pagan Roman authorities. While what you say about Christianity not being pluralistic, there is a difference between what one believes is true and tolerating that others can hold to different beliefs without needing to kill them. Today most Christians are largly tolerant of other religions, no?

I understand your argument that despite the clear marriage of the state with the church, it was the state which was acting as it normally acts, etc. Well, I think we established that it didnt act like it normally acts. The intolerance when the Christians had state power was far greater in breath and scope. What accounts for this change? Clearly it's the particuarly intolerant disposition of the motivating ideology concentrated in the outlook of the resulting orthodoxy of the new church which guided and directed the actions of the state, acting on behalf of the Church. Attacks agianst Jewsish synagogues were also carried out but was not stamped out in the manner that rival versions of Christianity, and pagan religions were. A World History of Christianityby Adrian Hastings (Editor) [13] (A through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[14] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."Every mainstream history account of the emerging Christianity of this period makes the same point. That is the point that I argue this article should present. Giovanni33 00:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Just two minor issues: 1) what you describe, Wesley, is not properly termned intolerance. It is one thing to be convicted of one's beliefs, but another to be intolerant towards others - in fact, one can only be tolerant towards those one utterly disagrees with. 2) Constantine was definitely baptized by an Arian, but he didn't ask for an Arian to baptize him - in fact, that Arian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, had been readmitted after signing a somewhat ambiguous profession of faith. Constantine simply was bapized by a bishop present at court (and Eusebius always had close connections to courtly circles and later even relations my marriage - through his sister), but at the same time he remained adamant in regard to the Nicaean creed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the Constantine vs. Religious Liberty article, I think one poster makes a mistake in thinking that Christianity rose mostly by state/imperial power. In almost every decree, there was a clergy push for it. In almost every church council, there were imperial commissioners to help run things. I must clarify how I am doing these articles from Constantine to Justinian. First I did the imperial decrees and now I am clarifying the church councils. Being a spare time project, I have been on this 2 years. A good example of the church state alliance at work in these days was the period that brought about the council of Chalcedon in 451. See http://community-2.webtv,net/tales_of_the_western_world/THEODOSIUS2/ The same church state alliance processes were there at Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, and Ephesus in 431. WesternWorld 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

oops, I posted the link to my Theodosius the Younger article incorrectly. (Just changed it recently) It is http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RLTHEODOSIUS2

I read about half the article at your second link, above. It's clear what you're trying to show, but you give not one quotation from Augustine or anyone else showing that they asked the empire to take the action it did. When the empire treated pagans or heretics as traitors to the empire, it was only continuing the same policy of Diocletian and other pagan emperors, who had treated Christians as traitors for not burning incense to the emperor. Once I read your account of the murder of Hypatia and the expulsion of the Jews from Alexandria, without any mention of the Jews' massacre of Christians which was the immediate cause of their expulsion, it made the rest of the article extremely suspect. (Alexandrians in that century seem to be very prone to riots and mobs, no matter what their religion.) I believe you've likely done more background reading on this period than I, but your telling of it appears to be designed to support your own opinions. I certainly have my own set of opinions; for purposes of this article, I only wish to point out that there's more than one way to interpret the history of this time. And Str1977, perhaps what I described isn't "intolerance" and we're working with different definitions of that word; I admit this is a very distinct possibility. Wesley 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes supported by concensus

These appear to be accepted; I (or whoever wants to) will apply them unless anyone objects.

• Remove the quotes from the "sin and death" and "General Resurrection" and replace "General Resurrection" by "resurrection of the dead."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

More Odd Goings On

So,Str1977 thinks it's OK to remove references to anything he does not like, and try to keep it secret - stating falsely that he is just doing a bit of archiving. Interesting approach. Jesus will be very proud of you.

Since then KHM03 pops up at John Talk and soon afterwards Sasquatch pops up in the same place and deletes my (John1838) user page claiming that it is abusive to KHM03 and to SOPHIA. Three points are of interest here.

• Sasquatch claims on his home page to be the Devil - I'm not making this up. Take a look.

• KHM03 was mentioned only in passing on my user page.

• SOPHIA was not criticised in any way on my user page.

As I can find no clear guidance on how to get my user page back, I have created a new id (J1838). My new user page does not mention KHM03 and has identical text concerning SOPHIA so anyone can judge for themselves if it's remotely possible to interpret it as critical of SOPHIA.

I assume that the cabal will now start accusing me of sockpuppetry, but there you are. It's a funny old world.

KV, take a look at my new user page if you want to know what you're letting yourself in for with the happy Christian "community" on this page J1838 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

John, on the contrary: not "anything I don't like" but "anything that is an attack" on not specifically me but on other editors in general. As long as you no longer use John1838 there is no basis for such an accusation. I see you are still contributing nothing but personal attacks. BTW, KHM was mentioned on your page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. I've never attacked anyone, let alone "other editors in general". One of the points I made that got mysteriously deleted was something along the lines of what a contrast there was between editors on this page and those on other pages - even the Islam page isn't plastered with "disputed" banners. The only editors I've ever mentioned in a less than laudatary way are you, KHM, Storm Rider and a couple of other minor DWEECs - I'm using the term DWEEC specifically in order not to be offensive but precisely to avoid using words like cabal, clique, band, or troup. Also to help new NPOV editors to prepare for what they are embarking on here in an objective way as I can. If you or anyone else can point to an unsustanable assertion or a factually incorrect statement on my user page I'll happily amend it.

My POV: StormRider has always been pretty reasonable, and a voice of moderation.Giovanni33 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I seem to recall the editors on this page who had not already explicitly identified themselves as Christian believers all being accused just a week or two ago of being Giovani's sock puppets. I Don't recall you deleteing those unsubstantiated accusations. This could't be yet another case of double standards could it ? J1838 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

According to User:Sasquatch that I just checked..... no he doesnt' claim to be the devil.

KV 23:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

KV - You're right. This isn't remotely like the page I saw earlier (which was much more interesting). I notice there's now a notice on the page to the effect that it has recently been vandalised so I can't now accuse of KHM of consorting with the Devil - which I have to admit did seem more than a little unlikely. Also apologies if I seem to have interpolated a response above - we were both editing at the same time J1838 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has little to do with improving the Christianity article. J1838, have you considered using any of wikipedia's formal channels for dispute resolution? You also might consider including some mention on User:J1838 of its connection to User:John1838, if only for the sake of transparency. Wesley 03:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglican is not Protestant

Sorry guys, please see the discussion on this elsewhere. The Church of England has undoubtedly protestant elements but formally it declares itself to be a Catholic, not a Protestant church and you should not include it in lists of Protestant churchs. The figure is wrong in this regard too --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 11:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The position of the Anglican Communion is not easily defined in terms which would be accepted by both 'Reformed' and 'Catholic' wings of the Anglican churches. Formally speaking, yes, the Anglican Church defines itself as Catholic, but it also defines the Eastern Orthodox churches as Catholic. To adopt this Anglican definition of Catholic would therefore make a nonsense of any attempt at a broad classification of Christian denominations, since it would apply the label Catholic to all churches claiming episcopal continuity with the apostolic church. (So would calling any church Catholic which professed belief in the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church".) The Anglican church has existed as an ecclesially distinct body only since the reign of Elizabeth I: before then, it was a national division of the Western (Roman) Catholic Church, which became effectively schismatic under Henry VIII, effectively Protestant under Edward VI, and effectively Roman Catholic again under Mary I, before settling down to a unique 'Reformed and Catholic' compromise under Elizabeth. It is therefore acceptable (at least to all but the more extreme Anglo-Catholics), for pragmatic purposes, to group Anglican churches in the 'Protestant' strand, together with other churches that have formally repudiated the supremacy that the Roman Catholic Church accords to the Pope of Rome. (Some churches that call themselves 'Anglican' are not in communion with the See of Canterbury either, and to classify them as 'Catholic' would not be NPOV as they are only self-defined as such, without general acceptance. On the other hand, the See of Canterbury is now in communion with a number of European churches which are clearly Protestant.)Myopic Bookworm 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the Restoration movement doesn't view itself as Protestant, but they are best grouped there. Same with the Anabaptists and other groups. KHM03 14:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican church is indeed a bit of an anomaly, but it is usually grouped with the Protestant churches and sits best there. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some denominations that have sprung up in just the last one or two hundred years also shy away from being called Protestant because they weren't around during the Reformation and emphasize distinctions that weren't at issue then. All the same, based on common usage today these groups are also best grouped under Protestants, much like the Anglicans. Wesley 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, there is room on the figure for a distinct branch, forking (perhaps more than once) from the Catholic branch, which would encompass churches of a broadly 'catholic' tradition which are not in communion with Rome. This might include not only the Anglican Communion, but also the Anglican Continuing Churches, the Old Catholic Churches, and the Hussite Church of the Czech republic. It could perhaps be labelled as 'Episcopalian'. Myopic Bookworm 11:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Your suggestion about the label Catholic applying to all churches claiming episcopal continuity with the apostolic church sounds about right to me, at least that is what I have always been told the word means. In the end as with many church names there is a conflict between a brand name and what the brand name actually means. Conceding the brand name "Catholic" to the extended Church of Rome is too close to conceding the validity of the claim for my taste; others including the old Catholic church (which is in communion with Canterbury not Rome) have an equal claim. I am also not aware of any official statement by the C of E to the effect that it IS protestant as a church even though many of its members are: can anyone provide one? As for the suggestion on the diagram I think it probably would be an improvement if it doesn't overcomplicate them --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions for Discussion

• The three strands of early Christianity - Jewish, Gnostic & Pauline
• A proposal that the term "heresy" should never be used except when refering explicitly to a POV (because, by definition, the identification of heresy is a POV (This is not quite the same as the suggestion made above))
• How about mention of some theories and explanations for the existence and historical success of mainstream Christianity as a belief system (eg sociologigal, scientific, Bogomil, - probably several more if we put our minds to it)

Hope these sound reasonable Trollwatcher 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• There were definitely at least three strands of Christianity. In my version we state this: "...emerged as a Jewish sect around the followers of Jesus Christ, but is followed by the development of three distinct divisions within the Christian movement of the 1st century AD: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who generally believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). I also want it known that each version of Christianity believed themselves to be the one true church, and were highly critical each other. Some were more tolerant, too.
• (middle comment moved to new heading)
• I'm all for explanations to describe the success of Christianity. It's not a pretty picture as it spread through a lot of violence. I also think we should note that since the Enlightenment and with the advance of scientific understanding, the grip of Christianity has been steadily declinging while the ranks and influence of Atheists has been increaseing. :) Giovanni33 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The three divisions proposed are one way to look at things, but not the only way. I think it's established that Gnosticism predates Christianity, so when we find Gnostic Christians, one has to ask whether they're a division of Christianity or a division of Gnosticism? Also, the extent of any division between "Pauline" Christians and "Jewish" Christians is debatable, and not nearly as clear-cut as you suggest. Paul was a Jew, and even 'Pauline' Christians kept many Jewish practices, while Peter himself, also a Jew and supposedly a 'Jewish' Christian, was also bishop in Antioch and later Rome. More than one group claimed to be followers of James. On the other hand, I think I at least partly agree with your proposals regarding how we approach "heresy." Wesley 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Giovanni suggests they were not similar. The similarities you point out as a way to show they are not as clear cut in being different as you think Giovanni suggests refinforces the fact that they were all Christian movements but with enough differences to identify them as distinct versions. Naturally they must have influenced one another as they all were influenced by the same core ideas, hence all being Christians. A good analogy between the differences, as Giovanni has alluded, to the various branches within Christianity today is helpful. Today some claim to have more acient roots, while others are offshoots. Yet, despite their great similiarities and mutual influences, we are able to identify them as distinct and we do not discounted as all being under the same umbrella; We can not do this with early Christianity anymore than we should do so today in our modern era of thousands of varients. I think we have a consensus with regard to how to employ NPOV language for "heresies."

Btw, I work full time so while I find the time to catch up in my readings here to follow the discussions, I don't always have time to contribute a great deal. Still, I find most resonence for my pov with the arguments Giovani has made. I am in basic agreement with his perspective. And, no, I am not his socketpuppet, so lets not start down that path again please. I think we should let cited sources of persons of authority settle disputes of questions of fact, instead of we happen to think. If what we think is right it should be easy to supply a citation of said fact. None of us is always right. Issues of NPOV language, we are better able to settle with arguments. MikaM 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, that same logic could be applied to Jewish Christianity. e.g. "I think it's established that Judaism predates Christianity, so when we find Jewish Christians, one has to ask whether they're a division of Christianity or a division of Judaism?" joshbuddy^talk 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy, I would agree that in many respects the Christianity of the first several centuries did look and act like a division or sect of Judaism. Wesley 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I must not have made myself clear, so I'll try again. I don't believe it's at all clear that Gnostic Christians and Pauline Christians had the "same core ideas" or even the same main influences. Adopting Gio's nomenclature for the moment, Pauline and Jewish Christians both clearly derived mainly from Judaism, keeping the Old Testament as scripture, and adding to that the life and teachings of Jesus, etc. The Gnostic Christians did not derive from Judaism at all, did not accept the Old Testament except as perhaps an account of an evil demiurge's actions rather than of a good god. They began with gnostic ideas and then incorporated some names and ideas from Christianity. Regarding "Jewish Christians", if he means the group in Jerusalem led by James, who initially wanted to keep circumcision etc. as described in Acts, that's one thing. If he means certain Jewish sects that acknowledged Jesus as a human teacher but not as God, such as some "Essenes", I would think it doubtful that they were truly associated with either James or John the Baptist, though they may have claimed such association. If their own claims are to be taken at face value, then we must at least also take conflicting claims at face value, that "Pauline" Christians were also associated with the Jerusalem Jewish Christians. If we truly want to treat all as equal, then I suppose we would have to present different ways of categorizing the early groups, because any given way of categorizing them is itself a POV. Wesley 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, that's an excellent point: "If we truly want to treat all as equal, then I suppose we would have to present different ways of categorizing the early groups, because any given way of categorizing them is itself a POV." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is we lack knowelege (thanks to the Christians who burned the books, and tried to wipe them out), in order to be certain about the nature of their beliefs. Contemporary research does indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy and thus no heresy either. Instead, many opinions on religious matters, including gnosis, flourished side by side. Certainly there were disagreements, but to arbitrarily extrapolate standards of falsity and authenticity from these polemics against "heresies," is not justified, which is my main point.

As far as its origins, there is controversy. Was it indeed no more than a heretical offshoot, an eccentric and aberrant branch of Christianity as the mainline Christians had argued to paint it a heresy, or was it the latest expression of a long, mostly hidden tradition that had existed for centuries before the Christian era? No one has answered these questions with final authority. What is clear is that there were several schools of Gnostisicm, itself, and its probably that some of these had more acient lines while others were offshoots from a developing Christian school who were just stronlgy influenced, hence a Chsitian Gnostistism.

The heresiologists paint a picture of that gnosticism marked a heretical deviation from a fully-formed orthodox Christianity in the three centuries immediately following Christ's death, but the propagandist nature of these polemics can't be trusted. The availability of original texts not only allowed an unsullied transmission of gnostic ideas, but also demonstrated the fluidity of early Christian scripture and, by extension, Christianity itself. This is a point that the scholar Bentley Layton:'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, xviii).

Thus, although it is still correct (from the mainstream consensus) to speak of early Christianity as a single tradition, it is also a complex network of competing sects and individual parties, which express their contrasting natures through differences in their scriptural interests. These differences may have arisen as much from differences in cultural, social milieus, the coexistence of essentially different theological conceptions of Jesus, as well as the differences in the philosophical or symbolic systems in which early Christian writers might have expressed themselves.

The Nag Hammadi library offers an intriguing source of texts. 'Orthodox Christian doctrine of the ancient world - and thus of the modern church - was partly conceived of as being what gnostic scripture was not' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures). Thus a study of Gnostic scripture might also increase our knowledge of nascent orthodoxy, the intentions of the orthodox formulators, the effect of social setting on early Christian expression, and the Judaic foundations it rests upon.

A review of Valentinus (100–175 CE/AD) who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both Alexandria and Rome, whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development would be good. Valentinianism flourished throughout the early centuries. The school is known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 94).

Jumping forward many centuries in the Languedoc, famous at the time for its high culture, tolerance and liberalism, Catharism took root and gained more and more adherents, which is thought to be another Gnostic influenced Christianity. By the early thirteenth century it was probably the majority religion in the area, supported by the nobility as well as the common people. Even in the Roman Church some of their own priests had become Cathars. Ofcourse we know what happned to the--they were wiped out and murdered, when the pope sent the inquisition against them, and the "holy" army wiped out the whole population-- some 500,000 Languedoc men women and children were massacred--leaders were gathered and burned alive, etc. This goes back to my extreme intolerance point,which is one I insist is made, as well. [15]

"During the 2nd Century, several systems of Gnosticism grew in Alexandria and the Mediterranean area, most of which were closely related to Christianity. This was a period in which Gnosticism came to focus on Gnosis itself, as a goal for Gnostics to reach (Edwards). This century was also a period when Pagan, Jewish and Christian forms of Gnosticism had the most influence on the doctrine and structure of the Christian Church, even though critics treated it a Christian heresy (Crim: 277). Valentinus and another strong Gnostic leader, Marcion, were the most feared by the Catholic church (Crim: 278 and Rudolph: 296). They offered an alternate or rival form of Christianity, which caused the church to begin setting up barriers to Gnosticism (McManners: 27)." From this site univerity site that I found scholarly and balnaced: [16]

The site RT, seems to describe the divisions similarly, to how I did.[17]

"Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from different pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. The site They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity: the other two being:

The remnants of the Jewish Christian sect which was founded by Jesus' disciples after his execution and centered in Jerusalem, and The churches started by Paul, that were eventually to grow and develop into "mainline" Christianity by the end of the third century.

By the second century CE, many very different Christian-Gnostic sects had formed within the Roman Empire at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Some Gnostics worked within Jewish Christian and mainline Christian groups, and greatly influenced their beliefs from within. Others formed separate communities. Still others were solitary practitioners." Giovanni33 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you seem to have cut and pasted the above from Gnosticism, What Is a Gnostic?, and a couple of other websites. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that, but I don't quite see the point. It doesn't seem to be relevent to Wesley's or my remarks, but maybe I've misunderstood. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Giovanni has given a good outline of some of the more important points in the outline of Gnosticism and Christiainity, esp. Gnostic Christianity. Wesley says that Gnosticism predates Christianity, but as Giovanni shows that is not definitive as there were different schools of Gnosticism, and ofcourse some of the ideas predates Christianity, just as the ideas within Christianity proper predates itself, too. He also makes clear the difficulty with categorizing in any definitive way, since its really not known. What we do know is that there were those who called thesmselves Christian but were clearly of a Gnostistic variety, or heavy influence, yet we should not say they were not Christians. Infact the nature of early Christianity itself was diverse. To quote Giovanni above, who quotes "Bentley Layton:'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion' (Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, xviii). This supports the view for a need to have a great degree "relativity" when talking about Christianity. I especially liked this site that Giovani provided: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/gnosticism.html MikaM 05:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that has bothered me is that we keep citing scholars (here, at Jesus, Jesus-Myth, and elsewhere) who are virtually unknown or way out there in terms of being fringe and (at times) rejected by academia, or we cite scholars of related fields (Gnosticism, philosophy, whatever) without citing scholars of Christianity or Christian history. Now, yes, there's an overlap at times. But if these views are accepted, if they are more than just "on the fringe", surely we can find some scholars of Christian history who support the ideas.

At any rate, I think much of the discussion is moot. On this article, which has to cover so much of Christianity in a relatively small space, we just don't have the space to go into any kind of detail about the early Church, other than a few sentences. So...was the Gnostic issue a big enough issue in that period to mention? Is there a scholarly consensus on this? I know, for instance, we have to mention Arianism, which was a big deal in the Nicene era. But was Gnosticism really that big? Or should we instead mention it in more detail at History of Christianity, Early Christianity, and (of course) Gnosticism? KHM03 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your right that this level of details does not go into the article. Intead it merits just a sentence or two in the appropriate section/subject dealing with these issues. However, how to represent this depends a lot on understanding the deails, which are given here as part of making arguments for a certain kind of understanding, which could then reflect how its represented in the article. About the use of scholars, I beg to differ. These are valid scholars in their repsective field, who are authorities on these early Christian groups. A scholar in Gnosticism is just as much a scholar in Christitanity. Also, related fields where they really must cross over are equally valid. Their scholarship should be respected. These views are not rejected by the mainstream of academia, either. They are pretty mainstream, infact. Layton, that I used above is a good example of a respected scholar, and so is Elaine Pagels, who I've referenced before and youve already admitted was an acceptable scholar to you. About Layton's academic credencials are here: [18] 1972 Harvard, Ph.D., highest honors. Dissertation: "The Treatise on Resurrection (from the Coptic Gnostic Library): Edition, Translation, and Commentary." Director: Helmut Koester.

1970, 1972—1975, private study of Coptic and linguistics with H. J. Polotsky, Jerusalem. 1963, Harvard, A.B. summa cum laude. 1983— : Professor of Religious Studies (Ancient Christianity) and Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (Coptic), Yale University. Affiliated faculty in departments of Classics and History. 1978—83: Associate Professor, Yale. 1976—78: Assistant Professor, Yale. 1971—76: Visiting Professor (Early Christian Literature), École biblique et archéologique française, Jerusalem. Subjects taught History of Christianity from the origins to Islam especially ecclesiastical history and literature related graduate seminars tutorials. Gnostic religion and literature. Techniques of Greek epigraphy (inscriptions on stone). Coptic language and theory of syntax. Critical edition of texts. Ancient manuscript studies. Ancient Monasticism. Historiography. Giovanni33 17:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But if these views are mainstream and widely accepted, it couldn't be too difficult to name some scholars of Christian history who agree with them. Why must we always use scholars in these related fields (where, granted, there is overlap)? KHM03 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to... If you look quite closely at that (fairly impressive) list of academic credentials above, you'll see that Layton seems to pretty well qualify as a scholar of early Christian history as well as a scholar of Gnosticism. More than that, you might note that topic of this particular part of the conversation is the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity (based on Wesley's comments above). The best people to answer this question are, of course, scholars of early Christian history and of Gnosticism (which, again Layton seems to be).

As for the relevence of Gnosticism, well, arguably, it is much more important than Arianism (since the homoousia doctrine was pretty firmly established after Constantinople I and the Gnostic influence carried on well into the 8th century and perhaps beyond). In any case, all of this is pretty irrelevant to the discussion of how to best apply NPOV... Ig0774 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll disagree there. While Gnosticism was certainly an issue, the Arianism issue may be the most important issue in Church history (post-first century). Also, we're guessing at a lot of what went on as far as Gnosticism is concerned (albeit educated guesses), whereas we have a far greater historical understanding of the Arianism debates (granted, mostly from an orthodox perspective). KHM03 10:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

MikaM and Giovanni33 are emphasizing the great diversity in what they call early Christianity, saying that it calls for a relativistic approach. I won't argue that there were a lot of different ideas and groups calling themselves Christian or using at least some of the names and terms from Christianity, but that should not be taken to mean that there was no established orthodoxy, or that early Christianity was pluralistic. If there were not an established orthodoxy, then apologists from Paul to Irenaeus could not have appealed to their readers to continue in what they had already learned, to continue in the faith of the apostles. (And would Paul have asked his readers to continue in the faith of the apostles if he thought all the Jerusalem Christians still insisted on circumcision and denied Christ's deity?) If there were no such things as heresies, or false teachings, we would not find so many writings saying that there were. Right or wrong, some influential contemporaries certainly thought that heresies existed, beginning with Paul and John in the New Testament and continuing with Ignatius and other early writers. Marcion also thought that false teachers were about, and so he rejected three gospels and edited a fourth, Luke, to remove those corrupt Jewish influences from it. So it wasn't just the "orthodox" Christians that were intolerant of opposing views. Gnosticism was important to Christianity's formation in that it forced them to address the question of which texts were authoritative or even acceptable (especially Marcion of Sinope), and it forced them to spell out their theology in greater detail and answer questions raised by gnostic teachers; questions that had not been answered earlier because there was no need to answer them until the questions were raised. Wesley 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But there was no esablished orthodoxy, although I'd agree Christianity was never pluralistic. The experts I referenced above state that contemporary research indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy. It was with the Council of Nicaea in 325 (convened during the reign of the Emperor Constantine; 272–337) and the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397, which progressively cemented Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire, that a structurally coherent and crystallized form of orthodox Christianity began to emerge. Central to the formation of orthodoxy was the creation of a binding and coherent scriptural 'canon', which was to be strictly observed by the adherents of that church. As I've argued, these creations of an orthodoxy had a lot to do with many factors unrelated to authenticity, or truth, but rather power and politics. Also, the fact is that all the different Christian versions each called all the others teachings false; every version of earlier Christianity believed they were the one true Christianity, calling the others false teachings. So, other than the core beliefs, it varied greatly and there was no unified orthodoxy, yet established. Its only in retrospect knowing very well the resulting orthoxy that did result with all the polemetics against the "heresies," along with the destruction of the other views (burning their books, and wiping them out), that we can look back and think we see an orthodoxy before there was one.

Also, lets dispense with the notion that only the orthodox version was intolerant. It's a strawman, that I keep running into. I thought I made myself very clear on the matter. I've never argued that the non-mainline Christians were not also intolerant. There is no tolerant vs. intolerant dichotomy. What the point has always been that the resulting orthodoxy was particularly intolerant in both its outlook and its acutal practices. I have provided references to support this point. Str1977 has disputed it, but he has yet to provide a single references to support his claim despite my asking for it each time---while I have done so to support my claim.

As this historial fact about the nature of the resulting orthodoxy has had profound ramifications, in ushering in the dark ages, it is vitally important that its included. I still think my origianl pasage about this point puts the matter in strongest terms, and I did so by referecing three respected scholars, and stated it as an attributed statment of fact according to these scholars. If its disputed, then lets see a counter quote: "According to American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler, the resulting orthodoxy "emphasised faith, produced a thinking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"), a reliance on the miraculous and supernatural, under the old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed." Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. To support this source as one that is a reputable one, I offered a further source: "historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14."

Again, if the super intolerant nature of the resulting orthodoxy is thought not to be true, then lets see the some sources aruging the other side. There are a couple of other facts that I think the article might mention which are important historical milestones in this connection: In 0382 Emperor Theodosius the Great passed laws making heresy punishable by death; in 0393 Christian conquerors abolished the Greek Olympics. Pelagius (c. 0354 - 0420), a British monk, was excommunicated. Pelagius denied original sin and the need for baptism, asserting that if God asked men to do good, then they must be capable of doing good on their own. He was condemned by Augustine. March 10, 0418 Jews were officially excluded from holding public offices in the Roman Empire. April 30, 0418 Roman Emperor Honorius issued a decree denouncing Pelagianism, defined as a Christian heresy which taught that humans can do good of their own free will, independent of God's grace. Giovanni33 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree...in the same way that Arianism was important because it forced the development of an authoritative orthodox Christology. Early Christianity was not monolithic, in that there were several groups, but there was one primary, orthodox group (and, I think, Arianism was the only system to really challenge orthodoxy for dominance). We can (and should) certainly mention these other groups, but let's not give them more attention than we ought to. KHM03 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On Heresy

• A proposal that the term "heresy" should never be used except when refering explicitly to a POV (because, by definition, the identification of heresy is a POV (This is not quite the same as the suggestion made above)) Trollwatcher 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your proposal of the term "heresy" is indeed not the same as my suggestion above. While I agree that the label of "heresy" is a POV, I say it should be included as long as we report using NPOV language that such and such labeled such and such a "heresy." Historians use the term and those that have been historically defined as such (rightly or wrongly)has been established. But we should not assume it's true and legitimate, and never take the voice of the winner. That is POV. This means allowing a broad defintion of Christianity that encompasses its different versions. My opponents want to adopt the POV of the winners to say they were the only true Christian group, and then speak from their voice to the exclusion of others. That is what is unacceptable POV, to me. So lets not deny that there were other versions, and that calling them heretical was a matter of being defined as such by a particular version that was particularly intolerant and wanted to wipe them out of existence.

Giovanni33 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I at least partly agree with your proposals regarding how we approach "heresy." Wesley 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus with regard to how to employ NPOV language for "heresies." MikaM 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that I agree with Giovanni's point of POV. You cannot only take the winner's side, but also that of the losers. NPOV is relativism, treat all as equal, do not be biased for or against any of those viewpoints.

KV 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth making the distinction, in using the term 'heresy', between descriptions of purely historical groups (however much one may sympathize with their position) and use of the term with contemporary reference. In the context of history, 'heretic' is not a term of abuse. For example, to call marginalized medieval groups 'heretics' is a historical statement about their position as against the church authorities of the day. They can't be offended by the term: they're all long dead, and to impose 'neutrality' on their behalf seems to me not NPOV but merely PC ('political correctness'). The concept of 'orthodoxy' has always been a powerful one in Christian thought (even if not universal), and the contrasting term 'heretical' is often unavoidable, though in some contexts it may be better to use the term 'heterodox'. Giovanni33 said: My opponents want to adopt the POV of the winners to say they were the only true Christian group, and then speak from their voice to the exclusion of others. That is what is unacceptable POV, to me. But there is not really any POV that can be characterized as 'the winners', since there is scarecely an agreed modern Christian POV. The only distinction that can be made (and even that is a bit shaky) is between communities that survived and those that didn't.

To refer to modern Christians as 'heretics' because they happen to hold differing theological views is clearly not neutral. The term 'heretic' may be justly applied (let us say, for the purpose of argument) to present-day Methodists by the Armenian Orthodox Church, from their POV: but this would be too POV a term to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. In the terms of the mainstream Christian Church of the 6th century, my own beliefs are undoubtedly heretical: that's just how it is, I'm happy to admit it, and I'm not offended if anyone points it out. But I am a little put out to be called 'heretic' to my face by modern Christians of other traditions (or even my own). Myopic Bookworm 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the term should not be applied, or used. But, it should be done in the manner of reporting it, not asserting it correctness. That is why a simple adjustment reporting who defined who as a heresy, is fine with me. This is NPOV, consistent with the notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

So as you can see, if one is endorsing a view as correct, its a violation of NPOV. If one is stating, implying, insinuating, or subtly massaging the reader into believing that a particular view is correct, its violating NPOV. It doesn't matter how strongly one believes a view is correct, or how much one thinks something is true. Giovanni33 13:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing

I wanted to point out something that should probably be included. Christianity had a belief in reincarnation, which was removed as a doctrine at the Council of Constanople in 550 CE. This is referenced in Manly P. Hall's book The Hermetic Marriage on page 234.

KV 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to the council that condemned certain writings of Origen? It's probably more accurate to say that Origen, and later some (all?) Origenists, had a belief in reincarnation, or something like it. I don't believe it was ever a universally held dogma though. Wesley 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I know I'm discounted as a sockpuppet - I'd like to say that I agree with Giovanni and KV on pretty much everything they've said. Also, if we we limit ourselves to universally held dogmas we can probably keep the article down to one line - something along the lines "There have never been any universally held dogmas in Christianity" Trollwatcher 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear. What I meant was that reincarnation was never a dogma adopted and promulgated by the "Catholic / Orthodox" "mainstream" church. Or by any other sect that was distinct from that church, to my knowledge. It was the opinion of Origen, and some later theologians who agreed with it; they just failed to persuade the rest of the church they belonged to to adopt the same opinion. Examples of "universally held dogmas" include the teachings expressed in the Nicene Creed, which was adopted, amended and later affirmed by councils that were at least thought to represent all of Christianity at that time. Some things that were widely believed by that same church were not held as dogmas because they were considered non-essential, such as the idea that Mary committed no sin. It was a majority opinion, but most people even then didn't see a great danger in thinking that Mary did sin. Wesley 16:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm removing the tag from the article -- while people may well always argue over details of Christianity, the lever of disagreements does not call into question the actual neutral point of view of this important article. BCorr|Брайен 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also removing the npov tag from the history section for the same reason. Alienus, please don't revert without discussion again. BCorr|Брайен 11:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, here. This page was just recently locked due to do a bitter dispute about the nuetrality of the content; all sides have been holding discussions, in good faith, without continuing the mostly unproductive edit war that has been going on. Meanwhile the page has been left untouched in a version that I regard is POV. The dispute here is more than just people "always arguing over details," its about what is a balanced and NPOV presentation. If the POV tags are removed, I will start to effect back the changes to make it NPOV. Giovanni33 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this time fellow editors can work with the text, and point out issues, instead of simply blindly reverting in whole to an outdated version. I call on all the editors who may have been scared away by false allusions to being socketpuppets to come back to help ensure that the text is presented according to your best understanding of NPOV and per the consensus we've been reaching here. Giovanni33 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You have yourself reverted the article twice this morning. I don't believe the edits you have applied are supported by any consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is more consensus for it the other version. I don't believe the version you reverted is supported by any consensus.Giovanni33 15:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do know the removal of the NPOV tags was not done by consensus, and I suggest there be a reversion to the last version they were in. KV 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the tags should stay for now, section-by-section. The goal is to get rid of them but not by edit-warring them away but by backing up contentious claims by citations and continuing work until everyone can mostly live with the text. Haukur 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I will add the tags, again, and keep the changes I made, while we still work out the differences. I think we are coming to a consensus, and my changes do reflect substancial agreement here with content and NPOV language. Giovanni33 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-added the POV tag. Now, I'd like to iron out the changes that editors feel nees to be made the the current version as it stands, so it can be removed. That is also my goal. I do think the removal of the POV tag was premature, because although we've been talking a lot here about our disagreements, we have not translated that into actual changes to the article. Seems we should make the changes, based on agreements and consensus first, and then when everyone is happy we can remove the POV tags. Am I right? Giovanni33

It's very obvious that the tags should stay. Might I make a suggestion to help things along. I've noticed a great deal of confusion being caused by mixing up what we want to say with how we want to say it. Why don't we all try to agree on the points that should be made. Then when that's agreed we can work out as a separate exercise how to say it. It might save us going round in circles, whether by accident or design. Trollwatcher 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a second suggestion too. I've noticed the argument being used that a point should be excluded on the grounds that the article is already too long. This argument is invoked only for a certain type of edit and usually at the end of a long wrangle over whether the point is in question is valid. Why don't we agree that all valid points should be included and if that makes the article too long, then we'll just carve off chunks to make new articles and leave summaries in this one. Seems fair to me. Trollwatcher 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions, Trollwather, make sense to me.Giovanni33 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

An administrator removed these tags: they should be kept off. There is a fair and reasonable effort to make this article NPOV, so we should abide by the administrator's action. drboisclair 19:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrators on Wikipedia are nothing.... "Administrators are Wikipedians who have "SysOp rights". Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community."

It isn't hard to become an administrator, and two administrators could vastly disagree on what is NPOV and what is not. If an administrator did remove it, then they were only setting up a huge problem and should be removed as an administrator. This is much too sensative a discussion to simply remove the NPOV tags.

KV 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would challenge those who appear to advocate the permanent placement of the POV tag on this article to try putting it on the articles that define other religions like Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. They would not be permitted to do so. WHY SHOULD CHRITIANITY BE SINGLED OUT FOR STIGMA IN THIS MANNER? As long as there is a reasonable NPOV ethic utilized by the editors this unreasonable tagging should be kept off. The administrator was acting in the best interests of WP. drboisclair 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If there was a need for one there, then it should be added. I haven't editted this, nor have I tried to. I made one comment when I was searching through for examples and found a debate, mentioned something, and was invited back by people whose side I'm not on. But, should I have seen similar things in Judaism, I would insist on a NPOV tag there, and yes I would get away with it. As long as there is an active discussion of things that are POV, the NPOV tag SHOULD REMAIN. Still I have seen neither side cite their information, which to me suggests that any request for NPOV should be kept alone.

KV 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I venture to ask you: would you really put a neutrality flag on Judaism? I believe it is easier to put one on the Christianity article than on the Judaism article. Let's strive for ways to keep it off. The object is to make the article NeutralPointOfView, which means we need to include all points of view. So let's nail down exactly how this article is not NPOV. King Vegita points out that this has not been done. Let's do it. drboisclair 04:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The arguments I've made have been cited. If anyone disputes the citations I've given, or their content, I have more citations readily available to substanciate not only the points but the earlier citations themselves.Giovanni33 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't those ideas and your citations in the article? Please list them briefly. drboisclair 04:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoooaah. There are clearly important matters not settled and several editors have said so. There cannot possibly be any justification for removing any of the tags. Please put them back. Trollwatcher 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency with Filioque clause

I put 447 as the date the clause was added by the Western Church in line with the above linked article. I question this date as well because I was under the impression that it was the Third Synod of Toledo in 589 that added the "filioque." drboisclair 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The date is definitely inaccurate for "the Western Church", as the "Western Church" did not adopt it on a single day but rather gradually. Spain was first, the Frankish Church under Charlemagne, and Rome only after the year 1000, under pressure from Emperor Henry II. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Check. Yes, a complicated history. Perhaps the Filioque clause article should be modified as well. I think that the 447 date is wrong. drboisclair 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The date is of very little interest in comparison to several other points raised earlier - for example, that the Council of Nicea anathematised anyone who tampered with the text - which means that under the cannons of a General Council most western Churches are, as Orthodox authorities often put it, "heretics". Faffing about with dates might be fun but will not resolve the more important issues under discussion Trollwatcher 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and intolerance

I've tried to tidy the main history section, drawing together things which were mentioned in more than one place, and correcting some parts which were too much focused on Western Europe. I've separated out as a paragraph the section in which a number of relatively controversial statements raise the topic of intolerance and violence in the Chrstian Roman Empire. I think this is not really appropriate to a general article on Christianity, and would prefer to move it elsewhere, but I've left it there pending further consideration. It seems to me unreasonable to devote such a large part of the entry on a major contemporary religion to one particular unsavoury part of its long distant past. I think there is a place for a Wikipedia article which discusses the relationship between the post-classical Roman Church, anti-intellectualism, and religious intolerance, but I don't think this is it. Myopic Bookworm 14:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Criticisms of Christianity? KHM03 15:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Bookworm, I commend the strides made to make this article NPOV. I oppose the continued labelling of this article as POV. Let those who want to put the stigma back onto this article specify a list of particulars that should be or should not be in the article. This advice I received from an Administrator, who feels that anyone that puts a POV tag on the article should make a case for it. I ask that the stigma of the POV tag not be placed on this article. drboisclair 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Criticisms of Christianity would be an excellent place for the section I mentioned (some of it is there now, I see). I've rescued some of my changes after the recent reversions by Str1977, aiming to make clear the distinction between internal heresy and external beliefs such as Mithraism, and clarifying the over-simplistic bit about Germanic peoples. Myopic Bookworm 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to look at Christianity and world religions, which mentions Mithraism. KHM03 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to remove (again) this thing about the church defining other beliefs as heresies, because I think it actually reflects a subtle but definite anti-church POV. The so-called 'heretics' themselves defined what we now call 'orthodox' belief as heresy, and sought to eradicate it: Arian councils condemned Trinitarian writers as heretical, and Monophysite councils condemned Diphysite (Orthodox) writers as heretical. I think it's also unnecessary to keep on about Gnostic Christians here: Gnosticism was a syncretistic religious tradition and much of it was quite outside anything that could be usefully called Christian. There's also a logical problem with this idea that Christianity absorbed pagan ideas. Of course it annoys conservative Christians if you make this claim: but if an idea was picked up from pagan religion very early in Christian history, what actually makes it non-Christian? Either the 'pagan' ideas became accepted as Christian, in which case they were no longer pagan, or they were not accepted, in which case they were not absorbed into Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 17:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But (pace Str1977) I do think it's worth retaining a little more of that comment about the great diversity of early forms of Christianity (some of them really quite weird by modern standards). I think it's a historical fact that many modern Christians don't realize (and some of them perhaps try to suppress, by asserting that the early Church had a unified body of agreed doctrine). Myopic Bookworm 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Myopic Bookwork, you're exactly right. In fact, there's an idea among some Christian missionaries that every culture contains at least some Christian or Christian-compatible beliefs, that can potentially help the people of that culture be more receptive to Christianity. This is more or less the theme of the book Eternity in their Hearts by Don Richardson. Also, many of the 'pagan' ideas found in Christianity are also found in Judaism, and most if not all other religions. Just because two different religions have similar moral codes (no stealing or murdering) and affirm the brotherhood of man, doesn't always mean that one borrowed from the other. Regarding early diversity in Christianity, I don't think there's any real disagreement about variations in teaching from the beginning; otherwise we wouldn't have all those reminders in Paul's epistles not to listen to or be deceived by the "other guys." But the fact of diversity doesn't by itself mean that there was no unified body of agreed doctrine. Wesley 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesley beat me to saying, Bookworm, that I agree with all you said.

As for diversity - I am all for stating this, but I oppose the "various forms of Christianity" as if they existed in parallel universa - there still is diversity among Christians in one denomination (at least judging from mine own and from others I have encountered) - does that make them separate Christianities? I don't think so. - The conflicts (heresies etc) must be addressed but in a proper form - not in that childish "They disagreed and each thought to be right and they did nasty things to each other" voice.

As for the "pagan ideas" - I guess this is a remnant of Purtian thinking (with all respect towards the puritans), an obsession with real or perceived similarities with the "outside world" - Paul wrote on this, as did Vaticanum II. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus's proposed additions

Couldn't we include Alienus's inclusions by making them NPOV

1.

For the first three of four centuries there was as yet no orthodoxy established. Instead, there were different versions that flourished side by side, each holding to its own beliefs as the true version. As professor Bentley Layton writes, 'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion'.

Could be:

In the view of some church historians there was as yet no established doctrinal orthodoxy for the first three or four centuries. Church fathers like [Irenaeus]], Tertullian, Cyprian, and Vincent of Lérins argued for apostolicity (coming from the apostles) and catholicity (universality) of Christ's doctrine that was "always and everywhere believed," but up to the fourth century the universal Church had not spoken authoritatively on what was orthodox and what was not. Professor Bentley Layton writes, "The lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within Christian religion." (Then cite the source for this quotation).

2. The other interpolation:

The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies, and then acted to eradicate them. Among these were the Gnostic Christians (who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge).

Could be rephrased:

In councils and synods of the Church other versions of Christianity (like Montanism, Manichaeism, and Gnosticism were compared to the Bible and what was held to be apostolic and catholic teaching and found in their view to contradict such authorities. These alternate views were then defined as heresies, and the church acted to eradicate them.

I think that these interpolations could be included with your kind emendations. These interpolations can be put in with NPOV. drboisclair 18:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first suggestion is inaccurate. It says "the universal Church had not spoken authoritatively on what was orthodox and what was not", which is not true. There had been not ecumenical council yet, but the Church did condemn heresies in the 2nd and the 3rd century

Re the second suggestion, we have to careful to avoid ambiguity (Montanism is a "version" of Christianity, but Manichaeism is not), to refrain from projecting modern views ("compared to the Bible" was not the final arbiter then). Also, the "eradicate" is inflammatory and misleading: Yes, once Christianity was established as state religion heresies were also persecuted but in the 2nd and 3rd century that doesn't apply: heretics were excommunicated and exluded until they repented and returned. Though strictly speaking "eradicating" is not necessarily by force, but it has that conotation nonetheless. The ommission of "eradicate" in this passage, which deals with a long stretch of time, is not POV, as we have the persecution section and also a passage that the Roman Empire persecuted heretics. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This also fails to address my point - that every group defined every other group as heretical, and to portray it simply in terms of 'the Church' seeking to eradicate 'heretics' is both simplistic and POV.

Regarding the first interpolation, here's my emended text-

It is clear from the diversity of ancient Christian texts, some of which refer to disputes about points of church governance and of doctrine, that for the first three or four centuries, Christian beliefs were still in the process of development. Early writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Vincent of Lérins argued in favour of the principles of apostolicity (coming from the apostles) and catholicity (universality, that which is "always and everywhere believed") as criteria for assessing disputed points of doctrine, but as Professor Bentley Layton writes, "The lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within Christian religion." (Then cite the source for this quotation).

Note that Tertullian became a Montanist, and Vincent of Lerins was a Semipelagian, so I've avoided calling them simply 'Church fathers'. Regarding the second, I'd adapt the existing text so:

Christian thinkers sought to distinguish their faith from other religious beliefs of the day, notably Gnosticism (some sects of which were strongly influenced by Christian ideas) and Mithraism. They also engaged in disputes among themselves as to the correct interpretation of Christian teaching, regarding their opponents as heretics, which sometimes led to bitter conflict between supporters of what became the orthodox consensus and dissenting church groups such as the Montanists and the Donatists.

Myopic Bookworm 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, none of these are my proposed additions. Rather, I restored some text that had been inexplicably deleted. My goal is to remove POV, not reinsert it, so I'm not demanding that the restored text be left alone, just that what it discusses is adequately covered. As for these newly suggested variations, the last version by Myopic isn't terrible. Alienus 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one approve Myopic Bookworm's emended paragraphs to go into the appropriate places. I think that this first paragraph gives us the sense that orthodox Christian doctrine was still fluid and in the process of crystalizing. drboisclair 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

At least, it contains no inaccuracy or POV. However, please keep in mind that this is only the overview article and we have to keep it concise. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll happily move my paragraphs to the article on History of Christianity, leaving an outline sentence or so here. Myopic Bookworm 11:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on Forgiveness article

Soliciting input for the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Christianity content under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Christianity's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The History section

I just thought I'd say that I think the History and Origins section is now looking pretty good: thanks to those who have discussed the issues and refined the text. In future, I think contributors should bear in mind the point that this is an overview section, and any serious expansion of any particular topic probably shouldn't be done in this article, but in the History of Christianity article, or in smaller more focused articles (espeically when the topic is likely to be controversial). Myopic Bookworm 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's better in some ways but in others not so good as it was. Its a mixed bag in my view. I was waiting for Giovanni to return balance things in the other direction (I think he bloats it too much--I'm for a middle ground), but as it looks like he is away for a while (Gio are you there?), I took my own modest initiative to give my own two cents with edits. For me its just a matter of including some information that was taken out that I think is very important even in a brief summary of the history. The trimming that was done in my view was too extreme and lost some important information. I looked over the other versions and incoroporated some of the important parts into the new version. I think the synthesis is now is looking pretty good. RTS 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for changes I've made? I make a correction of the inaccuracy that Str1977 and MusicalLinguist objected to. I'd like to get more feedback, in particular from both sides of the fence (those with an orthodox Christian perspective and those of a secular view point such as Giovanni and others). I think my changes reflect a reasonable inclusion of all POV's, and his thus NPOV. If there are other innaccuracies present, lets fix those without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. RTS 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The baby has been there all the time, though it doesn't like to be poured over with used bathwater again and again. There is no such thing as a secular POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a marked difference between Secular vs. Religions based renditions of the treatment of religion. The goal here is not not adopt any one POV, but use neutral language.

You reinserted what Giovanni pushed into the article in his unilateral Shrove Tuesday revert to his version. As for inaccuracy:

Actually, what Giovanni had is quite different than what I included. I see this as a question of emphasis and what is to be mentioned or not mentioned as important in a summary, along with issues of NPOV language. I admit I share Giovanni's secular outlook and therefore I agree with most of his arguments. But, I dont think it should be expanded in the manner that he proposes, nor do I agree with all his changes.

• "It is widely acknowledged that Christianity as a religion grew out of the older religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed" - that's true if you are referring to the Jewish religion (but that's only one). Anything else is not "widely acknowledged".

Agreed. I made this correction already, as I stated in the edit summary, but you still reverted despite this correction. Maybe just fix it instead next time?

You made a minute change (which changed the sentence from a POV sentence into a meaningless sentence) and retained the rest with all its problems. Please don't copy Giovanni's style of editing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the only change that was pointed out as not accurate. As for as Giovanni's sytel of editing, I think you object to the secular POV being included, not Giovanni's style. I think you are trying to paint me as a socketpuppet maybe (as anyone who adopts a non-Christian POV gets called from what I've read here), but anyone compare Giovanni's version to mine, no such claim stands.

• "Christianity shared various elements with the many mystery cults of the time, such as Mithraism, although scholars differ as to the level of influence thus exerted, or the extent to which the developing Christian faith adopted identifiably pagan beliefs." - might be included further down.

Why futher down? It fits well where I put it. Its appropriate in the early part of history that explains the nature and origins of Christian thought.

Because we already have such a passage, which can be expanded if need be.

This is the same passage but it just make the point clear. Expansion for the point is not necessary since this is an overview.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• "The adoption of Christianity was also a very gradual process as pagan cultural ideas continued as evidenced by medieval literary works such as Beowulf (dated around 700-1000 CE) and Nibelungenlied, and by the survival of much folklore of pre-Christian origin." - this I only cut because of our attempt to prevent bloating the section. Of course, CE has no place here, as this article's standard is different (but there we have Gio pushing his POV)

I don't care about CE or AD personally. I think AD is as much pushing a POV as CE, although arguable CE is more nuetral. But, its not a matter of import for me. Your only objection to including this is that you think its bloating. I disagree and the other editors who have argued for it would as well. I note it was included before you made your drastic changes, even in the version you defended. I think its good for this history section because it places it in historical perspective. That is why I introduced the idea.

The problem is you twice reverted including the "CE", which Gio falsely included. Page consensus should be respected even if you'd prefer the other version. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is nitpicking and as much your fault for not using the Talk pages or even stating the problem in the edit summary. Next time just fix it instead of blindly reverting to an older version. I respect consensus, but your changes went against consensus. So, please follow your own advise.

• "Christian thinkers engaged in disputes among themselves as to the correct interpretation of Christian teaching, regarding their opponents as heretics, which often led to bitter conflict between supporters of what became the orthodox consensus and dissenting church groups such as the Montanists and the Donatists." - is unncessary bloating of the article - and the examples are poorly chosen.

Disagre about bloating as per above. Why are the examples poorly chosen? Can you give better examples?

They are poorly chosen, as M. and D. were not about doctrinal but about disciplinary conflicts.

This is intersting. Can you state why the "discplinary conflict" did not entail donctrinal disputes? Again, make the edit change specificaly to fix any problems and discuss them here instead of reverting everything.

• "The institutional Church moved to oppress dissenting ideas such as those of the Manicheans and Arians" - POV wording.

How so? Please explain and suggest correction.

I suggested and implemented the correction - we HAVE a PERSECUTION section.

Again you are ignoring the issue. The persectuion section removes the important HISTORICALLY connected programs in this passage with the discussion of the changes made by the emperor.

• "and even to condone violence against Jewish synagogues." - I never understand the "even".

Because the emphasis was on suppressing pagan religions, not Jewish ones. But, the intolerance in this period was so great that it even extened to violence agaist Jewish synagogues. But, I'm happy if you remove the word "even."

To increase the POVness of the wording?

How about to increaes a nuetral undrstanding of the facts? But, as you noticed I removed that and restated it. It would have been nice if you simply effected your proposed change yourself instead of reverting.

• "The official church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies, and sought to eradicate them." - relativistic POV expressed via "other versions"

I think you are in the minority here on this question. The consensus is to treat the use of "heresy" in exactly this relativistic manner to preserve NPOV. You seem to have lost that debate, per above. That is why I restored it after you removed it going against consensus.

Debate, there has been a debate? Even a consensus? I don't think so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I hightly doubt that. If you need a memory refresher go up and look at the debate with every other editor agreeing with Giovanni, and you alone standing to support this POV language. Here is the debate (along with other secions):[19]

• "Among the most significant groups which came to be regarded as heretical were the Gnostic Christians (who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge) and the Arians (who did not accept the Trinitarian doctrine that was to dominate both Roman and Greek theology)" - mixes together two disputes separated by time.

It doesnt mix them up. That they were separted by time is not implied or denied. As a solution why not insert some dates assoicated with each?

Because they were separated by time the circimstance of either were different as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This does not matter as that level of detial is not necessay here. The point is served by the examples, and does not imply they occured at the same time or were the same issues. A reader can click on the link for each respective example to get the details.

• "Under Theodosius, programs were enacted to oppress ..." - again the ominous programmes that exist in the minds of some editors but not in reality. And, persecution is already covered in the persecution section (Maybe we should dispell with that section since nobody seems to read it).

I'd say making a law that punishes by death anyone who holds different belief is pretty good evidence of the reality of these programs. Persecution it was, but that doesn't mean it should be excluded in this section because to do so de-contexualizes the important historical nature of the moves by Theodosius. To leave it out is POV and robs the reader of understanding.

Did Theo do that ("making a law that punishes by death anyone who holds different belief")? No, he didn't. Deplorable as many things that happened might be, there was no programme to exterminate pagans under Theodosius (the great persecutor of paganism, btw, was the heretic Valens). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Giovanni above gave a reference for this. I suggest you review your history as you are wrong here. RTS 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we have serious problems with POV wording, inaccuracy, bloating of the article, (repeated) violation of the dating consensus, blind reinserting of pseudo-footnotes. Quite enough IMHO to justify a revert of these addtition that never had a consensus behind them in the first place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. What we have is a valid restoration of important information and you have exagerated here to revert to a version that is IMHO POV wording, inaccurate, an overly thining of the section (why did you move it down without consensus, also?). Lastly, my inserstions were not blind, and some were taking from suggestions on the talk page, and others were my own. I carefully made my edits. Your changes never had consensus, from what I can see. RTS 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My moving it down had been discussed many times before, before you were around. I did implement the proposal now, as another editor came along and included stuff already covered under "persecution" into the history section. But it seems, moving the section down, close to each other doesn't help as no one reads the persecution section anyway. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont make assumptions that I was not around just because I have not jumped in myself. No, moving it down was never discussed nor agreed to. Maybe you wanted this but I dont see any consensus for this change. RTS 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Watching the minor editing war going on, its clear you need to bifurcate this section into "Traditional View" and "Critical View". Writing for either position should be done with a straight face. See WP:NPOV#Writing for the "enemy" POV There are two conflicting points of view. Instead of muddying them up, its better to present each one clearly. joshbuddy^talk 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but the "traditional" view is as presented here has problems in the POV language (it can be stated in NPOV terms), and to do so does not make it a "critical view." The other difference is the inclusion of information that those on the Christian side simply don't want mentioned. Its clear there is a pro-Christian Cabal here working to defend a POV with POV language, and a supression of a more NPOV and inclusive historical section. RTS 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I didn't see any particularly egregious NPOV language. I think you're better off splitting it. Don't forget, the traditional view of Christianity needs to be presented with fairness and in sympathetic tone. joshbuddy^talk 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion (link below) about an example of the POV language that has been a soruce of conflict. I think Giovanni's arguments gained consesus, yet the one editor who is pushing a POV reverted to his version. [20]RTS 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That (what Josh proposes) is against WP's NPOV policy (apart from the misnomers "traditional" and "critical"). Thanks, RTS (wonder where you got the name from), for assuming good faith. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, it seems you haven't thoroughly read WP:NPOV. From WP:NPOV#Religion: NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

The history section makes much more sense lower down. It seems to me in the correct place as of Str's last edit. Most people will want to know what is current with christianity before they want to know it's history. SOPHIA 18:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I value it even more coming from someone I have often disagreed with. Ah ... and welcome back. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You should seriously consider re-reading this excellent article. I dunno. Maybe you typed "against" but really meant to say, "is exactly what is recommended by". Those two keys are very close to each other. :) joshbuddy^talk 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant "against" - it is against WP policy (as I have undersood it, will reread) to create different articles/section to give two POV narrations side by side (if that is what you wanted). It is all right to include various views into one narrative, all in NPOV language. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Presenting it in two different sections is preferred to attempting to get one section to contain both points of view. See Creationism and Gospel of Luke. This way both points of view can be presented well. What *is* against WP:NPOV is to create a POV fork, that is, take the content, put it in a new article and remove the critical points from it. Articles need balance. I know personally I didn't understand this distinction at first, I thought a POV fork meant with the article. Happy editing. joshbuddy^talk 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to stress something once again..... to str apparently....... Relativism is the point of Wikipedia, it is what NPOV is.... Relativism does not count as a POV, it is the lack of a bias towards any view. In essence, Relativism is NPOV. It doesn't make sense from either a fundamentalist christian POV or a positivist POV to look at Relativism and call it NPOV, since both can claim that it as a POV then try to balance out the article to some mythical NPOV between their position and the real NPOV, relativism, coming to radically different results.

I agree with the majority of editors here that relativism is NPOV. I consider myself an expert on NPOV, and his POV pushing has been noticed. The majority here seem to agree with Giovanni take on the language to be used: state who called who want, simply reporting what happened instead of taking sides in a summary of history. Therefore, I reverted to RTS.NPOV77 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this may be one of very few articles that the term AD or BC should even be in at all.... CE and BCE are a bit biased, sure, but only in that the Common Era begins with the fabled birth of Christ (and by fabled, I mean that there's a lot of serious scholarly debate that he was born prior, not that he was never born). AD would be helpful, much as AH (after Hijra) would in an Islamic article. However, I don't think, in this case, it really makes a difference whether AD or CE is used.... both are the same time scale, and neither is more useful than the other in any way really.

KV 19:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to get more feedback, in particular from both sides of the fence (those with an orthodox Christian perspective and those of a secular view point such as Giovanni and others) That's only two sides: I'm on the third side (liberal/agnostic Christian perspective), and consider that a NPOV needs to acknowledge the historical development of the Christian church without explicitly or implicitly condemning previous generations of Christians for their often unsavoury world-views, or indeed implying that all modern Christians are in favour of burning heretics and lynching atheists. The point is served by the examples, and does not imply they occured at the same time or were the same issues. A reader can click on the link for each respective example to get the details. Exactly so. information that those on the Christian side simply don't want mentioned I don't think that's quite fair. In a general article on Christianity, it is appropriate to mention that some interpretations of the Christian faith did not survive the often violent doctrinal disputes of the patristic period, but some of the wordings suggested by the "secularists" comes close to blaming the surviving orthodox church for the conflict and championing the "downtrodden" heretics, who in fact were just as intolerant, and as keen to condemn and anathematize their opponents. (How important is it, in a general history of the whole United States of America, to focus on the suppression of royalist opinion in the late 18th-century?) Myopic Bookworm 10:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Myopic booksworm for your feedback. If I may disagree with you. You say we need to acknowleged the historical development of the Christian church. Does this not mean providing important milestone facts the establish its character (ideology), and its practice? We should only report this, not take side, not condem, or commnet that such views or practices were unsavory. Yes, by modern standards they are quite unsavory, but do you think that because of this we should outright omit/suppress these facts of history? To do that is akin to propaganda/pov pushing. We should report fairly and accuratly the past in sober terms. If it looks bad for Christiand, then it looks bad. Thus is an honest history. Modern Christians should own up to their past, not whitewhash it. I disagree that talking about this past (history) in any way "champions" the "downtrodden" heretics. Can you point out where it does this? Also, I disagree with you all all groups were just as intolerant. This is not the case. Others above have pointed out with references that the nature of the orthodox church was particularly intolerant--more than the rest (not that others were not intolerant) but there is a difference. Those on the Christan side seem to want to deny this fact. Infact, in the version I supported, it clearly says that each group was critical of each other (as they were). However, the persecution that resulted from the State-Chrstianity stood out in that it even passed laws making holding a contrary belief punishable by death. Your analogy about suppressing royalist opinion in the US does not exactly fit since this suppression was more of an exceptoin to the nature of the revolutionary forces in the US, than the rule. (even then I was able to read about it in my history text books!). The State-Chistian church, on the other hand, continued this very intolerant rule for many centuries, and has had a huge impact, even to the point of ushering in the infamous Dark Age. This is why I agree its important to report these historical facts about the actions and nature of the resulting church once it assumed the role of the State-religion. On a side now, while I appreciate your giving your feedback here, I don't think that there can be much progress made in Wikepidea, at least not in this article as those with my pov are not welcome here. IN other words, this article is conentrated by those with a Christian POV and they will not allow other POV's to ever get expressed in the main article no matter who is right. That is just the way it is now and I note it. So, while I humor myself here and prove that I'm right, I doubt I will waste much more time contributing until there is some neutrality and fairness.RTS 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RTS, that we should portray history acurately and fairly, without passing judgement, whithout either whitewashing or blackwashing. But that includes casting aside such nonsensical and fatly wrong prejudice that the orthodox were mere intolerant than the heretics, when in the context of the 4th century the contrary was true: the great persecutors of both (orthodox) Christians and Pagans were the Arian Emperors Constantius II and Valens. And you cannot take your statement "laws making holding a contrary belief punishable by death" the basis of your imagined anti-pagan programme under Theodosius, when the contrary belief punishable by death was not paganism but heresies - and even that wasn't that common at that time - Priscillian was quite an exception for some time. Pagans were not put to trial for their beliefs - it was pagan cults and pagan sacrifice that were prohibited - that might be deplorable too but it's not quite the same. Never mind that the supposed Dark Age is the giant on whose shoulders we midgets stand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, your tactic seems to be to keep repeating things that you have been shown already by other editors not to be true. They have provided you with reference to suport their claims and have asked you repeatedly to do the same--if what you claims is true. Giovanni33 in particular has asked you about this point at least 3 times above and you ignored it. Now you repeat the same revisionist history here (which is whitewashing since you wish to suppress facts that cast Christians in a less than positive light. I quote, above, from Giovanni," Pistis was thus politically expedient, because it forbade questioning. Your comment about the Arians being less tolerant, I don't think is true as I find this reference in Rubenstein's, When Jesus Became God, p. 179. [21], where Rubenstein notes that the Arians (the “heretics”) were better able to “tolerate a variety of theological perspectives without declaring their opponents agents of the Devil.” Giovanni33 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)"

Also, I notice you distort the point I'm making. The point was that the resulting orthodoxy that became the State religion was particularly intolerant of other beliefs to such an extend that it made holding contrary beliefs punishable by death. You dendied this fact, above, and said it wasn't true, that it was a legend, etc. Now you admit its true, but apologize for it by saying that it was only "heresies" which were punishable by death. At least we are making progress, although you still wish to suppress this fact. You seem to like the Dark Ages, which says a lot about your POV. I will only note it's called the Dark Ages for a good reason. The giants on whose shoulders we stand on today are from the Age of Enlightenment, a repudiation of those dark times. The titles that historians have adopted to describe each age should give you a clue. RTS 17:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct RTS. As anyone who will bother to read these points I rasied, I supported with references. This also included references with quotes that indicated facts contrary to what Str1977 was maintaining. I did ask him several times to provide support for his claims which seem not to be true, but as you correctly say, he ignored them. I interpret this as an admission of being in error. Yet, its strange that he makes the same false claim again. My changes were not innacurate, and the version that has been left now, stripped of all my contributions, is very POV. The NPOV langauge that I argued for, I think, reached consensus among editors here (Str1977 was the only one against), so I don't know why his version is in the main article. I reviwed the last edit war and even that verrsion is vastly better and at least its NPOV. Giovanni33 08:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I never questioned that you had a reference and unfortunately I am right now not in the position to provide a reference for my point (except mayhe the Will Durant quote over at "Early Christianity"). However, that doesn't make Rubinstein's claim (based on nothing else than "heresiophil" prejudice) right when the facts of the matter speak against it. Look at the persecutions by Arian Emperors against orthodox Christianity and pagans and you'll see it. As for the Dark Ages: yes, historians use it ... for a period in early Greek history - for the Middle Ages it is just a smear term, just as the term "Middle Ages" once was. But I cannot keep you from remaining in your own darkness. Looking down on others to elevate yourself still works. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First, some, but not all, groups accused of heresy by the mainstream churches were as intolerant. I do recall a group that believed in non-violence to the end, and was slaughtered without a fight. Certainly, they were not as intolerant. Certainly, the Puritans were just as opressive as those who opressed them in England...... though they had religious freedom in Amsterdam and just didn't like the religious freedom of their neighbors. But we don't want to make a blanket statement about all accused of heresy. I do not believe that Giordano Bruno was all that intolerant. And of course, we all know the brutal opression of the Spanish Jews before the Inquisation came to free the Spanish Christians. Mind you that the Jews actually believe that one SHOULDN'T convert others, and actually try to deter them from converting to Judaism.

But at that said, I don't think anyone wants to demonize the actual institution, but the best documented and most widespread oppression, supression, and militarization always come from someone with real power. No small Gnostic group living in the Swiss alps could have launched the third Crusade. But, perhaps, to be NPOV, we should also mention the good that they did. One of the orders of monks I know focused so much on hard work and living in poverty that they would be given a wooded piece of land, make it workable farmland, and sell it to support the church and move on to a new piece of land, which happened across most of Europe. These major examples of positive aspects should be shown along with the negative ones. If one ends up outweighing the other, then you have to let it be though.... it's not NPOV to try to make something look balanced when it isn't. Certainly, Hitler's crimes outweigh his virtues very early on and Mother Theresa's virtues outweigh her crimes very early on as well. Though you don't say that Hitler was evil and Mother Theresa was good..... it speaks for itself when all the evidence is in and described in NPOV detail.

KV 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Arian heresy in the 4th century and not another heresy. Personally, I think any general statement of A was more tolerant or more intolerant than B nonsensical and POV. I can't understand what you mean exactly by your Spanish passage but let me just say that Jews did not actually believe that once shouldn't convert others - maybe most Jews nowadays do believe that (but there are proponents of Judaism that deny all sort of other essentials of the Jewish religion [22]), but back then it was different.

I agree about the good and the bad (though I don't know what the crimes of Mother Theresa could be), but on this page we also have to keep it concise. The order you are referring to are the Cistercians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was that at a certain point, the crimes of someone may not be able to be balanced out by a positive thing (as with Hitler) and the positive things may not be able to be balanced out by a crime (as with Mother Theresa. I used extremes for a reason. Of course Hitler probably helped an old woman across the street once, and was a decent artist from someone without an art education's view (if only they told him he was good). Mother Theresa must have lied when she was a child or held a bad thought for long enough.... the point being that there's good and bad to everyone and everything. Both the good and bad of Christianity should be made apparent.

I am also concerned that your effort for concision may have more to do with making sure the bad of Christianity isn't shown than keeping the article short.

KV 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, KV, for assuming good faith. My concerns are accuracy, NPOV and conciseness - the latter can be suspended for a while and additional contents moved to Early Christianiy or History of Christianiy. However, later the text would have to be cut down again.

And, again, I do agree with you about how to treat the good and the bad, at least for WP purposes, though I don't necessarily agree about what constitutes that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Persecution section

I want to remove the following from the persecution section.

In discussing persecution, we should be careful to distinguish between:

official persecution by the state;

acts of popular violence (which may be tacitly permitted by the state), and

the side-effects of war and other social upheaval.

It doesn't look encyclopedic - it looks like we're telling the user how to interpret what they are reading and it doesn't really seem appropriate.

Please squeak if you object - I would appreciate reasons for the objection.

I'd also really like to see a reference advocating the resurfacing of christian persecution in Europe during the French Revolution. Str1977 and I have disagreed on this before but I genuinely have never seen the French Revolution given as an example of the resurfacing of christian persecution in Europe. I'd just like a reference so I can do some further reading. SOPHIA 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm for a rewording of the above section...but there is a difference between state-sanctioned persecution and the other types mentioned. While persecution by Christians has been very real throughout history, it could be important in some instances to make the differences clear. As far as the French Revolution, I've no idea about it all. KHM03 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it needs treatment, but I think it could go altogether. It isn't specific to the topic (Christianity), and while it may be good advice for people writing for this section, it dos not constitute encyclopedic information for the person consulting it. Myopic Bookworm 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments above for deleting that particular section. Its not particularly encyclopedic and is hopefully a distinction the intelligent reader could make for him- or herself. As for the French Revolution, it would be hard to talk about that as a specific instance of Christian persecution, as both the Huguenots and the Jacobins were primarily Protestant. There were of course massacres of Protestants, and the Revolution itself involved the dismantling of the First Estate, otherwise known as the Catholic Church, but I'm not sure any of this can qualify as strictly Christian persecution. Ig0774 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall take silence as tacit agreement! I'll leave it 24 more hours before I remove the passage in bold from the article unless persuaded otherwise. SOPHIA 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The definition of different types of persecution might have room for improvement, but it is valid information. An encyclopedia is made exactly for the purpose of telling the reader how things are defined.

2. I absolutely reject the resurfacing of the old "if only Catholics are persecuted then it's not a persecution of Christians" - Christians, Catholic Christians, were persecuted during the French Revolution - Hugenots are quite off topic in regard to the French Revolution, and the Jacobins were not Protestants but at best Theists or Deists - Robespierre instituted the "Feast of the Supreme Being" and not that of "Jesus Christ according to Protestantism". There were only Catholics persecuted because that was the only version of Christianity existing withing France at that time. The Jacobins fittingly named their policy "Dechristianization". Half the Vendee was massacred. Even if you can think of "legitimate reasons" for the killings and oppression, go ahead. That doesn't change the fact that there were killings and oppression. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is made exactly for the purpose of telling the reader how things are defined No, that's what a dictionary is for. if only Catholics are persecuted then it's not a persecution of Christians I'm sorry, no one said that, exactly, though I don't really understand Ig0774's comment: it seems to say "if Huguenots and Jacobins are persecuted, and Catholic institutions assailed, then it's not a persecution of Christians". But the general article on Christianity is not the place for a discussion of the religious politics of the French Revolution. I still think the bit scheduled for deletion is out of place in this entry: apart from anything else, a sentence which says "what we should do" is didactic, not NPOV. Myopic Bookworm 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is only given as an example of resurfacing persecution of Christians, not as a discussion of the FR's religious policy in all its breadth. As for my "if only Catholics ..." -this argument has appeared on this talk page before and I can't think of another way of justifying the opinion that (at least some aspects of) the Dechristianisation policy was not a persecution of Christians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The definitions of persecution do not belong in an overview article on any religion. That level of detail can be covered in the main articles on persecution. As for rejecting the "old" debate. I have only asked for a reference for the FR as anti christian. I genuinely have never seen it described in those explicit terms. The way the sentence currently reads you would assume France was a non christian country when the FR happened as it's tacked onto the paragraph describing the very early days of the spread of christianity before it reached dominance in the west. If anything it's in the wrong place as the second paragraph of this section deals with the more modern persecutions, including those between christian denominations. As for the communism part - that is already mentioned further down so seems superfluous. SOPHIA 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Sophia's request for a citation is reasonable. My impression is that post-revolutionary France was anti-clerical, and hostile to religion in general, but so far it's just my immpression; I haven't found a good citation yet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from 'The Western Experience:The Early Modern Period', by Mortimer Chambers et al., 1974 (Someone might check a newer edition): "By 1800 revolutionary policy amounted to half-hearted secularism, with Catholicism tolerated but barred from a voice in political activity. Continuing proscription of the refractory clergy made the free exercise of religion difficult, and the orthodox Catholic world continued to stigmatize the entire Revolution as antichurch." Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the text Tom is referencing here. Its a reputable text, balanced and accurate. Nevertheless, what this describes does not amount to persecution of Christians by the revolutionaries. Sure, they had some difficulties not encountered before, and there was some much needed seperation from Church and State, but as the author(s) of this text state, Catholicism was tolerated. It was the orthox Church that continued to cry out persecution, and claimed thethe revolution as being against the Church. That they were against the historical oppressive nature of the Church and yet still tolerated it, says a lot. Persection it was not. Giovanni33 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom's text deals with the situation after 1800, when Dechristianisation faded and vanished. Napoleon returned to the Christian calendar and signed a concordat. But Tom's text talks about a change from a previous situation, that existed before 1800, and especially 1792-1794, which amounted to persecution: the Massacres of the Vendee, the killing of religious people, such as the Carmelites of Compiegne, the desecration of Churches and monasteries. This never was about "separation of Church and State", which was in France only achieved because the 1905 could not be implement to the full.

That you agree with the persecutors of these days and think the persecution justified by some ideological terminology (in your post "continued existence of the Church amid many troubles and harrassment" constitutes "oppression by the Church") speaks for itself. I could, if I wanted to, find legitimate reasons for the persecution of heretics in the Middle Ages, no problem. Only that wouldn't make it persecution any less, and I don't condone this persecution because I do adhere to tolerance. But I understand your difficulty. Anyone is tempted to intolerance once one's own worldview achieves hegemony. We Christians had to find that out, maybe you will too, some time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit clash. The point that was made before was that people were murdered for wanting to adhere to the teachings of the catholic church. That clearly is persecution of a christian body of people and should be elaborated upon in the Persecution of Christians (if it's not already there). It did not fit where it was as we suddenly jumped from persecution of christians as they spread across the west to a specific incident nearly 1500 years later that had more to do with power and wealth than ideology and most importantly took place within a christian country. I'm happy with the edits that Giovanni33 has made as the timeline flows better and there is no duplicated data - thanks Gio. SOPHIA 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking at the history log I should have said - thanks Tom. SOPHIA 10:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with persectors or the persecuted. This should be about fitting the information together in a representative balanced way. I had genuinely never heard the FR described inn these terms and it seems to be a a view that is only strongly held in the catholic community - if you wish to change it to reflect this then do so but this particular view should be ascribed to the catholic church as nothing has been brought forward to support a more general description. SOPHIA 10:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that, Sophia, and I sincerely hope that other editors don't agree with the persecutors, but when I am reading some posts (as Gio's above) here I can't help. If I offended you, Sophia, I am sorry. The view is not one of Catholics as such (I guess many Catholics or Christians don't ´know about such historical details) but a matter of historical research and not. And, yes, it should be elaborated in the PoC article.

I have no problem with re-organizing a section or improving the flow. Persecution of Christians by Christians (both ways) is a special case - as it can be put either here or there. That the persecution in the FR took place in a Christian country doesn't change the fact that it was persecution - the persecution of Buddhist monks under Pol Pot took place in a thoroughly Buddhist country as well (and I guees Cambodia was much more Buddhist in the 1970s than France was Christian in the 1780s). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offended - I've learnt that to be too sensitive to what you read on wikipedia talk pages is not a good idea! I really wanted to clarify that my point in all this came from a genuine puzzlement at how the section read. The FR reference now seems to sit well in the paragraph dealing with more "modern" persecutions rather than persecutions due to the spread of christianity as in the first paragraph. I have never had an issue with the fact that these people were persecuted - they clearly were - but trying to categorize where to properly highlight these events is always problematical. Str you need to be patient with me as sometimes I know someting doesn't look right but it takes me a little while to properly clarify (and explain) why! SOPHIA 11:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, Sophia, no offense on my part regarding your posts. But I guess I was offended by what Giovanni wrote. I wholeheartedly accept Tom's version as it now stands. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. So do I. (Surprise, surprise!) Thanks, Tom. AnnH ♫ 12:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed 'and [Jews] have occasionally committed violence against Christians' from the section on persecution. I don't doubt that this is technically true, but I question if it has been common enough to warrent mention here. Of course it was more common two thousand years ago, which just occured to me. So, put it back if people think it is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And it was placed in the wrong paragraph anyway - the first is for persecution of, the second for persecution by Christians in history, the third for the present. I guess, someone wanted to counter the Christian violence against the Jews with Jewish violence against Christians. That's technically true and should not be forgotten, but as Tom said it, the other way round was more frequent because Christians since the 4th century were powerful than Jews. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Spread

Look at Could any make a simular map of Christianity? Hogne

Unfair treatment of other religions

why is cristianity not classed as a mythology when shinto, as a religion seems to have such a label?;

The word mythology (from the Greek μυθολογία mythología, from μυθολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυθος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, "mythology" is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths.'

213.40.67.66 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) Christianity is a religion, according to the accepted understanding of that term. It has a body of traditional stories which might be called 'mythology', especially by non-Christians, but there is more to it than that. (2) Shintoism is correctly described as a religion in the Wikipedia article. Like many other religions, it also has a body of tradition which may often called a 'mythology', especially by non-believers. Myopic Bookworm 14:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on the page, in a very brief look, where Shinto is called a myth. It is not categorized there, and a brief look through the header didn't show it, nor the structure table....... where is it in the article?

KV 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me as though 213.40.67.66 had not actually bothered to look at the article but was just airing a prejudice. Myopic Bookworm 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly but take a look at the Mythology article - this debate rages there constantly. SOPHIA 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected because I see there's a revert war. Please try to settle the differences on talk rather than going back and forth, and drop me a note when you're ready to start editing again, or leave a request on WP:PP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tags

Why have all the dispute tags been taken off - they are very obviously needed & locking the page without them seems absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.114.196.11 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. Removing the tags was premature, and resulted in a shift from using the talk pages to settle disputes, to editing the article. The Tags should be kept there until consensus is reached on the talk pages and both sides agree on a version they can live with.

A little later I will review where I think everyone stands in the disputes and see if we can make further progress in reaching a real and clear consensus so when the lock is lifted it won't revert back into unproductive edit warring. Giovanni33 18:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When a page is locked, there's no guarantee that it will be locked in the "good" version. If it were possible to decide, with full agreement, as to what is the good version, there'd be no need to lock it in the first place. The admin who locks the page obviously won't select a version that has just been vandalized, but apart from that, it's just the luck of the draw. That's why it can't be locked by an admin who is involved with the page, except in a case of repeated vandalism. (And now that we have the relatively-new possibility of semi-protecting a page, content dispute seems to be the only valid reason for full protection.) AnnH ♫ 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I have noted from comments made by Giovanni33, e.g. on his talk page, and in edit summaries, that he generally makes a long post here, and then inserts his preferred edit, claiming that there is consensus for it. I will pass over the question of possible sockpuppets for the moment (except to say that newly-registered users are not considered to have full voting rights, since it's so easy to register another account as a sockpuppet, or to get a friend to register one for the purpose of supporting you, as a meatpuppet), and just note that if his normal opponents agree with him, they will certainly say so explicitly. Str1977 often gives detailed responses as to his objections. I'm often busy with other articles, and certainly don't have time to give the kind of detailed responses that Str has so often given. I don't feel it's really necessary to chime in with "I agree with Str1977", since I think everyone who frequents this page knows that if Giovanni makes a controverial edit (as he usually does), I am likely to share the same view as Str1977, and probably the same as KHM03 and Tom harrison. So, Giovanni, please do not take silence as approval. I assure you that I am big enough to be prepared to say so explicitly if I ever agree with you.

One problem that I frequently have with Giovanni's edits is that he tends to present controversial views as if they are the main views. I have in mind all the stuff about there being no established orthodoxy in the first few centuries, about Christianity having developed from mystery cults, about St. Thomas Aquinas's teaching transubstantiation having developed from pagan religions with cannibalism, about the level of violence carried out by Christians (certainly there has been some), and about the connection between Christianity and bad actions carried out by nominal Christians, etc.

So, to avoid misunderstanding, I want to state formally that I do not endorse Giovanni's edits. I would have thought that was fairly obvious, since I and others have reverted them and argued against them from the start. If Giovanni were to make major changes to his own preferred version, in an effort to compromise, and if the other editors explicity agreed, then that would be fine. But generally, he takes what he has been promoting all along, rewords it slightly, and rehashes the same thing over and over again.

In any case, Giovanni, if you insert something because you sincerely believe that you've won over all or most of your opponents, and some who haven't explicitly commented on your latest post on the talk page revert you, that in itself must be a sign that you were mistaken. AnnH ♫ 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have had problems with how User:Giovanni33 defines "consensus", which to me seems to be at odds with how Wikipedia understands it. The current state of this article (locked) is in large part due to this misunderstanding. To that end, I've asked Gio to make his case and try to achieve a real consensus. I hope he does so in the next few days so that we can begin to get this article unlocked. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni's edits are based on new work - or reinterpretations in the light of the Nag Hammadi finds. This research does conflict directly with especially RC teachings as it is a challenge to direct apostolic succession and the concept of any unified early church. However there are books by repuatble scholars which cover this so it should be covered somewhere. Even though I find much of what Gio writes very interesting the level of detail he goes into is not appropriate for the "catch all" christianity article. Since it is currently a minority view it should be referenced as a controversy/minority view/new research whatever and linked to the main article. It's not helped matters that in the past the Early Christianity article was reverted to a stub rather than see Gio's stuff there. The details do belong in the EC article. The fact that only his version exists does not mean it is over represented - it's not his problem that no one has written up the traditional version. Gio's writing/refs should be categorized as a new/minority view and hopefully it will spur others on to add the more traditional version as well. Sophia^TalkTCF

You're correct, SOPHIA. A sentence or two here is more than adequate, with a link elsewhere. The problem is (and much of this discussion should be at Early Christianity, granted) is that these "new" views haven't yet found widespread acceptance in academia. They're there, yes, and need to be mentioned (more at that page than here), but it's not a definitive view at this point, so we need to qualify the language used to explain it ("some scholars think...", that sort of thing). At any rate, let's see what Gio proposes here and see what consensus emerges. KHM03 ^(talk) 12:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a widespread view and should be categorized as such but it is very current and will interest a lot of people. What it needs is it's own clearly labelled section in the EC article with a mention and link here. Any thoughts Gio? Sophia^TalkTCF 12:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea for the EC article...give the outline of the "basic" understanding / POV, and have a section with the newer theories developed in light of the Nag Hammadi discoveries. That could work. KHM03 ^(talk) 12:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to be careful to avoid the potential "new improved" POV trap. Sophia^TalkTCF 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge problem with Sophia's idea. Creating a new article for such a reason is clearly stated by Wikipedia to be a violation of NPOV. You cannot keep Giovanni's work here by creating another article which is completely slanted into his POV. You have to find a way to include Giovanni's view in the ARTICLE itself. Being in it's own section would not be a NPOV violation, but it must remain a part of the actual article. I personally would find a problem with simply labelling it a minority view, for in Christian countries, there is a huge amount of people who would agree with Giovanni, and those educated on the subject on each side would be approximately equal. KV 17:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First let me say I'm a Giovanni sympathiser (I'm a existence not proven person myself - Jesus Myth and all that). The let me assure you we were not suggesting a "file and forget article" - I was suggesting a section in Early Christianity that already exists. With respect - in most Christian countries people have no idea what we are going on about as a lot of this stuff is new to the mainstream. As such it should really be covered as a minority view, but covered it needs to be as it is gaining readership due to the number of poplular books currently on the market. Hope that reasssures you. Sophia^TalkTCF 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the real question is whether or not the new article would be POV by adding Giovanni's additions in or if it would be NPOV. KV 18:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The issue that Sophia brings up with of the broader coverage regarding the minority theories of the origin of Christianity being found in various possible sources among the mystery religions, etc. is something that I want, but it's not the issue anymore, with this version. I have agreed to only a breif mention and believe that a more in depth disucussion is best kept to other articles. I agree with Sophia about this.

So the issue here and now a different one. The current disagreement between the versions conerns two basic areas of disagreement as I see it: 1. using a "relativistic" language to describe the relations between different versions of the early emerging Christianity, esp. in regards to who labeled who as heretical (not assuming the voice and stance of one as the real, and legitimate version simply because they gained power). This also states clearly that there was no orthodoxy but a great diversity of bliefs among the early Christians. And, 2. the other point regarding how the state estabalished orthodoxy that did result was partiularly intolerant of any other views to an extreme extent not found before in previous persecutions of other religions by the empire. For examples, even making belief in heresies punishable by death (something that to my suprise Str1977 denied as a historial fact--apparently was not even arware of this!). Also, that this stemed from the doctrinal nature of the new orthodoxy which became so because it was funtional to the needs and expediancy of the empire for political reasons--although I don't actually say this. I simply make it a point to provide an accurate historical characterization which is noted by maintream historians. I do so because it is an important fact in the history of the religion had would have profound ramifications for world history, and it gives a relative (historical) understanding of Christianity itself. In many ways this is very sympathetic to Christianity as a religion since it doesn't assume that the rather unsavory (from my POV) version that did so much harm (in my POV) was one in the same with all or the only form Christianity that existed or could have existed. It contexualized it within political history. The other issues are simply langauge, flow, and to see that what the current article attempt to say is clear and not choppy. I still plan on mapping out where I think consensus lies and giving examples of both versions stating what problems I have with the version now locked and why the language of the other ones is prefrable from both a clarity view point, as well as a content and NPOV language stance.Giovanni33 22:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I will also add that these things, while not a part of what proponents of Christianity themselves give coverage to among themselves, is nonetheless not a minority opinion among scholarhsip--its a mainstream view that does merit inclusion in this main article.Giovanni33 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio, the same old stuff again:

• WP subcribes to NPOV and not to relativism (which is a POV)
• the question who labelled/condemned whom as heretic should be addressed, if possible, without falling into this relativistic POV
• "a great diversity" does not equal to "no orthodoxy" - there were disputes from the get go and from the first time a decision was reached, voilà: orthodoxy.
• the state did not "establish orthodoxy" - in fact for much of the 4th century the state opposed orthodoxy (according to Nicaea) in favour of heresy (according to Nicaea)
• repetition does not make it right: orthodoxy was not more intolerant than heresy in general, certainly not more intolerant than the Arian heresy, see Constantius and Valens for that.
• the reasons for choices by the different Emperors are complex and involve political but not only political motives. Most of all, there never was a successful imperial dictate (despite the attempts by C & V)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your responses are the same but have been refuted. You keep repeating yoruself but then go silent when I ask you to back up your claims with references. The references I provided prove that my claims are accurate. I'm still waiting for you to provide a counter reference or at least show how the references I provided above are not valid. For example, the intolerance question and in particular your example of the Arian heresy. Do I need to cite ther reference against by Berstein that says even the Arians were better able to tolerate other views, instead of labeling any other view as that of the Devil? Again, sure others were intolerant, as per your examples, but that is not the issue.

Also, relativistic language is only a POV in the sense of it being a NPOV. It's the POV is not taking any POV as the sole and true POV. In my book that makes it no point of view but I see your point. It is the POV that Wikipeadia should adopt, though: NPOV. You choose to describe this as relativism, but what you are describing is exactly what is required of writing here. This is not a place to speak from one POV, but instead reflect on who did what in nuetral terms. Giovanni33 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction does not equal refutation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It does when you fail to provide support for your claims. It equals refutation for practical purposes. Since Wikipeadia is not about our POV's or original research it is about what we show is reflected in academia. If you state that A is B, and I say, not that is not accurate, look here: and I provide references stating that A is NOT B, and you only continue repeating what you said, and ignore requests to substanciate your claim, that is effectively refutation.

Also, your claim there was always an orthodoxy in early, developing Christianity, is a bias of you wanting to claim a one true Christianity. What you are doing is projecting backwards from hindsight identifying what became later as the orthodox Chruch to say it was always there. This, also missings the point. For examples, le me quote this site, [23] "That Gnosticism was, at least briefly, in the mainstream of Christianity is witnessed by the fact that one of its most influential teachers, Valentinus, may have been in consideration during the mid-second century for election as the Bishop of Rome.3 Born in Alexandria around 100 C.E., Valentinus distinguished himself at an early age as an extraordinary teacher and leader in the highly educated and diverse Alexandrian Christian community. In mid-life he migrated from Alexandria to the Church's evolving capital, Rome, where he played an active role in the public affairs of the Church. A prime characteristic of Gnostics was their claim to be keepers of sacred traditions, gospels, rituals, and successions – esoteric matters for which many Christians were either not properly prepared or simply not inclined. Valentinus, true to this Gnostic predilection, apparently professed to have received a special apostolic sanction through Theudas, a disciple and initiate of the Apostle Paul, and to be a custodian of doctrines and rituals neglected by what would become Christian orthodoxy.4 Though an influential member of the Roman church in the mid-second century, by the end of his life Valentinus had been forced from the public eye and branded a heretic by the developing orthodoxy Church." What became the orthodoxy was not orthodox to begin with, it was one of a great many diverse versions, later coopted and further changed (some say corrupted) by the need to have it serves the State as the state religion in an empire.Giovanni33 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio, you may read any standard history of the Church in the 4th century - see what the Arians did, see what the orthodox/catholics did. That should be enough to satisfy your curiousity and heal your prejudice. Also, nothing of what you have posted above prove your point in the least. One Valentinus does not make one mainstream or orthodoxy, if I may rephrase the proverb. Orthodoxy is not static but subject to development - however, you are stating that there was no orthodoxy around. Which is wrong. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its you who needs to review your history. I have and its supports my understaning of the relative intolerance of the respective versions of Christian doctrines. That is why I am able to provide reference support for my claim. The best you have been able to do is cite where others were intolerant which is a straw-man fallacy since that is not an argument. Why is it that I can cite scholars who say even that Arians were able to better tolerate different views without labeling their opponents the Devil, but you are not able to counter that?

Yes, in the begining there was no one true ortodoxy yet established. Orthodoxy is not borne, does not fall out of the sky ready made. Its something that is developed out of struggle of competeing and conflicting understandings. Its only through this process, after some history is established that one can begin to identify and then establish one version the resulting orthodox version. To deny this is to deny the early formative period, and to deny history.Giovanni33 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you failed to see that examples above about Valentinus and the prominence of other versions of Christianity as providing any support for my point in the least, I'll expand on it. Athough I thought it would be obvious. Do you dispute that early Christians became increasingly theologically and territorially competitive? See Paul's warning about divisions (1Co 1:12, 1Co 3:3-7,21-23)--they were a very real, and such divisions further developed after he and the original apostles were no longer around. Many of the early groups maintained that they were the true orthodoxy, no? That is why to distinguish themselves from those whom they designated as heretics they would often excise from their own teachings some of the Christian teachings that were taught by the so-called heretics. A study of the rise of the church in Edessa and Alexandria shows that in the beginning the so-called unorthodox groups were predominant; what was later regarded as orthodoxy was represented at best by small groups, so that from the very beginning so-called heretical and orthodox forms of the faith existed side by side. The churches were more 'orthodox' in Asia Minor, but various arguments suggest that there were strong pockets of unorthodox Christianity in this area. If the position was different in Corinth, where the church certainly began with strong heretical tendencies, this was due to the influence of Rome imposing its views on the church. to quote, 'the form which Christianity gained in Rome was led to victory by Rome and thus established as orthodoxy'.3 Bauer then went on to show how Rome established its own doctrinal position as the orthodox one. The "heretics" were independent of one another and unable to unite with one another in opposition to Rome. The great mass were middle-of-the-road Christians who might well have been won over by either wing of the church. That is why scholars such aas Bauer have concluded that what later came to be regarded as orthodoxy was only one of several competing systems of Christian belief, with no closer links to any original, so-called 'apostolic Christianity' than its rivals, and that it owed its victory in the competition more to what we might call political influences than to its inherent merits.

The corollary to be drawn from Bauer's discussion is that things were no different in the first century. Thus, R. Bultmann, who fully accepted Bauer's arguments, stated: 'The diversity of theological interests and ideas is at first great. A norm or an authoritative court of appeal for doctrine is still lacking, and the proponents of directions of thought which were later rejected as heretical consider themselves completely Christian, such as Christian Gnosticism. In the beginning faith is the term which distinguishes the Christian Congregation from Jews and the heathen, not orthodoxy (right doctrine). The latter along with its correlate, heresy, arises out of the differences which develop within the Christian congregations.'4 The argument is is similar with G. Strecker in an investigation of Jewish Christianity in an appendix to the 1964 edition of Bauer's book; he argued that Jewish Christianity was diverse in character and that what must be considered as historically primary in the first century was seen to be heretical when compared with what later was regarded as orthodoxy.5

A somewhat similar point of view appears to be represented by Stephen S. Smalley in his examination of 'Diversity and Development in John'. He submits that in the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Epistles, we have a considerable diversity of views expressed, some of which could be seized upon as supporting their cause by later, orthodox writers, others of which could be seized upon by the heretics. He therefore states that: 'John's diversity can hardly be regarded as consciously orthodox or heretical; it is neither one nor the other. If such considerations had influenced John's writing, it is very unlikely that he would have left so much on the "orthodox" side unsaid, and so much on the "heretical" side open to misconstruction, to be used eventually in evidence against him.'6 If nothing else this scholarship has emphasized the prevalence of diversity in the second century church and the difficulty that existed in attempting to draw clear boundaries between what was orthodox and what was heretical.7

References: 1 W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkelt and Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen, 1934); reprinted 1964); Eng. tr.: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (London, 1972). 2 From W. Bauer's own summary statement of his thesis in his Aufsätze and kklne Schriften (ed. G. Strecker, Tübingen, 1967), pp. 229-233. 3 Ibid. 4 R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II (London, 1955), p. 135. 5 G. Strecker, 'On the Problem of Jewish Christianity', In W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, pp. 241-285. 6 S. S. Smalley, 'Diversity and Development In John', NTS 17 (1970.1971), pp. 276-292, quotation from p. 279. 7 For a survey of reactions to Bauer's thesis, see the appendix to his book by G. Strecker and R. A. Kraft (op. cit., pp. 286-316). More recent discussions include: H.-D. Altendorf, 'Zum Stichwort: Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum', Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 80 (1969), pp. 61-74; M. Elze, 'Häresie und Einheit der Kirche im 2. Jahrhundert', ZTK 71 (1974), pp. 389-409; A. I. C. Heron, 'The Interpretation of I. Clement in Walter Bauer's "Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei in ältesten Christentum"', Ekklesiastikos Pharos, IV (1973) (NE), pp.517-545. 8 H. Koester and J. M. Robinson, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971).

Giovanni33 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You two will never agree so I would give up trying to change each other's mind on this. All we can say is that the vast majority of written work currently supports the mainstream Str1977 view. Whatever the reasons - that is how it currently is. In recent years new documents (Nag Hammadi) and research have caused new interpretations of the early days of Christianity to be written. This is new stuff and therefore does not have the scholarly backing of the established view. Maybe it will be adopted or maybe it won't - wikipedia in 50 years time can have that fight. As it stands the minority view should be covered briefly in the main Christianity article and have a reasonably sized section with external links in the Early Christianity article. It's unfair to make Gio wait to add his stuff to EC because the mainstream view wasn't there. We need someone to properly document the mainstream view (if it isn't there already) and then Gio's stuff will not be over represented. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni this is not a debating ground. By all means put the references in the "New views" section or whatever you want to call it but you can't reasonably expect it to dominate the article. As has been said before - it doesn't matter if it's true or not - what matters is an encyclopedia shows the current state of play with each subject. Even I who support your research do not try to make the case that it is the mainstream view or should be the dominant version in the article. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, much of what you attribute to me is indeed informed by relatively recent scholarhip and thus is appropriately relagated to a minority possition within the artcles comensurate with its acceptence in academia. However, this is not the issue with the other points I've arguing over with Str1977--pretty much excusively. His POV is that of the maintream Church--NOT of the mainstream of academia on the history of Christianity. It is one view but the way he presents it is in a POV manner, not a NPOV manner. This is at the heart of the conflict here.

Walter Bauer, a scholar of the development of the early Christian churches has done a lot change consensus among scholars in this treatment of heresies and orthodoxy. Str1977 is attached to the conservative view. Bauer noted there were many early orthodoxies—a heterodoxy. Different ideas developed over time in different geographical areas. Each idea was considered orthodox where it began and only became labeled as heresy as it came into conflict with other established ideas (or heresies, depending on your position).

Its true that in recent years, stimulated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts, church historians have noted that The Dead Sea Scrolls helped to demolish the concept of a single Jewish orthodoxy during the Second Temple period when is supposed to have Jesus lived, but this only related, and one aspect to what I'm arguing for.

Othodoxy, as it is discussed in church history, was not a feature of the early church. It was foreign to the world of in the period of Jesus and his disciples, and of those who followed them. The concept of heresy as we use the term today, is—like orthodoxy—largely a second-century development. The concept of Christian orthodoxy did not become fully established until after the Council of Nicea in 325, convened by Constantine to resolve differences within the church, and it still failed to accomplish that goal because the clergy from the Eastern empire were the only ones who attended. The council’s decisions therefore did not represent the whole community, and they were contested for many years before a sense of intellectual conformity that could be termed orthodoxy began to prevail.

Anglican scholar Rowan Williams, presently Archbishop of Canterbury, acknowledges the validity of this overview. He writes, “Heresy is the necessary precondition for orthodoxy, yet orthodoxy may be as much a metamorphosis (or pseudomorphosis) of the foundational religious idea as heresy” (The Making of Orthodoxy,1989).

Karen L. King describes the historical development of Christianity by reminding us of the children’s story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”—too much, too little, and just right. Jewish Christianity was too Jewish; Gnostic Christianity wasn’t Jewish enough; orthodox Christianity was just right (The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, 2003). Heresy and orthodoxy are second-century inherited terms.Giovanni33 00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio, the problem is that your sources are not mainstream. Karen King is hardly a giant in the field...Bauer's theory has yet to achieve mainstream acceptance...and while Williams is clearly an ecclesiastical authority, he's not exactly a "big gun" in terms of hitsorical scholarship. SOPHIA is correct (as is Str1977), that the views you're advocating are "new" and have not yet achieved widespread academic support. KHM03 ^(talk) 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Right on cue, KM03, you try to discredit legitimate sholars who are experts in the field. I will note that my opponents to not even cite ANY authorities for their views. The one time that you did, KM03, they failed to support your argument, and were not all "big guns" as I was able to show (one was a pop-journalist). Since you are making claims again about these scholars, I'd like you to support these claims.

About Karen L. King, she is a Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University in the Divinity School. She is a regular consultant Religion and Human Rights, and Dr. King has received awards from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst, Harvard Divinity School, the Irvine Foundation, and Occidental College. She is the author of several books and scores of articles in scholarly publications. She was is Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity, Harvard University, The Divinity School, 1998–; Professor, Department of Religious Studies, Occidental College, 1984–1998. She was a member, organizing committee of the Gnosticism and Nag Hammadi Section, Society of Biblical Literature, 1995– Chair, Religious Studies Department, Occidental College, 1991–1994, 1995 Member, Seminar on Gender and Methodology funded by AAR Collaborative Research Grant, 1988–1995; Member, steering committee, Thomas Christianity Section, Society of Biblical Literature, 1992–1994 Member of Nominating Committee, Society of Biblical Literature, 1991–1994 Chair, Nominating Committee, Society of Biblical Literature, 1992–1993 Advisory Board, Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist-Ecumenical Commentary and Translation, 1990–1993; Chair, Women's Studies Program, Occidental College, 1989–1990, 1991–1993; Panel Presentation, "Women in the Profession," Society of Biblical Literature National Meeting, November 1993; Chair, Section on "Female and Male in Gnosticism," Society of Biblical Literature, 1986–1992; Member, editorial board, journal Religion, 1992– Co-convener, Conference on Women and Goddess Traditions, 1992 Member, Council of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1988–1990 Working Member, International Committee for the Manichaean Codices of Medinet Madi, 1986–1988; Member-at-Large, Pacific Coast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, Executive Committee, 1985–1988 Member, International Association for Coptic Studies, 1985– Research Council, Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1985– Convener, International Conference on Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, 1985 Co-Chair, Section on Greco-Roman Religion, Pacific Coast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature Awards and Honors;The Sterling Award, Occidental College, 1995; The George A. and Eliza Gardner Howard Foundation Fellowship, 1994–1995 Women's Studies in Religion Fellowship, Harvard Divinity School, 1994–1995 Sojourner Truth Award, Occidental College Women's Center, 1993 Irvine Foundation Grant for Curricula Development, 1992 Irvine Foundation Grant for Curricular Development, 1991 Graves Award for research leave, 1990;Student Affairs Award for exceptional service to student life, Occidental College, 1989 ;Loftsgordon Award for excellence in teaching, Occidental College, 1989 Study Visit Grant, Deutsche Akademische Austauschdient, 1986 ;Travel to Collections Award, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1986;Direct Stipend for doctoral research, Deutsche Akademische Austauschdient, 1982–1983 [24] But since scholars like this who are authorities in their field, are not accepted by you, such as the Yales Professior on Early Chirstianity Bentley Layton, I'd like to see you quote the "big guns" in a way that clearly refutes the possitions and understandings I have laid out for the thinking of these "little guns." If you do that then you will have a point.Giovanni33 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point...these scholars have phDs...yes, fine. But that doesn't make their views part of the academic mainstream. If it make syou happy to list awards won (however that's relevant), then fine. Enjoy. But it has no bearing on the argument. It deson't matter where someone works...what matters is how the work they've produced is accepted in the academy. The scholars you have cited have views that have (to date) not been accepted widely. You and I can't change that, Gio, no matter how many awards you list. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To bring up the Evolution debate again - there are guys with Ph.D's in biology who's views on that subject are not considered scientific let alone mainstream. Sophia^TalkTCF 11:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right...a guy with a phD in biology who advocates creationism is not mainstream...he may be very bright, have a great job, and have received bunches of awards. But that doesn't mean his work is part of the mainstream. The folks you've listed, Gio, have views which haven't caught on in academia. We just need to recognize that. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with these points, but my point is that I'd like to see where the "mainstream" view as expressed by other reputable scholars specifically states a contrary view that disputes the understanding and view that is expressed above by my scholars. I just question where scholarly consensus is on these questions. If you can show me this then I'd be convinced. Giovanni33 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose I'd better drop in and say that I agree with KHM03 (and others), as sometimes my silence is apparently taken for agreement with Giovanni. AnnH ♫ 01:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is axiomatic. Giovanni33 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03. My silence indicates concurrence with him, not with Giovanni33. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni33. He makes an impressive argument and he and other editors who argue for a secular treatment of this artile are the only ones providing references to support their version. I think everyone dedicated to the concept of NPOV should support his NPOV version.MikaM 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should also chime in to state that I also agree with userGiovanni33. He makes his case, and even if not all scholars agree with this interpretation it is not a fringe view but is easily found in the academy among prominent scholars who are authorities in their fields related directly to early Christian history. That means that there is no reason to excluse this understanding. To suppress Giovanni's contributions and those of any editors who do not follow only one version of events, a version that is not even defended here with any references is a classic case of an article that is slanted by one POV . Sadly, all I've seen here is that the Christians to keep pushing for their Christian POV and the article reflects their bias. They are apparently too close to the subject matter to be willing to adopt the NPOV language other editors suggest, or to include information that will place their beloved religion in a possible negative light--even if it is historical facts. This article will not have any agreement soon with those following a religious committment dedicated as they are in a group here. As a result this article will continue to be a source of edit conflict until enough users are willing to join with Giovanni or strike a compromise to adopt more NPOV language, and cover more areas of history that should not be swept under the rug. FionaS 08:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Henceforth I will not repeat the argument why Gio's "orthodox is more intolerant than heretical" is wrong, in the light of the facts of the 4th century, since Gio is immune to these facts, calls counter-arguments a "straw man fallacy" of "others were intolerant" (when in fact he has been arguing that all along) and most especially, since it has no bearing on the article. Since neither O nor H were more or less intolerant than the other in general (H covers diverse and conflicting views) such a sentence would necessarily be inaccurate. So take my silence not as conceding or consensus (as it has become common among some) on that issue.
• As for the issue of whether there was an orthodoxy: I agree that heresy is the motor that drives the development of orthodox doctrine: every council that ever defined a doctrine did so not out of a lust for defining or of knowing a lot, but to guard the integrity of the faith against heresies. But that didn't start in 325 with Nicaea. Even the case of Valentinus (100-153) gives evidence for the existence of orthodox doctrine, as Valentinus was rejected because of his teachings, even if that didn't yet involve a formal condemnation. Marcion (110-160) was expulsed twice from his respective congregations, the Montanists (latter half of 2nd century) were eventually condemned, even the Apostles did define doctrine (Acts 15) or warn against false teachings (Paul). Gio, you are demanding a monolithical shape for the early Church that she didn't have and that she still doesn't have, but failure to satisfy your expectations does not equal to proof of your claims. There was diversity, but there also was orthodoxy.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Much of the debate is not about the facts, but about (a) their relevance and (b) the tone and context in which they are mentioned. I support the suggestion that much of this material should be covered in the article on Early Christianity, not just because is controversial but also too detailed to be covered in a general article on Christianity. The development of orthodoxy, the Arian controversy, and the Roman establishment are all topics from over a millennium ago, and are simply fairly marginal to an overview of Christianity: worth mentioning briefly, not banging on about. An article on Early Christianity, by contrast, I would expect to go into detail about Arianism, Ebionites, heresy trials, suppression of paganism, and the political entanglements of the church in Rome and Constantinople. As for bias towards a relatively conservative view, this is a universal tendency in reference sources: it is inherent to the NPOV adopted by the most respected works that they are cagey about new scholarship and slow to endorse it. Myopic Bookworm 09:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Myopic Bookworm is spot on. However I think there is some history to this as Giovanni first started contributing here, was convinced to move to Early Christianity only to see that article reverted to a stub rather than see his as the only version of events. This obviously has divided ranks and there is no love lost between the sides.

That is all really irrelevant and the point of all this is how we move on. First I would say to FionaS that I'm an atheist who personally finds the lack of orthodoxy explaination of Early Christianity much more convincing than the idea that there was broad agreement among some central group. This is not how the world generally works and I see no reason to think 1st century Jews/Gentiles were more cooperative as a group than would be expected today. Of course if you accept the concept of the Holy Spirit this changes everything as there is then some guidance to the process but this of course is a Christian POV.

The synthesis/Jesus Myth view is very new in academic timescales. What ever the reasons may be - academic ridicule, blasphemy laws (UK), the control of early documents by interested parties (Vatican), the vast amounts of pro Christian scholarship funded by the wealth of the churches etc. In the middle ages you could not go to university in the UK unless you studied divinity (Christian of course). None of this matters to the article. The controversies should be covered in their respective places but any new idea is just that - new not mainstream. I have suggested the separate section in Early Christianity as personally it's the only way I can see to resolve the long term differences between the respective sides. This approach has been taken at Evolution where the controversies are covered in a separate section on the main article purely because it's a hot topic in the news and it confines religiously motivated pseudo science to one section (I betray my POV!) and stops it being spread over the article leading to edit wars. Since Giovanni has lots of references and information I suspect the section he would write would be quite long. If it gets too big just maybe a separate article could be considered. I don't think it's fair to revert the article to a stub just because the mainstream view of Early Christianity has not been written. As long as Giovanni's section is clearly labeled as "new/emerging" (whatever) research it will be clear to the reader that they are not reading the established view. My point to KHM03 above was that the title of the "new" section must be NPOV and not imply that it is somehow superior - just new.

Can I suggesst that we now move to Early Christianity and work on the new section. As to the tolerance/intolerance issue that should be discussed on the pages about the various denominations - not here. Sophia^TalkTCF 09:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that there's no consensus for Gio's changes...seems split to me. I agree with SOPHIA that we move on over to EC and try and get a "new views" or similar section for Gio to create. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be willing to leave out the tolerance/intolerance points from this main article in deference of consensus from both sides (not just the Christian side--that is not real consensus). That Sophia has also suggested it seems that consensus is there for me to move this point elsewhere, and I am inclinded to do so. However, Str1977 is simply incorrect about this and he has failed to provide any references to support his view, stated above. Dogmatism is one of the most annoying things for me. However, the other points (NPOV language to describe heresies--who labeled who as heretical, and that they then sought to eradicate them), the fact that there was significant diversity in early Christianity (we do not need to name them there--just mention the fact per the Layton quote--even Str1977 concedes this point), and the other language differences for clarity, should all be a part of this main article. Giovanni33 12:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The way that the "extant documents" controversy in the Jesus article has been handled (and seems to be stable) is the mainstream view has been presented in the main body of the article with separate sentences saying other scholars disagree with this view giving links and references to the disputed views. This level of detail should suffice in this "catch all" christianity article. On the Early Christianity article, within the section on "new" scholarship the full glories of the debate can be laid bare. Sophia^TalkTCF 12:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in place a good faith version that is greatly trimmed down. I removed the mention of no one orthodoxy, but left in that there was great diversity. I removed intolerance points, and quotes that gave details about the intolerance and oppression, and that characterized the nature of the resulting orthodox church, I've pushed for, including removing "programs were enacted to oppress, exile, or exterminate both pagans and heretical Christian groups, promoting the confiscation of property and the destruction of religious literature." I also removed the tolerane of violence against Jews, and I removed the Durant quote about mangnitude of deaths of fellow Christians at their own hands.I did leave in that heresy was made punishable by death, however. I also left the NPOV language about heresy (relativism)--but I removed the language "dealt with other versions of Christianity," which Str1077 objected to the most, even though I think most editors did agree with it, if not the other points. I removed "and sought to eradicate them" (stronger and more accurate) to the acceptable but weaker "suppressed." I left in that 'the adoption of Christianity was a very gradual process as pagan cultural ideas continued as can be seen by medieval literary works such as Beowulf." There was support for this point among both sides. I hope this good faith compromise is something everyone can live with. It was not easy removing my own material, but edit waring is worse and unless I take these steps I fear both sides will continues. I expect more tweaking, ofcourse, and lets see how it evolves. Nothing is sacrosanct (in my POV). Id like if both sides tried to work together better instead of taking sides/camps, and thinking of their opponents as enemies, etc. Giovanni33 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

reason for edit

Giovanni is right that the original sentence was POV, but seems to have failed to explain why..... I haven't bothered to read through all of the recent conversation, as I never know where it begins and ends, but Christ is a term that is not unique to Christianity, and is more of a holy title. Whether Jesus was actually Christ is up to interpretation, and the way I have editted it, does not neglect the Christian view, nor leaves it certain that Jesus was Christ. In other words balanced. I trust no one has a problem with this. I'm about to go find the actual definition of Christ to show you exactly what I mean.... so another post very soon.

KV 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My first definition comes from Manly P. Hall in The Secret Teachings of All Ages pp. 583-4.... "That the ''Christos'' represents the solar power rverenced by every nation of antiquity cannot be controverted..... [T]he name and personality of Christos, thereby giving to this abstract power the attributes of a god-man, He but followed a precedent set by all previous World-Teachers. This god-man, thus endowed with all the qualities of Deity, signifies the latent divinity in every man. Mortal man achieves deification only through at-one-ment with this divine Self. Union with the immortal Self is therefore 'saved'. This Christos, or divine man in man, is man's real hope of salvation -- the living Mediator between abstract Deity and mortal humankind...... so Jesus has been confused with the Christos, or god-man, whose wonders He preached. Since the Christos was the god-man imprisoned in every creature, it was the first duty of the initiate to liberate, or 'ressurect' this Eternal One within himself. He who attained reunion with his Christos was consequently termed a Christian or Christened man."

Now, this of course refers not to Christian as in this article, but the original Greek term. Certainly, it would be POV to state that Jesus was a god-man... as it may well indeed be to leave it out.... but the rewording serves to neither imbue upon nor remove this title from Jesus. Another definition coming up.

KV 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The other book I thought would define it, I gave up looking for after finding the index having the 6th mention of Christ, where the main idea had nothing to do with the term.... so instead, I present a myriad of web definitions: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:christ

messiah: any expected deliverer

Christ, from the Greek in english known as Χριστός, or Khristós, means anointed, and is equivalent to the Hebrew term Messiah from our own Wikipedia

Christ is a title. It is the NT equivalent of the OT term 'messiah' and means 'anointed one.'

from the Greek "christos," meaning "anointed one" or "chosen one." See also Messiah.

means: anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word translated "Messiah"

So basically, all these definitions are pointing to Jesus Christ meaning Jesus, the Messiah. So, I once again stand by my assertion that the new version, neither affirming nor denying Jesus's Christhood, as being a NPOV version, while having it simply state "Jesus Christ" or ignoring the Christ title being applied to Jesus by Christians as done by Giovanni, both have a POV quality to them. Hopefully, I have thoroughly explained myself.

KV 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I noticed "centered on the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus" Is it necessary to say actions if life is mentioned? I always thought life and teachings included actions...... This doesn't effect the article being POV or NPOV..... but just a stylistic mention.

KV 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit, KV. I only added one word to the sentence make it more NPOV, as this makes clear that Jesus's life, teachings, etc. assumes in the existence of a real historical Jesus, which we all know is an assumption and not an established fact. Hence the need for a word like "purported." This word works well, to review for those might object: pur·port·ed ( p…r-pôr“t¹d, -p ½r“-) adj. 1. Assumed to be such; supposed: the purported author of the story. pur·port “ed·ly adv. Giovanni33 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's all that NPOV to say purported...... I did think that there was some tax-based evidence or crucifixion records by the Romans..... and why make someone up when you can elevate another? It's very unlikely that there was not a man named Jesus, who had some followers, and was crucified, and served the basis for the Biblical figure, either accurately or inaccurately. Perhaps a statement that some doubt the existence of Jesus should be placed a bit further down, but not in the first sentence.

KV 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, perhaps lighter language might better.... "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the New Testement's account of the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ. It's clearer that it's not saying that Jesus certainly existed as a real person.... by putting account and life closer, but doesn't seem to put forth the idea that he may have been completely fabricated so prominently. That can be put elsewhere, less prominently in the article.

KV 06:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My only point is to not assume something as a fact that has not been established as a fact. I dont have any objection to your lighter language/treatment above. It's fine with me. Jesus may have really existed but it's an assumption, and not a given. There is a real legitimate academic possition which prefers to assume the other way (a minority view)-- that Jesus is mythical. There are good arguments and reasons but this is a topic of another article, see the Jesus-Myth, or the Historicity of Jesus. There is no tax-based evidence of Jesus. The are only two pieces of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus which have any reliability, and only one of those has any decent reliability, but that is a very short passage by Josephus--and even that is debatable and often disputed. There is, thus, not enough evidence to regard his existence as a given, but there is enough to consider it reasonably possible. To quote an expert, Prof. Dr. Price says, "There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too,...but I don't think we can simply assume there was." [25] His views are shared by the likes of scholars who are authorities in their field. His credicials: [26] Part of the reason for this is because the story of Jesus conforms virtually in every detail to the Mythic Hero Archetype, with no "secular" or mundane information left over. Even with people like Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, who might have suffered the fate--no historians dismiss them as mere myths like Paul Bunyan, because there is some residue left over of a secular nature--we know at least a bit of mundane information about them, and sometimes a lot of information that does not form part of any legend cycle. Jesus may have been real figure (at the core--before all the religious myths and legengs were attached to him), but there is simply no longer any way of being sure. Giovanni33 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Gio, please don't try to imitate another editor (who of whom I am speaking). The existence of Jesus is not an assumption, it is a finding. It is as good a fact as any other historical data.
• The story of Jesus does not conform to any "hero archetype" - someone inventing a crucified saviour god would have been a fool in the context of the 1st century culture - and that is what Christians were considered.
• Like most instances of "secular" on these pages, "secular information" is bullocks as well.
• The evidence for the other historical persons you name could not stand against the scepticism selectively applied by some in Jesus' case.
• There is really no reason to try to satisfy a fringe view about Jesus (that is only included in the Jesus article by the good will of editors) in an article on Christianity.
• I agree with KV's concerns about the "purported". However, his lighter language doesn't work as it is, well, based on a protestant POV. Christianity is not in general centered on the New Testament. It is centred on Jesus' life and death - that is what all Christians agree upon - and the Bible is the source for that life and death. This all has been discussed before and the current wording already is sufficently POV.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I had to make the following edits:

• "purported" had to go as it is in fact not NPOV but rather pushing a certain POV (that of inaccuracy or even non-existence), when the sentence is already sufficently NPOV by the addition "as recounted in the NT"

Not a big issue for me but purport only means that it is an assumption not a fact. You may use faith to treat it as a fact but that is your POV, and can't be stated here in that way. Saying, "as told by the New Testament" is good enough for me because it refers to the Christian book of faith, not facts. So that is fine, but otherwise the language needs to refect Jesus's existence is an assumption. (GIO)

No, Jesus' existence is not an assumption, or a matter of faith (in the narrower sense), but a finding of historians just as the existence of Socrates. But that's not the point here (or at least, it shouldn't be), the point is that the NT accounts are the source for Christians (though of course we Christians believe that these are accurate) and that is, as you said, already covered with "as recounted ...". To include it twice is IMHO fishy, bordering on pushing a POV. (STR)

Actually, it is an assumption, but one does not have to assume much.... it's around the same amount of assumption needed to assume that Giovanni isn't Jimmy Wales. (KV)

• The circumstantial Hebrew etymology is unnecessary, the intrusion of "simply" strange, the "greek athletes" extremely awkward and absolutely off topic. This section is about Christian beliefs.

True, but Christian beliefs are best explained by referencing a body of knowelege beyond a Christian POV to talk about Christian beliefs, no? That is what that does. Its only strange from a Christian POV, but its more encylopedic, esp. for a secular encylopedia. (GIO)

Yes, but adding the Hebrew etymology doesn't do that. And adding something about athletes with no real connection to Jesus (Jews weren't so much into sports, see 1 Maccabees) doesn't do that either. (STR)

• "This belief was shaped by the writings of St. Paul." is a POV claiming to be fact. Also, it has no place in this descriptive section about Christian teachings.

That was not my addition, and I agree that as worded is POV, although stating how a belief was shaped is important later in the article. (GIO)

I didn't say it was yours. I merely explained all my edits. (STR)

• Despite what Gio wrote above, he reincluded "different versions" and the truism that everyone thought to be right. At the same he surpressed information about the developing church hierarchy.

I did remove the wording for the treatment of heresies, i.e., "the church dealt with different versions by defining them as heresies, etc." I changed this and now treat it with this language instead: "Christian thinkers engaged in disputes among themselves as to the correct interpretation of Christian teaching, regarding their opponents as heretics, which often led to bitter conflict between supporters of what became the orthodox consensus and dissenting church groups." But, there were certainly different versions and its not at all a trusim that everyone thought their version was the only correct one. Maybe that is how you think but I never think my thoughts are the only valid, right way to look at something or interpret any given reality. We are all biased by our experiences and perspective. That is why I believe in using NPOV langauge and content which results when many POV's are considered and given room. So, that fact that they each regarded their version as correct is an important point that relates to their dogmatism and intolerance, and it also allows each version to assert an equal claim to being right, which is something the winning version wants to deny. In this sense its related to a NPOV treatment.

• I removed Hellenistic again, as it is really non-descriptive in a world shaped by Hellenism.

No, it is descriptive, since in that contect it was Greek thought and culture which was fused into Jewish thought that helped Christian thinking. (GIO)

Than we should look for a better way of including the link. (STR)

• "It is widely acknowledged ... grew alongside older religions ..." is a meaningless sentence -of course Christianity grew alongside of other religions existing at the time. It used to be a contentious POV statement which was made uncontentious by removing the controversial bits - now its meaningless. The substance of controversial influence can be covered in a better way, as in the other version.

Also, this is not meaningless if you look at the full sentence, which connects this fact to possible influences of these ideas which may have been aborded into the developing Christian beliefs. This caa be reworded in a better way, I agree, and I'll do that shortly. (GIO)

I will consider your version. (STR)

• I moved up the bit about theological disputes, heresy, condemnation (explicitely: "by Church authorities) to this section, as it began here.
• I removed the Beowulf passage again. We had at least some consensus to leave it out, to avoid bloating the section. If we want include it, it belongs into the early Middle Ages. You can hardly use Beowulf as evidence for an alleged (not proven) gradual adaption of Christianiy in Antiquity.

Of course I can use Beouwulf as evidence for the very well established fact that the adoption of Chrstian beliefs by the population was very gradual. Scholars are intersted in Beouwulf for exactly this reason as it proves this is was the case. Your excuse to remove it because you think its "bloating" is not convcinging, but suppressing it due to POV is more likley. It's thus restored. There was no consesus to remove it in the first place. (GIO)

Not if that population in regard to Beowulf was Germanic and medieval and in regard to the context here was Greek and Roman and ancient. (STR)

• I reincluded the "difficult to extricate" bit Gio removed.

This removal was not intentional on my part and I do not oppose this restored passage.

• I removed the strange "an orthodox Christianity" - there can be only one "orthodox" Christianity, not some or an.

What is strange is your objection. Actually some scholars argue there were more than one "orthodox" Christianity early on (a heterodoxy), but this is besides the point. Assuming you want to to idenfity only one, "an orthodox Christianity" is singular. An is just like "a"--its singular unlike "some." (GIO)

Th. made the one orthodox Christianity, orthodox according to his view and according to the view of the Church, the state religion. "Orthodox" means "of the right opinion" - and logically there can be only one right opinion in a dispute, though there can be many wrong opinions. Hence it must be singular. "An" assumes that there are other "Orthodoxies" within Christianity. (STR)

• The disputes and ecclesiastical reactions to heresy I moved up to the preceding passage.
• I reincluded the Ecumenical councils.
• I removed "heresy was made punishable by death" - please Gio give a reference for that. Th. certainly made orthodox Christianity and Judaism the only legal religions in the Empire, banning pagan cults and supressing the heretical organisations, but ... there was no inquisition trying to find closet heretics. If heresy was punishable by death, than why was the execution of Priscillian (for magic) controversial among many great minds (Martin, Ambrosius, Pope)? And that was under Magnus Maximus. Where is the heretic punished by death under Theodosius. (Note, I am not talking Manichaeists who had been persecuted since Diocletian). I am seriously asking you this question, Gio, so please answer this.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Take a look at this timeline of Early Christianity. It states that in "0382 Emperor Theodosius the Great passed laws making heresy punishable by death." [27]Giovanni33 11:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about a real reference, not just a timeline saying that it was so, especially one taken from a hostile website and which ridiculously preface any historical date by "Christians believe ..." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I editted some more:

• I splitted the Constantine & co. section into two: the first covering the legalisation and the intensifying disputes, the second covering the connection between Christian and general history, the status of Christianity in the Empire, the supression measures. I simplified the phrase about heresies since we have already covered further up who defined these heresies.
• I now removed the etymology from the "Christ" section all together, as it is already covered in the intro.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored some of my changes that were Str1977 reverted. I restored the Layton quote about the great diversity in early Christianity, and the NPOV language. The version that Str1977 is inserting in some parts is either not accurate--for examples when it suggests that a diversity only existed among Gentile Christians because they were separated by geography--is redundant, when it mentions the formation of a church hierarchy (stated that later in the article)-- or uses POV language, such as "a distinctively Christian theology" as if there was only one distinct theology, or "the correct interpretation of Christian teaching" that again assuming there is a one correct interpreation as a matter of fact. This again assumes the voice of one group, that won in the disputes, and rewards their political victory by assuming their voice as the "correct interpretation." This is all POV language. The same problems in language go on by saying, "Christian teachers also sought to distinguish their faith from other religious beliefs of the day, notably Gnosticism and Mithraism," when in fact one major branch of early Chrisitans were the Gnostic Christians. This treats them an "other religion," and again this is POV. Giovanni33 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can live with the Layton quote, as long as the other info is contained as well. There is no other mentioning of the hierarchy in the article and chronologically it belongs here. "Among Gentile Christians" doesn't imply that diversity existed only among them, but it is Gentile Christianity that the rest of the article is about.
• "a distinctive Christian theology" is accurate and "correct interpretation" does not suggest what you are saying (and was your wording anyway). BTW, assuming there is one correct interpretation is not POV - this text doesn't say what this correct interpreation is. Assuming there is no correct interpretation is POV, in fact a very extreme POV which I call "relativism".
• I agree with you, somewhat about Gnosticism, though there were Christian Gnostics and non-Christian gnostics. What should we do about that? - I include it among the heresies.
• More than half of your reverts are not addressed here - I voiced my objections to them clearly.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The hierachy point is mentioned in the context of the rise to that State Religion and the formation of an established orthodxy, but I can live with how you have it.
• Saying "Among Gentile Christians," does indeed imply that diverity existed only among then, and also only because of the "great distances." This is what I think the language in your version does imply, and hence its not accurate.
• Assuming there is one correct interpration of Christianity is a POV. We can not make that assumption but only stated that this is what the Christian groups believed. Note this does not state there is no correct interpreation--although I don't think there is any one correct interpration (religion is not science), but to use a NPOV wording that doesn't assuming the stance of one view as "correct" is required in my view of the NPOV policy.
• Yes, there were different Gnostic schools, just as there were different Jewish schools, and among both of them only some regarded themselves as Christians. We we need not concern ourselves here with this level of detail, as the link to Gnostism explains this. It suffices to refer to Christian Gnostics.Giovanni33 11:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you deleted this by mistake, so I'm reposting it:

I made a further synthesis of the two versions (Str1977 and mine). Let me know how it looks now. Thanks. Giovanni33 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think we are making progress and very close to finally reaching a version that both sides can live with. Giovanni33 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio,

• the development of the hierarchy already since the 1st century was not mentioned - there appears an "institutional Church" which commits all kinds of bad things.
• "Among Gentile Christians ..." because we had just talked about Jewish Christians, some of the remnants disagreeing with the Church, separating and splintering in´to various sects (e.g. Ebionites). "Gentile Christians" make up the vast bulk of Christians (even including those Jews that henceforth came to accept Christ) and it is gentile Christians the rest of the article deals with. But I am open to a better wording.
• Assuming there is no correct interpreation of Christianity is an extreme POV - we cannot decide what that correct interpretation is, but we must allow for the possibility that Christianity is true. Religion is not science, but nonetheless issue of truth remains. So, "not assuming one view correct" (but reporting on the fact that decisions were reached), but also not assuming that there is no correct view.
• I hope my edit regarding Gnostics did the trick.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the latest version I kept the 1st century hierachy reference.
• Yes, Gentile (Pauline) Christians were the dominant group, and I only think the way its worded is misleading. I changed the wording to make it clearer that the diversity did not imply simply among this group nor due to simply distances.
• Yes, assuming there is no one correct view would be a POV, but so would assuming there is on correct POV. That is why my language doesn't assume either. It does allow for the possiblity that a view may be correct--or not correct. We dont take sides only report that each group regarded itself as correct. I personally think there is no one correct view, as in one true view--its just a matter of what you want to create for what purpose. Its the nature of such subjective beliefs found in any religion and its thousands of sects. I only insist that one group not be given the title of being correct and this is stated by reporting that each thought they were correct. I don't think we agree about how to use the language in principal for the article. Our disagreements need not be an issue as neither of us includes our POV in it. Giovanni33 12:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Assuming there is no correct interpretation is the most extreme POV possibly. It is basically the atheist's "All religion's rubbish anyway!" POV. Reporting disagreement about the correct interpretation is not taking sides, reporting decisions isn't either. Stating that each considered itself true is a truism. Everyone considers his own views true, otherwise he wouldn't hold them. Would you include such a truism in report of scientific or philosophical debate. I guess not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Allora, let me explain my last edit:

• I removed the "separated by geography", though it's undoubtedly true, from the "diversity passage", but I also removed the trusim.
• I reinstated the accurate and NPOV version of the doctrinal disputes.
• The Beowulf passage I moved to its proper chronological place.
• I again removed the "heresy punishable by death" passage until a proper reference is given, either or the legislation or of the implementation (as I said Priscillian was controversial in his day). This timeline is no source at all.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For the "Punishable by death quote I found this in [28]newadvent.org

In the Edict of 382, Theodosius pronounced sentence of death on all those who took the name of Encratites, Saccophori, or Hydroparastatæ, and commanded Florus, the Magister Officiarum, to make strict search for these heretics, who were Manichæans in disguise.

Is this any use Gio? Sophia^TalkTCF 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If they were considered Manichaeans in disguise that'd fall under the edict of Diocletian persecuting Manichaeism. So nothing new. What we are looking for here are Arians or the like. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 you are making comparisions of Religious ideas with Science again. Those two are not the same. The "correctness" of one religious version is not correct in the sense that it science deems a possition correct. But, even science holds the truth of its conclusion to be tenative--not absolute (unlike religion). Still, the very nature of religious opnion is not objective but subjective. "Heresey" is used to describe and discredit ones opponents in the early Christian Church. They each described thier own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "thinking") Thus "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point-of-view of a position within a sect that has been previously defined as "orthodox". Thus, too, any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as "heretical" by others within that field who are convinced that their view is "orthodox"; in the sciences this extension is made only in tongue-in-cheek. Ofcourse heretics do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value-judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system that itself has not means to objectively determine one view as true and other as fasle: it serves politics and power, not truth. Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the "Great Apostasy."

That is why for heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox, such as those proposed by Catholicism. Catholicism is only true to Catholics--no one else. This is unlike Science--there is one scientific method that is objective and its conclusions are not determined by the predjudices of the investigators want to fine (if its done correctly). That is why we must use NPOV language to describe both heresy, orthodox and "correct interpretation." Its only correct to those who have the power to enforce the belief. Its a matter of POV. Its like saying some law that punishes someoen for stealing bread when he is hungry is wrong. And that is it is wrong is the correct and only truth!! No, it isn't, it's only a POV from a particular perspective that could depend if you are hungry or not, if you are rich or poor. :)

Here is your quote about Th. and the death penalty, again, from a new source: "379-395 Reign of emporor Theodosius I. His reign was marked by a sort of "cultural revolution". A reign of terror was instituted. All religions other than Catholism were banned and religious persecution became state policy. Under the "Theodosian Laws" heresy became treason and was punishable by death. Numerous books and religious buildings were destroyed. "Heretics" were forcibly expelled from larger cities and had their property seized." [29] This states its source is none other than the esteemed Bentley Layton "The Gnostic Scriptures" and Kurt Rudolph "Gnosis."Giovanni33 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The great diversity is more than just among Gentiles, so I changed this. I restored the “trueism” that each regarded itself as the truth (not a trusism) as explained.
• I removed the redandency that that’s Hellenistic culture and Greek philosophy become a significant influence, and then states again hat Early Christian theologians worked to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, and Christianity, developing a distinctively Christian theology. This overdoes it when only a brief mention is necessary.
• I restored the NPOV language about “correct interpreation.” Hence:

“Christian thinkers engaged in disputes among themselves over different interpretations of Christian teaching, regarding their opponents as heretics, which often led to bitter conflict between supporters of what became the orthodox consensus and dissenting church groups.”

• I kept your movement of the gradual adoption section. Giovanni33 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in order for heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox. It is the contention of Catholics and Orthodox alike that just such an authoritative system did exist, beginning with Jesus and his immediate followers. This was the position of early Christians like Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Irenaeus, and naturally of many later historians. That is admittedly one POV, but it's been around a long time and still persists today. Another POV is that there was no such authoritative system, that all were "equally correct" until the Empire came along. When did this notion arise, 100 years ago or so? Wesley

Regarding Theodosius I and his death penalty, the article at least needs to make it plain that he was an Emperor, not a bishop or patriarch. It's worth mentioning that "non-heretics" were also banished and killed by the Empire during this time, throughout the fourth century, and also in later centuries, because of what they believed and preached. Wesley 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the death pentalty, yes, you are correct, Wesley, and I'd welcome your edit to this effect. Although I do note that Theodosius was a Christian Emperor and was baptised by the local Catholic Bishop, Acholius. Giovanni33 23:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your point of "correct interpretation" issue, there are actualy two points. I agree the view you stated is the maintream view and its challenged, but I left out this point of contenion for this article. The point that is of issue here an understanding and therefore use of the language for "correct interpretation." I maintain that we must adopt NPOV language in how we characterize what is "correct." Its only correct to those who forumulated the orthodoxy; I do not stated that there can be no correct POV (as Str1977 thinks im doing), but only want be careful not to assume that it was correct, adopting this POV. Rather, I simply want to characterize and reflect the parties assertion of it being correct, hence branding/defining those who disagreed as heresies--instead of accepting the lables as factually correct. Its a subtle difference but an important one to ensure a NPOV treatment of the matter. Giovanni33 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio,

• can we please have a proper reference and just timelines, a timeline containing inaccuracies in this case (as with Ambrosius). It also contains contradictions in regard to our issue, saying that "Heretics were forcibly expelled from larger cities and had their property seized." - how that if there were subject to the death penalty? Examples for the implementation of the death penalty would be nice too.
• could please stop demanding that your relativistic and anti-religious POV that religion is all subjective should be the norm. Of course, orthodoxy and heresy only work within the confines of one religion which agrees upon its basis (and in that regard Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism are two, as they don't agree on their basis) - theology is a field of scholarship (in German we'd say Wissenschaft, which is not confined to mere "natural science") just as physics (though many contemporary theologian fail in that regard).
• your truism remains a truism
• I see you have gone back on your previous tolerance towards the "among Gentile Christians"

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll get you a "proper" reference. I just like time-lines.
• As explained above I only want the language not to assume the voice of the winner who proclaims their interpretation as correct, as if that is a fact. By stating that they all regarded their own beliefs as correct, we avoid this POV treatment. Thus, while you call it a trusim (I certainly don't---I don't believe I have any monopoly on truth, and don't believe in notions of absolute truth with complex ideologies). I don't think this is being anti-religious, although I agree its contrary to the religious POV. So its simply a non-religious, secular treatment with is keeping with the secular NPOV policies of Wikipeadia. Its not being anti or pro religion.
• The field of theology is often distinguished from many other established Academic disciplines that cover the same subject area; it is distinguished by its viewpoint, which is studied from within a faith, rather than from without) and its practical involvement, and which is why its distinguished distinguished from the disciplines of Comparative religion/Religious studies, Philosophy of Religion,The History of Religions, Psychology of Religion and the Sociology of Religion. All of these approach religion with humanistic presuppositions and assume a uniformity in religious faith and experience, unlike most theology. There are some who aproach theology using secular assumptions as well, but its not uniform. For NPOV purposes, we need avoid adopting a POV that assumes religious conceptions as the mode to speak from.
• Yes, I restored the diversity point that we are both making but I don't want it to only say "among Gentiles," since that is not accurate. The diversity was much more broader. Giovanni33 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Beowulf

I would favor leaving out Beowulf...it's really a long way to go to prove a point. It's barely relevant, and completely unnecessary in a brief overview such as the one we're offering. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's important for an historical understanding and context, and a surprise as most people don't realize just how gradual the adoption of Christian beliefs were, or the long adherence to pagan beliefs centuries later that were expressed to a Christian audience from a Christian author of these literary works. Given how brief the mention is, it's hardly taking up any space to mention this quite interesting factual insight, and provides a great value considering the understanding it imparts to a reader. Its educational value and relevance makes it more than worthy. Giovanni33 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why Beowulf and not the Eddas? The Arthurian cycle? It seems to me to be more suggestive while proving very little. Mind you, I believe that these (and other) writings contain pre-Christian ideas that "morphed" into other tales, but I'm not sure they're necessary here or that we accomplish anything by their inclusion...just say, "In many places, paganism (or whatever) only gradually gave way to Christian theology..." and leave it at that (hopefully worded a bit better). KHM03 ^(talk) 13:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And if we want to include it, we should do so in the proper place (early MA). Right now it is at least misplaced. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to dispute the Beowulf comment. The persistence of pagan elements through the Christian transmission of the poem does nothing, so far as I can see, to indicate that the transition from paganism to Christianity was significantly gradual. It could just as well have been quite sudden: the newly converted Christian Saxons were then faced with whether and how to adapt and retain some of their existing literary culture, and the result was something of a hybrid as the text couldn't be wholly Christianized without making it nonsensical. I don't think it's a clear enough point to be citable here. Myopic Bookworm 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the literature on Beowulf, and it appears you are correct in this point. While the point I use it for is indeed made (I remember this from a class I took years ago), there are other theories about the mixture of pagan and Christian ideas it contains. Therefore, the point is not not sufficient strong with this example and certainly not incontrovertible. Ineed Beowulf in this connext is ambigious and there are unresolved questions still, which in part is what makes it intersting. For examples, this Prof. write: "Finally, to the list of mysteries surrounding Beowulf we must add the ambiguous role of Christianity in the poem. That the scribes of Cotton Vitellius A.XV were Christian is beyond doubt; and it is equally certain that Beowulf was composed in a Christianized England, since conversion took place in the sixth and seventh centuries. Yet the only Biblical references in Beowulf are to the Old Testament, and Christ is never mentioned. The poem is set in pagan times, and none of the characters is demonstrably Christian. In fact, when we are told what anyone in the poem believes, we learn that they are idol worshipping pagans. Beowulf’s own beliefs are not expressed explicitly. He offers eloquent prayers to a higher power, addressing himself to the “Father Almighty” or the “Wielder of All.” Were those the prayers of a pagan who used phrases the Christians subsequently appropriated? Or, did the poem’s author intend to see Beowulf as a Christian Ur-hero, symbolically refulgent with Christian virtues?" http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/1999-03/yeager.html Giovanni33 07:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. KHM03 ^(talk) 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't necessarily dispute the point that the example is intended to make, but I think Beowulf is a poor choice to illustrate it. As I recall (it has been a while), the Christian elements in Beowulf are 'kludged on' rather than integrated into the narrative. I think someone mentioned the Arthurian legends as a better example. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If one wants some proof that Christianity seeped in slowly, why not look at the fact that Christmas is essentially the pagan holiday of Yule with Jesus thrown in the mix...... who I have heard quite some debate was actually born in the Fall or Spring, based upon biblical references. Easter has a lot of pagan practices still within, which the Easter Bunny is part of, Halloween was certainly pagan and changed by the church to All Hallowed Eve (I know the day after Halloween was actually called Samhain, but I'm not sure what one would call the day before Samhain).... Now, from my understanding, it was some papal edict that said the best way to convert people was to allow them to keep their old traditions, but Christianize them. This may be a much more fruitful route.

KV 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KV, to be precise Christmas is not essentially Yule, though elements of that feast might be present in northern lands. From the Bible we cannot gather a birthday for Jesus. Easter is the Jewish holiday of Passover - but you can use the Bunny (don't know when that appears) as example that there exist pagan remnants, that reemerge in today's consumer-friendly and not-Christian time. The papal letter you are talking about, I think, was in regard to the fest of All Saints, which was moved to November sometime in the Early Middle Ages. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Christmas and Easter are certainly more widely familiar examples of Christian holidays that apparently incorporate some pagan elements in at least some parts of the world. Finding such elements, whether in Easter or in Beowulf, is not the same thing as demonstrating that they were initially based on pagan elements, or that Christianity was only adopted gradually. Is Christianity still in the process of being adopted, simply because of the continued widespread use of Christmas trees? Wesley 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A Jehova's Witness would say so. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sure to write a little bit on this talk page about it with FULL REFERENCES. Take the Nativity out of Christmas and there's not a bit of Christianity left in :)

KV 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Beowulf and mainstream views

The Beowulf mention is one of the weirdest items in this article. Jkelly 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Beowulf mention is a bit odd and misplaced, barely relevant, and quite unnecessary. If we must have it, we don't need AD or CE. Nobody who reads that section is going to think from it that Beowulf was written between 700 and 1000 BC. It's not needed for avoiding ambiguity, and it could trigger future edit wars. As far as I can see, the article doesn't use AD or CE anywhere else. The first date to appear in the article is the Council of Ephesus in 431, and that's just given as 431: nobody is going to think that it was 431 BC. I appreciate that Giovanni has been willing, lately, to allow AD, but I don't see why it should be necessary to have either AD or CE. And what I'm really arguing is that I don't see that it's necessary to have Beowulf in the first place, much as I love the word "hwæt"! AnnH ♫ 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if one were to ask one hundred specialists in Christianity "If you had to summarise everything about Christianity in five thousand words, how many times would you mention Beowulf?" that the mean, mode and median would all be less than one. Jkelly 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a study on the question to support this notion? Beowulf studies are of interest to scholars, among other thing, because of the very point I use it here for, to illustrate how very slow the adoption of Christianity was and how rooted the continued pagan beliefs were, despite all efforts make to eradicate them by the Christians. It's an intersting fact and very relevant to the point. Its better than simply stated its adoption was gradual. Use of ancient literary works sets a type of historical anchor in the time line, and whats noteworthy is the very late timeline that Beowulf established.Giovanni33 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Giovanni33. I would have liked to think that my phrasing was suggestive of a mode of semi-whimsical musing, as opposed to a salvo in an usenet-style debate, but perhaps the business about "mean, mode and median" could be misread as an appeal to some imaginary authority. I recognize that my first comment could only generously be called helpful. I'll attempt to be clearer. At Wikipedia we have a policy "Wikipedia:No original research" which discusses creating new narratives about historical events. We also have a policy "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" which discusses majority, minority and fringe views, and their respective places within Wikipedia articles. We also have a policy "Wikipedia:Verifiability", which requires that the arguments that we present in Wikipedia articles can be attributed directly to their sources. I am concerned that our article as it stands now is not in compliance with these policies. We are presenting the idea that literary analysis of Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied are so important to the history of Christianity that they deserve space in a summary style article. I ask of those editors who think that this is appropriate that they cite mainstream scholarship suggesting that these texts are in fact crucial to the understanding of the history of Christianity. If I am wrong, I will help update the History of Christianity article appropriately. Otherwise, the statement should be removed. I would further ask that you, Giovanni33, acknowledge that Wikipedia has these policies and that your intention is to help implement them while editing Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 02:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That was very clear Jkelly, thanks. I am aware of these poicies and I'm in full agreement with them, and my intention has always been to see that they are implemented here. However, I never stated that Beowulf is crucial to an understanding of the slow adoption of Christianity, much less that it is crucial to an understanding of Christianity. I merely use this well established literary work in the same way scholars invoved in Beowulf studies have, which does shed light on numerous points. One of those points is the one I use it here for. Its fair for you to ask for a citation that reflect this as true. So, I'll look for one. Giovanni33 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly. This task has now become moot, given that I was convinced by a point Myopic Bookworm made above regarding the usage of Beowulf here, so I decided to remove reference to it after looking into his point and finging it to be an accurate objection. While the point I use it for is indeed made, there are other theories about the mixture of pagan and Christian ideas it contains. Therefore, the point is not not sufficient strong for use in this context and is certainly not incontrovertible. Ineed, Beowulf in this connext is ambigious and there are unresolved questions still, which in part is what makes it intersting. Giovanni33 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verification the game!

Well, I figure it's in order that we play a little game, to make everything better. Did you know that Wikipedia:Verifiability could be a game? I'll start out, as the gamemaster, writing in after every place where there should be a citation, irregardless of what POV it supports. Then we play the first round where people change the tags to harvard style referencing (II Romans 15:6-9) and any new information added in will HAVE to include citations just the same. After the first week is up, any uncited material may be deleted. For another week, people try to find citations for everything. On the third week, we play a round of peer review..... where all citations are highly debated until a compromise is won (using citations this time) and including disinterested eyes of peer reviewers. Then, on the fourth week we have some real fun, that's where we start using endnotes/footnotes¹ as God intended².

1. fictional reference 2. POV reference

What does everyone think?

KV 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Christianity, origins

It cannot be said that A is intertwined with B if B is not also intertwined with A. Islam and Christianity are indeed intertwined, even if Islam is more of an offshoot of Christianity. Islam does not accept Jesus as the Son of God, but accepts him as the Messiah none the less. The origins all come from Judaism, which of course spurned Christianity, and a mixture of the two spurned Islam. They are surely intertwined, even if Christianity is not the biproduct of Islam. KV 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam plays no, absolutely no part in the originas of Christianity. Islam is influenced by Christianity, mainly Christian heresies, and Judaism. And, BTW, Islam does not accept Jesus as the Messiah in any meaningful way, leaving him only the title and some eschatological role - Islam sees Jesus as one prophet. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text you're supporting (KV), and which I dispute: Its origins are intertwined with Judaism and Islam, all Abrahamic religions, with which it shares much sacred text and early history; specifically, with Judaism, it shares the Hebrew Bible, known in the Christian context as the Old Testament (see Judeo-Christian).2 Wesley \

If the text said that Christianity and Islam are intertwined, I might well agree, but it doesn't. It says that Christianity's origins are intertwined with Judaism and Islam. Because Islam did not exist until roughly 600 years after Christianity originated, it is a chronological impossibility for its origins to be intertwined with it. Even if you take the position that Christianity as we know it today didn't exist until the 300s when the Roman Empire "established" it, that's still a good 300 years before Islam. As currently worded, this is a significant factual inaccuracy, which is why I'm about to revert it a second time unless someone else does first. Wesley 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, its parent religion, which shares early history, and its beliefs are intertwined with Islam, which believes Jesus is the Messiah, but not God. All three make up the Abrahamic religions, which share much sacred text and many beliefs; specifically, with Judaism, Christianity shares the Hebrew Bible, known in the Christian context as the Old Testament (see Judeo-Christian).2

Now, it would be appreciated if you would try to reword what I wrote rather than reverting it.... if you know what I was going for, try to make that connection better than I did, as I tried to do in that edit.

Also, I think "Hebrew Bible" may be the wrong choice of words...... I think Torah may be the correct word.

KV 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, why should we change an accurate and concise and NPOV passage to a more complicated one? Notwithstanding that "intertwined" does not do the relation between Christian and Islamic beliefs justice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The current wording makes Islam look like some sort of orphan religion.... The reading gives this impression: Christianity and Judaism are buddies...... then there's the third brother, the little one no one wants tagging along...... Islam..... it's part of the abrahamic family, but we wont' mention what it has in common with Christianity.

KV 18:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that Islam is an 'orphan' religion, it's just that it developed long enough after Christianity that it hasn't had that much influence on Christianity as a whole. It has had some influence on later developments in Christian history, of course, but Christianity hasn't borrowed that much from it, and for its first 600 years borrowed nothing from an Islam that didn't exist. Its first real influence on Christianity might be with regard to Iconoclasm, but even there most historians don't think Emperor Leo I was trying to imitate the muslim Turks so much as impress them and make Christianity seem more 'sophisticated.' I don't understand why this would seem offensive to just mention Islam as another Abrahamic religion at first, and mention specific influences like these later as the article gets to those subjects and time periods? Anyone else want to chime in on the subject? Wesley 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article needs not only mention what effected Christianity, but what is similar in context and shares similar roots. The technical accuracy of something is important, but we should attempt to add to it the style that doesn't make readers connect dots that aren't meant to be connected. Don't let them misconstrue what is said.

KV 06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that identifying Judaism and Islam as fellow Abrahamic religions would have done exactly that: indicated that they had some similarities and some roots in common. It feels like you're perceiving some hidden implication in that that I frankly just don't see; and we can't sacrifice "technical accuracy" for some vague notion of how someone might "misinterpret" the facts of history. Wesley 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as God

Well, I'm not about to enter a whole edit war over this. So let me explain and we'll reach consensus on this before I try to return it....... First, I would like to suggest that Str read the article on Arianism..... indeed the Arians did not believe that Jesus was FULLY God, but rather divine, but created, and therefore inferior to God the father.. Also, there are still Gnostics running about and surely we have to include Christians throughout time....... and the way it is written is not a universal belief. It is important to note that not all Christians have accepted Jesus as fully God or even being God at all. Modern day Scientologists seem to be the most applicable to this belief today.

I'll post the addition that I had made:

"Now a sound part of Christianity, this idea was highly debated in the early days of the Church. Many sects, declared heretical by the mainstream Church, such as the Arians, disagreed with this stance."

Certainly, a little research could bring up a whole lot more sects, but I figured I would make it short and sweet, most mainstream example, first major conflict in the Church, showing a roundabout view of Christian beliefs, in all times.

KV 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is still a great diversity of Christians versions, some of whom do not accept many of the notions that is common to most Christians. We should be carefull to use NPOV langauge to accurately reflect this continued state of disagreement. For examples the Unitarians, some of which consider themselves to be Christians but do not believe in a literal God. This is an extreme example but makes the point. Giovanni33 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it, I wonder, that people only address half of the argument, preferably the secondary point?

• Your addition was and is off topic in that section.
• The views of both Arians and Gnostics are actually more complex than you think. Arians considered him a sort of being between God and man (which according to Judeo-Christian principles is impossible) and Gnostics held a variety of views, often making Jesus a divine messenger (though not the God), certainly not fully human.
• And why you are referring Scientologists is beyond me - we are talking about Christians and Christianity.
• But again, the main point is: your addition is off-topic.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the present wording too much assumes the divinity of Christ, even for present say Christians, let alone extinct heretics. Myopic Bookworm 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Str... first that was your 6th revert of the day..... I have posted them on AnnH's discussion.

And I have answered there. Reverts of things like "christians are smelly" do not count as 3RR violations, and four of the reverts that you posted were of that nature. No violation there. AnnH ♫ 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Second...... what do you mean the secondary point? You have to expand on how you think that is biased.

Third... Both the Arians and Gnostics.......as you described them.... do not believe Jesus to be FULLY God and FULLY Man..... I never stated in my statement that they believed that Jesus had no divinity, only that there was disagreement with Jesus being fully God and fully man.

Fourth..... Scientology, though quite different from other Christian branches, is a form of Christianity. I remember smoking across from a building that said "First Church of Christ Scientist" when I was at school.

Finally, it was not off topic. Beliefs is not meant to be only mainstream beliefs, but rather it is vital that all Christian beliefs that are major now, or have been major beliefs in the past, be covered to give a clear view. I subordinated the belief in the text, just to give it light.... that's not offtopic.

KV 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also mention that other sections within the beliefs section ALSO note discord among Christians on certain beliefs. Afterlife for example.

KV 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Scientology is not generally recognized as a branch of Christianity, either by most Christians or by Scientologists themselves. It is a different religion altogether. There is a denomination called Church of Christ, Scientist, which is probably the church you saw in school, but it is not related to Scientology in any way. Christian Scientists are part of the religion of Christianity, but I don't know of any Scientologist that claims that their religion is part of Christianity. --Cswrye 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..... well it's good that that wasn't part of the suggested article part then.... But even without them, there are others who don't believe such a strong assertation of Jesus and are still Christians.

KV 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KV...what exactly is your proposal? I see the sentence above, starting "Now a sound...", but could you give us the entire context, so we can see how it fits/flows? Thanks...KHM03 ^(talk) 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the full version (links not included) of what I had before Str reverted it was:

Jesus as God

"This is the belief that Jesus is both fully God (divine) and fully human: two natures in one person, as described in the Chalcedonian Creed. As a human, Jesus is believed to have possessed the qualities of mortality; He suffered the pains and temptations of mortal man. Significantly, He had the ability to die. Being divine, He possessed the ability to take up His own life again.

"Now a sound part of Christianity, this idea was highly debated in the early days of the Church. Many sects, declared heretical by the mainstream Church, such as the Arians, disagreed with this stance."

I felt that this gave the full story, in trying to mention as briefly as possible that not all Christians do accept, or more specifically have accepted, this tenet. I certainly did not state that it was false or part of some plot to trick anyone, or put any information against it. Neither did I try to suggest that the Arians were right, valid, or anything else. I merely reported the facts, in a manner I fell is NPOV. The prior version (which is now standing) was somewhat modern mainstream POV by not noting the discord of the past. Of course, I fit into neither POV and am simply trying to include more views.

KV 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KV, in regard to the topicality of your addition read the opening sentence of the section: Enormous diversity of belief exists among Christians. Nevertheless, certain doctrines have come to characterize the mainstream of Christian theology. This section is clearly about the core beliefs common to all or most (mainstream) Christians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977...what would you prefer? Actually, my problem is with the "He possessed the ability to take up his own life again..."; I'm not sure that's accurate...traditional theology affirms that the FATHER resurrected the SON, not that the Son resurrected himself. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Str, if it should only mention the mainstream views, then please remove any notice of discord elsewhere, where it mentions that others disagree with certain tenets. The beleifs section should probably be thoroughly rewritten.

KV 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM, indeed you are right - the beliefs section leaves room for improvement and this is one of the issues. I will get back to you on this later.

KV, I was talking about the beliefs section. It is meant not give a quick overview of what Christians agree upon, not of what they disagree about. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs is not meant to be only mainstream beliefs, but rather it is vital that all Christian beliefs that are major now, or have been major beliefs in the past, be covered to give a clear view. I disagree: beliefs which characterize sects from over a thousand years ago do not have the same relevance. NPOV does not require acknowledging every viewpoint equally at all times. I am confident that in the context of mainstream Christian belief, this is accurate: "This is the belief that Jesus is both fully God (divine) and fully human. In the doctrinal controversies in the early church about the relation between the divinity of Christ and the One God, the teaching established as orthodox was that Christ was human and divine, two natures in one person, as described in the Chalcedonian Creed." If necessary, an additional note could be added: "Important theological positions contrary to this include those of Arianism and Monophysitism." I do not think Gnosticism is important enough in the context of modern Christianity to get dragged in every time. It would be appropriate to have a link to the Wiki article on Christology. Myopic Bookworm 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor side issue: KHM03, I'm sure this is hairsplitting, but I don't think it's at all inaccurate to say that Jesus "possessed the ability to take up his own life again" as I'm fairly sure he claimed this for himself in the Gospels, and many of the early fathers spoke of his time in the tomb as a time of triumphantly setting free the captives in Hell, not languishing there a prisoner, marking time and waiting for the Father to raise Him from the dead. See Harrowing of Hell. Wesley 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(Wesley: [[John Wesley actually removed the "descended into Hell" bit from the Apostles's Creed, and we Methodists don't use that part! Before you gather stones, take it up with Brother John! At any rate, to say that the Father raised the Son is quite traditional, but I suppose the issue is whether or not Jesus "possessed the ability" to so it. As a firm beliver in kenosis, I'm not so sure. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree: this whole section "As a human, Jesus is believed to have possessed the qualities of mortality; He suffered the pains and temptations of mortal man. Significantly, He had the ability to die. Being divine, He possessed the ability to take up His own life again" represents a rather simplistic and possibly heterodox view: the usual doctrine is stated by Paul, that God the Father raised Christ from the dead, not that he did it himself. I don;t think it is necessary here: a much more detailed discussion of Christ's humanity and divinity can be found (or written) at Christology. Myopic Bookworm 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim expertise, but in English we can say he rose, which is in active voice, or "he was raised (by the Father)", which is in passive voice. I have read that in the original Greek there is a "middle voice", which is a bit untranslatable in English, but which is actually something between active and passive. My guess is that it would be perfectly orthodox to say either that the Father raised him, or that he rose (meaning by his own power). One wouldn't be more true than the other; it's just a change of focus. However, I'm open to correction. In the Nicene Creed (English translation), we say "he rose". I know there's a letter from St Ignatius of Antioch, dated around 108, where it says something about heretics who do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus, who suffered, and whom the Father in his goodness raised up again. I'm too lazy to go and look for it now, and I may be misquoting badly, but I'm positive that it has the bit about the Father, in his goodness, raising Jesus. AnnH ♫ 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Str..... NPOV means including not every view, but every MAJOR view.. present and past.... Disagreeing views on that were very major in the past and in a vital part of the developping Christian identity. Myopic.... the text I had added only mentioned the Arians, not the Gnostics, I used them as an example here. KV 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I believe Arianism was likely the controversy in Christian history, and deserves mention and discussion. Gnosticism shouldn't get as much space, as much of its influence is conjectural and educated guesswork...we KNOW about Arianism. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at this section. I tried to grasp the main points of Christian belief in Jesus' divinity and humanity. I removed this sentence:

"There was much controversy in the early church about the relationship between the humanity and divinity of Christ."

While this is true, it does not actually belong into the beliefs section, for the reasons set out above. The Arian controversy should be covered in the history section - in fact it is covered in one of its versions (the one I prefer). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Such a view needs not be merely in the History section, the historical breakages and the crusades and such need be in there specifically. But when it comes to beliefs, all should be covered in a beliefs section. Granted it says that these beliefs are the mainstream beliefs, but then similar mentions of a few sects not supporting certain beliefs must be removed as well.

KV 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

moved to supress...

I've made some edits combining elements of each version. "moved to supress...by defining these beliefs as heresies" may be misunderstood as suggesting their primary motive was not correct theology, but power. I don't think 'different versions' is accurate. I've replaced it with "Among Gentile Christians a great diversity existed." Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Your version is getting yet closer to an acceptable solution. At least we can now focus on a smaller section both sides having been moved to make compromises and meeting in the center. I really would like to see these months of edit warring over this history section come to a peaceful end. I thank you for not simply reverting but evolving the article. Lets examine the differneces which are small enough now I think we might be able to work them out here.

The difference is between this text: "For the first three of four centuries there were different versions that flourished side by side, each holding to its own beliefs as the truth." And this text that its replaced by: "Among Gentile Christians a great diversity existed."

Also, the passage that was removed: "The institutional Church moved to supress dissenting ideas such as those of the Manicheans and Arians, by defining these beliefs as heresies. Among the most significant groups which came to be regarded as heretical were the Gnostic Christians and the Arians, the latter which did not accept the Trinitarian doctrine. Under Theodosius I heresy was made punishable by death."

The first difference is for me a matter of accuracy. The diversity extended beyond just the Gentile Christians. Can we work out the language to reflect this greater diversity, if my language is of "different versions" is not acceptable?

The second, excised passage, I feel is very important to leave in, and I'd like to see suggestions that would be acceptable. My takes is that this does not states one way or another any POV about what motivated the suppression dissenting groups. I think most scholars hold that it had to do with both political (power, need for unity), as much as it was motivated by the dogmatism of "correct" theology. This passage doesnt get into this debate, but simply states what did occure. I can't replace it because this might be counted as a partial revert and I don't want to edit war. Thanks. Giovanni33 00:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Gio here: I think there is nothing wrong with the 'different versions' wording, which covers also the Jewish Christian sects which were a noteworthy part of the early mix. Having partly written the second section, I would obviously be happy to see it reinstated in some form. But without using the word squelch, which is too informal for an encyclopedia article, and with two p's in suppress :-) It should be borne in mind, too, that sometimes the institutional church was actually in the hands of Arians or other groups, and what we now call the 'catholic' or 'orthodox' doctrine was upheld by outlying writers such as Cyprian of Carthage. I don't think we should lose all reference to Hellenistic philosophy, as it was an important factor in the development of Christian doctrines. Myopic Bookworm 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Myopic Bookworm. Thanks for your contributions. Out of respect for the other editors stated objections I did alter word choices, changed my prefered "different versions flourished" to "distinct schools of Christian beliefs flourished." I changed my preferred "moved to suppress" to "moved to squelch and root out..." I've gone through many verbs already so I was running out, but I agree "squelch" is not standard encylopedic vernacular, while "suppress" is standard usage in this context. Since MusicalLinguist was the only one who objected to this word, and more seems agree with it, I restored "suppress." I'd be happy to go where consensus is with regard to the best fitting word choice here. I also changed "institutional chuch" to "state sanctioned Church" based on ML's objection, as well. I'm open to changing this for a more apt description according to consensus.

Let me know what you think of Hellenistic influence passage as it stands now; I changed this to reflect the below suggestions of Str1977 and my desire to remove repetition. Or make the edit as you see fit yourself, and I'll keep an open mind. I find most of your contributions very respectable and well crafted. Giovanni33 12:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, please remember, once again, that silence does not mean agreement with you. Since Tom removed "suppress", I think it's logical to assume that he also has problems with it, and I'd be surprised to learn that Str1977 or KHM03 thought it was a great choice of word. And as for "squelch and root out", that hardly sounds neutral. Regarding "institutional Church" and "state-sanctioned Church", what's wrong with just "Church"? AnnH ♫ 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your objection to the word suppressed is that you think it implies a POV that suggests what is being suppressed is positive in nature. I've reviewed the words in many dictionaries and I find no support for your belief. I've looked at all the verbs that could be used and suppress is the best fit. If what you say is true, though, then I'd agree the word should not be used, so can you provide support for your belief? Other nuetral references regularly employ the word. About institutional/state-sanctioned Church, how about orthodox Church? I've changed it to that now. Giovanni33 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I've started a new section to deal with the issue of words sometimes carrying positive or negative meanings which are not allowed for in dictionaries. See here. AnnH ♫ 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think "suppress" is wrong in this context. Just as my silence should not be taken for assent, my copyediting of a particular paragraph should not be seen as unqualified support for that paragraph. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think there was anything wrnog with 'suppress', but it reads OK at the moment. In my latest trawl, I added a couple of words here and there to improve the grammar or sense. For example, I added 'elements' because the wording seemed to imply that Mithraism as a whole was absorbed into Christianity, rather than ideas from it. I also added 'increased' to avoid implying that Palestine and its immediate area was completely isolated from Hellenistic culture, which I don't think it was. (Christianity had reached Damascus in Syria before the conversion of Paul, and references to Greeks appear in the Gospels.) —This unsigned comment was added by Myopic Bookworm (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 March 2006.

Some points

I've been happier recently with the change from "As Professor Bentley Layton notes" to "Professor Bentley Layton notes". I have mentioned several times on other pages, and I think also on this one, that if you say, "As X says, Hitler was a great man", you are stating not just that X says it, but also that it is true. Whereas if you simply say, "X says Hitler was a great man", you are not implying any agreement or disagreement. You are reporting, neutrally, what X says. I think we have Tom harrison to thank for getting rid of the implicit endorsement of Layton, so thanks, Tom.

Red-herring and not correct. It was already "Professor Bentley Layton notes. That is how I have had it. Tom did not change that, he only changed "notes" to "writes." Writes is better. (GIO)

No, Gio, it's not a red-herring. I was referring to your tendency to introduce bias into articles through your choice of language, and your tendency to present as fact things which are disputed. My error, for which I apologize, was in thinking that you had done it here. In fact, it was at the article Early Christianity. To convince you, I'll give you the diff for your insertion of "As professor Bentley Layton writes" [30], and for Tom's removal of it[31]. I hope, since you so constantly accuse those who undo your edits of being "POV-pushers", you'll be able to agree that Tom was right to remove the POV that you had inserted. AnnH ♫ 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a red-herring, or its a personal attack. One or the other. Ostensibly your comments was about why you supported a change by Tom, but what you described as a change was no change at all that he made, but I did much earlier. This also shows you are not realy following the content and issues here but are leaping to conclusion based on you own prejudice against me, which you acknowlege was in error with this example. Your bias and lack of following the article issues led you to this error, so it appears not to be a red-herring. But, it has now turned into an attack, since now you revise the purpose of your comments to be that of a commentary on another editor and his purported "tendencies" and accusing me of calling others "POV-Pushers," etc. I suggest you refrain from such analysis unless it actually pertains to a specific edit in question that need to be specifically address in the here and now.Giovanni33 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like "The institutional Church moved to supress dissenting ideas such as those of the Manicheans and Arians, by defining these beliefs as heresies." (BTW, "suppress" has two ps in British English — I presume also in American English.) The term "institutional Church" is a derogatory one; "institutional", when it collocates with "Church" always has negative connotations. In modern language, it conjures up ideas of a few narrow-minded out-of-touch Cardinals clubbing together with Pope Benedict to enforce strict laws and out-of-date theology, in opposition to the free consciences of those who know a loving God. In my view, nobody who uses the term "institutional Church" thinks that it's a good or even a neutral thing.

Ok, so suggest another way to describe the Church in this context. How about the "state sanctioned Church"? I'm fine with that. (GIO)

"Suppress" is also not a neutral word, as in general usage the thing being suppressed is seen as something positive (liberty, knowledge, etc.) and the one suppressing is seen as bad or tyrannical. We need to find a better word. The whole phrase carries a faint implication that these beliefs were not heresies ("moved to suppress dissenting ideas . . . by defining these beliefs as heresies"). A pro-Christian language would probably be something like, "diligently trying to combat heresy". We want to avoid either extreme.

I'm open to what you or others suggest. I replaced "eradicated" to "oppressed," and finally "suppressed," which is even softer. Most of the historical material I've read uses suppress. I don't agree that the word connotes an attempt to prohibit something that is only positive in nature. It does imply trying to bring an end to something forcibly; to subdue or to curtail or prohibit the activities of; Also, to keep from being revealed,and lastly to deliberately exclude (as in supress unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind. It could also mean simply to reduce the incidence or severity of , as in suppressing a cough (a perfect expample of suppresing something that is bad). But, if you suggest another word, I'm open. I've changed words many times. Giovanni33 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my objections to Beowulf.

I started a new section on this talk page to avoid a possible edit conflict, but, having my browser open in a second window, I see that Kecik has turned up again to revert to Giovanni, with a remarkable edit summary telling me to use the talk page like others — from someone who has posted a total of three times to this discussion page since he arrived on 24 January! In case you're wondering, Kecik, In case you're wondering, Kecik, I had made two short posts to this page after reverting, and I had started typing this much longer message when you reverted. By the way, where's your long justification for reverting me?

I think Kecik was complaining that you reverted back to an earlier version in whole, breaking the new good faith that has been going on with Str1977 and myself, which both of us have been using the talk pages not not reverting in whole but making concessions. Your revert broke this pattern. Tom stepped in and restored the good faith pattern, which is the solution to ending the edit warning. I don't think your personal comments about Kecik's past edit history is helpful or relevant for resolving this content dispute.Giovanni33 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant for resolving the content dispute, but hardly irrelevant to the discussion of problems with this page. You have so frequently criticized people for reverting without discussion. Kecik has sixteen edits to articles; fifteen of those are clear reverts, and the other one may be. He has commented on this discussion page three times, no long detailed discussion such as you and Str1977 produce, and has reverted this article six times. That's a bad record. I reverted, wrote two comments on the talk page, and was in the middle of typing my third one when Kecik reverted. You are the one who constantly says that people shouldn't revert if they're not discussing, so isn't it odd that you don't object when Kecik does it. I made thirty-five edits yesterday between getting up and going to bed. Only one (the one on this page) was a revert of content from another editor. My point, in case you don't follow it, is that there is evidence that Kecik is at Wikipedia for a particular purpose; there is no evidence that I am. AnnH ♫ 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its diversionary and distracting to the purpose of working out content of this page. If the editor violates any rules, then take it to his talk page, or an admin notice board, but lets keep these talk pages focused on edits to the article. I find talking about editors other behaviors here counter productive. This is not "I am better than you," game. This is about working together to create a reliable and nuetral encylopedia.Giovanni33 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see also that Tom has had similar thoughts about the "moved to suppress" language. I think you've made a big improvement to Giovanni's edit, Tom. Thanks again. AnnH ♫ 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree to support Tom's version, as its now a minor difference that means we are very close to finally resolving these disputes. Giovanni33 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored the disputed sections after making modifications addressing the objections as stated above.Giovanni33 10:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The latest issue regards the treatment of Greek influence. The edit summary says I'm removing the linke of influence, but I'm not doing that. I'm removing what I see as a redundancy, and and overstating of the point. This is motivated also by a desire not to bloat the history section. Compare the two versions:

Mine: As Christianity expanded beyond Palestine, it also came into contact with Greek philosophy; Hellenistic ideas became a significant influence on Christian thought through theologians such as Origen.

Str1977's: As Christianity expanded beyond Palestine, it also came into contact with Hellenistic culture and Greek philosophy, which became a significant influence on Christian thought. Early Christian theologians such as Origen worked to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, and Christianity, developing a distinctively Christian theology.

My version makes the same point with less words and does not repeat the idea twice, as the other version does. Also, the wording is a little clumsy and awkward. Giovanni33 10:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that Greek philosophy and Origen/theology is de-linked. As far as this issue is concerned, what about:

As Christianity expanded beyond Palestine, it also came into contact with Hellenistic culture; Greek philosophy became a significant influence on Christian thought ...

As for the rest, IMHO it is not redundant to mention the origin of theology, especially useful in leading up to a coverage of the dispute between theologians. Thoughts? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Str, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it being de-linked. The version Im supporting certainly links them: I stated Christianity came in contact with Greek philosophy and I stated that Hellenistic ideas became a significant influence on Christian thought through theologians such as Origen. I'm fine with what you propose above: As Christianity expanded beyond Palestine, it also came into contact with Hellenistic culture; Greek philosophy became a significant influence on Christian thought ... I will even include the "esp. Plantonist" part. I'll restore this. Giovanni33 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I did a good deal where citations are needed in this article, and stopped partway through.... after these are all properly cited (Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No Original Research) we can move on to other sections. I imagine this can be done in a couple days if people put their minds to it.

KV 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita, we don't need citations for things like saying that Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or that they believe in heaven and hell, or that Catholics also believe in purgatory. The {{fact}} template is not meant to be used for things like that; it's never used that way in other articles, and actually looks slightly bizarre. If that edit had come from an anon, it would possibly (though unfairly) have been reverted as vandalism. Have a look at other articles that use that tag, and try to get a feel for when it's appropriate. AnnH ♫ 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of it in other articles doesn't mean the use it needs necessarily. Wikipedia policy is that everything has to be cited, and citations are very few in coming in this article, still. True as it may be, the text needs to be verifiable, and at present it is not. Technically, by Wikipedia policy, 90% of this could be deleted by anyone at a whim, because it is not cited. That right there gave an outline for where citations should go, without a problem. I already discussed this higher up, before putting them in, and no one bothered to even reply. Citations are needed always, not just when there's a disagreement.

KV 16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KV's drive to require greater citations to support alleged assertion of facts. I don't think this needs to be done for everything, esp. facts that are widely known and accepted (unless someone questions a fact), but its not a bad thing. Giovanni33 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Remaining disputes

Gio, it is best to leave a tag in place until the one who posted it either removes it or gives his okay. I am assuming good faith and that you didn't know any better and didn't try to cover up remaining disputes intentionally. Here are remaining (or new) disputes:

• "For the first three of four centuries" suggests that after that we have a monolithic rock in place of previous diversity. That is carricature and POV.

No, it doesn't imply there was a "monolithic rock" but it does correctly describe the lack of unifying doctrine that prior to the state imposed orthoxy. Take the doctrine of the "Trinity" for example: The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967: "The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century." Catholic Encyclopedia 1991:

"The term 'Trinity' does not appear in scripture" "(The Doctrine of the Trinity) - hammered out over the course of three centuries of doctrinal controversy against modalism and subordinationism" The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995: ". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament." Before it became official with the Church of Rome, there was a movement afoot between the 2nd & 3rd centuries generated by the Gnostics who were basically gentiles incorporating pagan mysticism into a Christian-like framework, and flourished during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which rpresented a major challenge to "orthodox" Christianity. Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't only Rome who affirmed Trinitarian theology; some of the biggest defenders of Trinitarianism were Eastern theologians. Scholars (esp. theologians) agree that while the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture, there are plenty of references to a "Trinity" throughout. We need to be clear on this. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "distinct schools of Christian beliefs" sounds much too technical - this wording would fit into the theology passage, but here where we are talking about Christianity in general.

Agreed, and this has been changed backed to "different versions." I only made the change because you didn't like the usage of 'different version." But, different versions they were!

• "each regarding their own beliefs as the truth" is still either a truism or pushing a POV.

Actualy, its neither. The concept of holding an objective truth is a philosophical point of view that not everyone holds, hence, it's not a given trusim. I certainly don't ascribe to it. Neither does science in a practical matter. I strive for an approximation of the truth based on the evidence and my senses, but I realize that my conciousness will always will lag behind objective material reality--only to the degree it correctly reflects it, it's true. I don't have god-like powers (no one does) to believe that my views are "the only truth," (what the Chruch leaders with their infalibility doctrine did believe). So, no, its not a trusim, but an important to reflect the views of the different versions of Christianity which did view the truth in religious terms, because it also explains their great intolerance for each other. The only "pov" this is pushing is that of a NPOV. Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Christian thinkers engaged in disputes among themselves over different interpretations of Christian teaching, regarding their opponents as heretics, which often led to bitter conflict between supporters of what became the orthodox consensus and dissenting church groups." is still totally unacceptable

Well, you are not saying why its unacceptable. This is accruate and NPOV to my eyes, but I welcome your ideas about how to make it more so. Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• the omission of "correct" transports your relativistic "there is not right or wrong in religion" POV - we are not to decide who was right or wrong, but that was what they disputed.

I'm not sure what you mean here but my language is intended only reflect that we do not take sides about the issue of who or what is correct or not correct, but simply to report the disputes and what happened. You call this relativism, I call it NPOV policy.

• "regarding ... as heretics" & "what became the orthodox consensus" transports that POV too, omitts the fact that church authorities reached decisions - this was not the debating society but the Church.

I don't see how this omitts the fact that Church authorities reached these decisions. I'm happy to state that clearly, to address this possible confusion.Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "bitter" conflict is POV-led poetry

Ok, I'll remove "bitter." Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "between supporters of what became the orthodox consensus and dissenting church groups" leaves out the fact that heretics also squibbled between themselves.

Yes, because the fact is already stated earlier, about each holding their own views to be correct (which you don't want included as a "trusim.")The sentence above does not imply that the dissenting groups agreed with each other but if you want to make it clear im very happy to add to that sentence to also state ,"which among themselves, each held their version as the correct interpretation."Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "state sanctioned Church" suggests that the Church was set up by the state, which is inaccurate and POV

I don't think it suggests that at all, only that it was sanctioned by the State and is meant to describe the institutional chuch that was married to state power and it so root out those who disagreed with its teachings. But, I've changed this to simply now read "orthodox Church." Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "moved to" - I don't understand the meaning of this

It means "to follow a specified course."Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "suppress dissenting ideas" - what is that suppose to mean excomunicate or persecute? In the case of Manichaens both are wrong as a) M. never were Christians or part of the Church, b) Manichaens had already been persecuted by the Empire under Diocletian (so hardly stemming from Christians' initiative)

Both. Suppress is an ecompassing word that means to keep back, subdue, etc. I disagree with your point about Manichaeans, even though it does not matter here becuse your point does not prove it is wrong. They constituted dissenting ideas and were part of the Gnostic influce on later Christian groups who were massacured. In anycase because they were targed by othrodox church and the Christian emperor as well its accurate. I'll write more below about the Manichaeans. Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• "by defining these beliefs as heresies" - still trying to wiggle around the fact that the Church defined these as heresies (which is not the same as perseuction).

But, it was part of persecution since before you can move to act against them you first have to define them as heretical, or label them in some manner that justifies the attacks. But, I've changed that to "described as heresies."Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• to include that POV-ladden passage, the Ecumenical Councils are chucked out entirely.

No, not true. The Ecumenical council passage is there. I told you I removed it accidently once but its been always been part of my intended version and its a valid passage as it stands.Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• there still exists no reliable, scholarly reference for the "death penalty" passage

I'll include more referneces to support this below, since you don't like the references I have already provided.Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• this whole part is springing from one thing to another and back

Not sure what you mean by this. Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as the section is in that wrecked state, the POV tag must stay. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its in a wrecked stated but we can work on these specifics and reach consensus, I'm sure. Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

About Manichaeism, it spreading over a large areas and completed with Christianity and Zoroastrianism for political and social power, and at the same time is its has always been an influence in Western Christian thought, such as through Saint Augustine of Hippo, who converted to Christianity from Manichaeism.

The Christian-Gnostic sects like the Bogomils, Paulicians, and the Cathars were deeply influenced by Manichaeism and some catagorize them as Manichaean-Gnostic Christian sects, althought they were all slightly different and thanks to the orthodox church and its suppression, we don't have much surving records of their doctrines.

In 381 Christians requested Theodosius I to strip Manichaeans of their civil rights. He issued a decree of death for Manichaean monks in 382. From the Catholic Encylopeadia, "This edict against the Manichaeans remained in force under Constantine, and Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Manichæism seems to have been tolerated. Valentinian I and Gratian, though tolerant of other sects, made exception of the Manichæans. Theodosius I, by an edict of 381, declared Manichæans to be without civil rights and incapable of testamentary disposition. In the following year he condemned them to death under the name of Encratites, Saccophores, and Hydroparastates. Valentinian II confiscated their goods, annulled their wills, and sent them into exile. Honorius in 405 renewed the edicts of his predecessors, and fined all governors of cities or provinces who were remiss in carrying out his orders; he invalidated all their contracts, declared them outlaws and public criminals. In 445 Valentinian III renewed the edicts of his predecessors; Anastasius condemned all Manichæans to death; Justin and Justinian decreed the death penalty, not only against Manichæans who remained obstinate in their heresy, but even against converts from Manichæism who remained in touch with their former co-religionists, or who did not at once denounce them to the magistrates. Heavy penalties were likewise decreed against all State officials who did not denounce their colleagues, if infected with Manichæism, and against all those who retained Manichæan books. It was a war of extermination and was apparently successful, within the confines of the Byzantine Empire." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm

More from the Catholic Encylopeadia on heresy, the italics are mine:

"When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous....under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans."

From the Encylopeadia Britanica: "Heresy is the denial by a professed, baptized Christian of a revealed truth or that which the Roman Catholic Church has proposed as a revealed truth. The seriousness with which Roman Catholicism regarded heresy is shown by the ancient penalty of excommunication. Civil penalties, including the supreme penalty, did not appear until the Constantinian age. Lesser civil disabilities continued in force, although the law was often ignored, into the 20th century. Protestant governments often borrowed some of this severity from Roman Catholic governments. Roman Catholic theologians often deal with heresy, paradoxically, as a necessary step in the development of dogma. In order to save themselves from an extremely crass and even cruel rationalization, they point out that the questions raised by heresy were legitimate but that heretics too quickly assumed a one-sided and exclusive view of doctrine that they wished to impose on the entire church. Modern studies have sometimes been less kind to such champions of orthodoxy as Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, who were not themselves free of one-sided views and who showed themselves unwilling to listen to their adversaries with sympathy and understanding. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-43675

And from Encarta Encyclopeadia on Heresy (requires a paid sub): "With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman emperors in the 4th century, heretics came to be considered enemies of the state. St. Augustine gave a somewhat reluctant approval to action by the state against heretics."Giovanni33 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits:

• I reinserted "among gentiles" - after having talked about Jewish-Christian sects it is essential to talk about the gentile Christians as well. I am open to better ways of doing this. Maybe, "gentile Christianity which developed into the Catholic Church in which there was ...".
• I deleted again "For the first three of four centuries", as this implies a change afterwards. Also, the quote already covers this.
• I deleted the truism again. See above.
• I moved the "theological disputes" bit back where it belongs chronologically and thematically (after the origin of theology). To put it after Constantine suggests that this only began in the 4th century (which isn't true). A possible alternative would be to include it in the Constantine paragraph using the plusquamp perfect tense.
• I reinserted the Gnostics again, as they were prominent in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, not in the 4th - to include them next to the Arians is misplacing them.
• I restricted the Theodosius sentence back to what his edict actually did - the repercussions from this are covered further down, including a quote. Also, your wording implies (through the modern understanding of the word "religion") an inquisition which searched the minds of citizens.
• It is grotesque how far you are willing to stretch language to avoid the word heresy. I repeat this again, using that word as I do is not taking sides but merely reporting the events (and we have already covered how one did "become a heretic").

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My rationale for the placement of the passages in my version. The 2nd paragraph is about influence of other ideas and cultures to the developing early Christianity: “As Christianity expanded beyond Palestine, it also came into increased contact with Hellenistic culture…became a significant..., and also the mystery religions part. This is what this paragraph is about. You placed internal theological conflict and heresies passage right in between this discussion of Greek influence and the possible pagan influence—and it doesn’t really belong there. It better belongs in the next, 3rd paragraph, that precisely talk about this drive for theological unity.

It’s the 3rd paragraph that introduces us to Emperor Constantine the Great and Theodosius I , and goes directly into “Doctrinal disputes, especially regarding Christology, intensified.” That is fine a you have it but this is the proper place for that passage about defining orthodoxy in contrast to heresy, which is what they did with the councils that the emporor called for and insisted on. This also eliminated repeating the same comment about internal strife and conflict (which, by the way, is an idea already established in my version of the 1st paragraph about a great diversity and how each group considered the others wrong, etc). Its not a trusim, by my arguments above and so it should stay.

Then the 4th paragraph naturally flows into the political unifying role of the empire in suppressing others, ending with the quote about the death penalty. This is where prominent groups that were defined as heretics should be mentioned as examples of who were suppressed, which my version does.

My wording for heresies is NPOV and that is required, stating who called who what, instead of, instead of implying that the label is justified. There is nothing wrong making sure this is clear, even if you don't think the way you use it does this--I do. To make it clear it should be stated in terms of "regarded as heresies by Church authorities." Nothing wrong with that, and simply calling them heresies, while that is the historical label does seem to imply an agreement with that orthodox POV.

Giovanni33 09:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Question, seeking comments

The passage: "Early in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity. Theodosius I established an orthodox Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire near the end of the century." Didn't Theodosius, with the exception of Judiasm, make orthodox Christianity the only legal religion? Giovanni33 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe so, but could be wrong. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked its accurate so I put it in with my latest changes below.Giovanni33 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Str1977 lastest changes tonight might be something I could live with. I only see some minor issues which I'll look over later and fix, but since on the whole it looks passable at first glance, I'll leave it as is. He managed to shrink it considerably but still kept it good enough that it just might due. I see the light getting brighter now at the end of this long tunnel.Giovanni33 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to hear this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked through everything carefuly and made my minor changes, most notably expanding diversity "Among Gentiles" to reflect the greater diversity that existised (i.e. Jewish Christian sects), by remvoing "among Gentiles," and refering to different versions that did flourish side by side. This also contains one of our disagreements over "truth" being a trusim, but I changed the language a bit. I think its important to state their view of truth and this also imparts and understanding that all these different groups did squable among each other. I also made a couple of minor other tweaks with language, and removed the "most notable being Gnostic Christians," but included a reference to them and the Arians later down, as examples of those that came to be regared as heresies. You will noticed that these small movements of passages makes for better flow and keeps the pharagraphs dealing with their respective points, without jumping or repeating ideas. The paraphraphs also look quite uniform, with his aesthetic pleasing for the eye. What I found out is that if one simply reads through the current version as it stands and note the things that could be improved, and then only later going back to see the changes in contrast to the earlier version, as opposed to vise-versa, it helps to do away with the tendency for ownership over ones version, and this being less attached to any one version as being "your own" is key for the collaborative nature of this project.Giovanni33 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Still two major POV problems; more ommission than commission

There are a couple of glaring problems in this article that lead to a tilt against Christianity, and, because these problems are ignored on the discussion page, also lead to a lot of meaningless discussion.

1. One is that the page treats Christianity as everywhere and every time the same. It is not; often the comparison is between apples and oranges.

There is a great divide in Christianity with Constantine, and this is simply glossed over in the article. At that time the state did not merely legalize Christianity; it took charge of it. From that time on, church leaders were often, if not generally appointed by the state, and they were, of course, beholden to it. At that time there were mass conversions, at first probably just because people saw on which side their bread was buttered; later because of increasingly severe penalties. Pagan priests, overnight, became "Christian" priests.

What had been Christianity before Constantine (that was often at risk of one's life) now became, in many if not most cases, a thin veneer over a pagan core. With some exceptions this became generally true of the Christianity throughout medieval times.

This veneering has also happened at other times of mass or forced conversions, such as during the Spanish conquest.

To ignore this basic change in the nature of Christianity is to make a POV article. When one talks about the atrocities of "Christians" during the Crusades, the discussion is exceedingly unbalanced unless it is recognized that Christianity was basically under control of the state. It was more political than religious and it was more pagan than Christian.

2. The second glaring problem is that the good that Christianity has done gets only a nod, with no development of the historical implications. Doing good to one's enemies has averted a lot of conflict throughout history. Feeding the hungry, visiting the prisoners, caring for the sick - why is there no mention of the thousands of medical clinics, hospitals, educational institutions, literacy programs, disaster relief programs, and other good that has been done by Christianity?

It is a curious anomaly today that an academic can portray Christianity in general as anti-progress, anti-education, and anti-science, yet he speaks from within the framework of an institution founded by Christians. This is common modern viewpoint, but it is also irrational.

The good that Christianity has done is a vital aspect of Christianity, and it is almost completely missing from the page. It will always be very slanted until this gap is filled.

Should I put back the POV tag? Pollinator 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many things left out of the article, good and bad about Christianity, and ignoring many Christian movements as irrelevant. I don't think they're going to implement many of your suggestions, and what you suggest also often ignores that Christianity was molded by the state, and some of those remnants are still there in virtually every movement. It should also be mentioned, that the church-state relationship during the period of the crusades was primarily that the states were subservient to the Pope, not the other way around.... he had the greatest army, and control over the people. More than one rebellious King had to humble themselves in front of him to regain their authority.... Excommunication made Kingship impossible for most. Hell, the title of "King" was if you were coronated by the Pope, you were a mere Prince until then.

And any coverage of the relief efforts would have to include the demands of several such efforts that the benificiaries embrace Christianity as their faith and sit through religious education.

KV 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pollinator. Thanks for your thoughts. I've been a big proponent of talking about and thus distinguising the nature of the resulting state-sponsored orthodox Christianity that was to emerge---specifically how this shaped the distinct doctrines and role it played after having been essentially married/co-opted to serve the political interests of State 's imperial needs of the empire as its new ideological state-religion, which in part involved the rather brutal and totalitarian-like suppression of all other varients and beliefs, and emphasised certain features of the faith to serves its political interests, which to me was a corruption of much of the early beliefs and practices of the early Christians. Hence my wanting to reflect this in terms such as the "institutional Chruch," or "state-sponored church," etc. These efforts have been opposed by the majority of other editors. Still, I welcome you to make the arguments about proposed changes you'd like to see in the text by citing some good referenced that support this, and propose some actual text for inclusion. Ironically the maintsream Christians today who defend the orthodox line and the victors in history believe they do so in the interests of Christianity. A lot of this has to do with the fact that it is the victors who get to write the history and thus downplay certain points. In anycase this is, I guess, one view, which is disputed and you will find a hard time getting consensus for an incorporation of these views. But, I do support them and wiki policy is to acccurately reflect and charaterize minority POV's in nuetral language.

About the social-work projects that you mention for your second point, I'm not sure about but I'm open to others thoughts on the matter. The religion has been used by diverse political groups for their own ends, even within the Chruch, and many of these groups did have a strong social welfare component, including a social-justice componenent (among the more left, liberal groupings). Something about this diverity of rolse might be mentioned along these lines. Giovanni33 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pollinator, what you declare as fact is in fact merely a POV, a common one but still a POV, with actually no real basis in history. If you read the history you will see the Empire's attempt to dictate to the Church what she should believe (main actors being Constantius II and Valens) but you will also read that these attempts did not prevail.

KV, you are confusing the Empire (which was attained through coronation by the Pope) and Kingship (which wasn't, in general, depended on papal acts). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This all seems to me far too much to expect of an overview article. If someone wants to write an article on Church-State relations in the Roman Empire, or on the history of the Christian influence on humanitarianism, go ahead: but I think it is unreasonable to expect to find it all here. Myopic Bookworm 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pollinator: Understanding that this is a relatively brief overview, what would you suggest as far as changes/additions? I'm all for covering these subjects accurately and as NPOV as possible, but that's been pretty tough at times for this group of editors (which includes me), as we all seem to be pretty passionate about our particular perspectives and opinions. I'd be interested in hearing any ideas you may have. KHM03 ^(talk) 13:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I expect people will want to review. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly.

Pollinator makes a good point, similar to what DanielMcBride wrote above. Rather than tagging the article, I hope that Pollinator makes some changes to address his concerns, subject to limits of space and detail. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I looked over your changes to my latest changes to the History section, and I approve of your changes. What you changed it to is acceptable to me, and the language is clear and straight forward. The only change I'd make to your is adding a missing reference to Gnostic Christians. The version that Str1977 has, I still have issues with, for reasons stated above. Giovanni33 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Denominations Section

The title of this article is Christianity not Modern Christianity.... therefore the Denominations section should cover the prominent Christian movements of Yore and link to an article that contains information on them all, as you did for the three main modern branches. Christianity is not only what exists today, but what existed in 612 CE and 1569 CE and 49 CE.

KV

eh, KV 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they are technically relevant, but I think that rather than adding yet more over-compressed information to an already complex article, it might be better to move the link to the List of Christian denominations, which does include extinct Christian groups, into this section from the bottom of the article, to make it more easily found. (People keep suggesting adding things to this article which are better treated properly in their own right, rather than squishing them in here. It just takes a couple more clicks to locate the information...) Myopic Bookworm 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you cannot simply move them to a different article. True, they should be there as well, but a single sentence could cover it. I dont' know if this article exists or not, but we'll just say "Other forms of Christianity have existed throughout time, but have lost favor. Among them are Gnosticism, Arianism and other early Christian movements." We don't want this to be a modern-day POV.

among them, Gnosticism of which Ecclesia Gnostica still survives, Arianism, and many more can be found in here.

KV 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with a modern-day POV (all the users of Wikipedia are modern-day): there's a section of the article clearly headed History which (in most recent versions) explicitly mentions Arianism and Gnosticism. The very concept of a 'denomination' is a modern one. Myopic Bookworm 17:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There, you are not being objective, but subjectively putting down those movements by treating them as less Christian. They are Christian movements that count as Christianity, and we're talking about a sentence not a paragraph even, about them.... followed by some sort of article eventually being made. I repeat that this is not "Modern Christianity" but rather simply "Christianity". If it is covered elsewhere, that doesn't mean don't include it, it means you only have to be brief and mention that these are denominations. I'm amazed at how so many refuse to allow a sentence about this and that.

KV 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as Savior

I just thought i'd ask, isn't it more correct to say that most Protestants consider it an issue of whether people have believed in Jesus as savior? Because to accept isn't necessarily belief in, and believe in is definently the more Biblical way of saying it, so I just thought i'd ask because I dunno if there was some sort of fight over that wording or not. Homestarmy 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a fight, but I'd say that you might 'believe' that Jesus is the Saviour without actually accepting him as your Saviour. (And 'More Biblical' can mean 'less easy to understand if you're not a Protestant'.) Myopic Bookworm 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking it could mean, see, im pretty sure there's nothing about simply acknowladging Jesus as savior saving one from sin, I mean, Jesus was pretty clear, "Whosoever believes in me....", so I just thought i'd point out the problem. If there's like no contention on this, i'd like to change "accept" to "believe in" :/. Homestarmy 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a retrograde step. These days to 'believe in' usually means nothing more than 'acknowledge the existence of'. There's pretty good evidence that that was not the sense of the original, especially as it is contradicted in various parts of the New Testament. DJ Clayworth 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the sentence is talking about Protestant viewpoint, and believe in really is much more active than simply acknowladging the existance of something :/. I mean, I watch a whole lot of church TV type shows from protestant denominations or otherwise, and the two things I normally hear are something along the lines of "Accept Jesus into your heart" and "Believe in", both of which are more active than simply "accept". Homestarmy 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Semantic prosody and "suppress"

Giovanni, I'm starting a new section here, to deal with your comment that no dictionary told you that "suppress" occurs with words that imply something good or positive. This section is more related to linguistics than to the history of Christianity, but I'm posting it here, because it's relevant to the whole issue of POV and NPOV. A dictionary won't tell you if "suppress" collocates with positive or negative words. Dictionaries don't normally tell you if words are positive or negative, except for words that very obviously have positive or negative connotations in our culture — fat, punctual, clean, rigid, sweaty, skinny, sneer, etc.) Words that have hidden connotations can still influence the reader, however. If bread collocated with arsenic more frequently than with butter, the (previously-neutral) word bread would take on a more negative meaning. Anyway, as I say, you won't find it in a dictionary, becauuse finding positive and negative connotations doesn't belong to lexicography; it belongs to corpus linguistics. It's only in the last few years, with the development of computers, that lexographers have started to use corpora, and there's still a lot of work to be done in that area. By taking a corpus consisting of millions of words of naturally-occurring texts, and by doing a computer search for a Key Word in Context, it is possible to see a list of words which that word most commonly appears with; such associated words are known as collocates. Elena Tognini-Bonelli carried out research into the semantic prosody (the tendency of apparently neutral words to take on positive or negative meanings depending on how frequently the occur with obviously positive or negative words) of "largely" and "broadly" (Corpus Linguistics at Work, Amsterdam, 2001). She found that "largely" occurred more frequently with words that carried a negative meaning, whereas "broadly" was more often found with positive words. Yet dictionary definitions did not allow for this distinction.

So if a linguist wanted to know if "eventually" was a positive or negative word, he wouldn't go to a dictionary. He'd go to a corpus of a few million words, and would search for "eventually" as a Key Word in Context. He might get something like:

and teased Katie until eventually she burst into tears. Mother was very cross when she

because he knew that eventually he would have to pay back that loan. However, he hoped

and then Aunt Matilda eventually came to stay with us. So we moved the wardrobe from

Mary-Kate knows that eventually the poor man committed suicide. But she doesn't think

after years of study, he eventually got his diploma and now he's teaching in the local college

He would discard the examples where one can't tell if they are positive or negative. (Is Aunt Matilda's visit a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, for example?) Then, he might take 500 examples where he can tell if the collocatation is positive or negative, and then work out the percentage. If he got something close to 50/50, he could say that the word is neutral.

I'm not aware of any studies done on "suppress" (which of course would include "suppressing, "suppressed", "suppression", etc.). I have concordancing software on my computer, as I studied linguistics at university, but I don't, at present, have access to a proper corpus. So the main point of this is that a dictionary will not tell you if the word collocates more frequently with positive or negative words. But I will point out that you have quite regularly used that word here on Wikipedia, for example in talk pages, votes, and edit summaries. You've talked quite a lot about how (according to you) the Christian editors are "suppressing" NPOV or are "suppressing" your edits, etc. Your own use of the word suggests that that which was being "suppressed" was good. Of course, we'd need hundreds of examples before we could draw definite conclusions. By the way, the Wikipedia entry for suppression is currently a redirect to censorship, which I would say is an obviously negative word. AnnH ♫ 17:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this the exact same problem I had with calling Gnosticism a heresy instead of saying that the Church called it a heresy? They just defined heresy prior.

KV 18:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation. Yes, I did understand what you mean originally, as you expain above, and don't really disagree with you, except that dictionaries are still useful in the information they do provide about connotation. Not all dictionaries, but many do a very good job in this regard. A native speaker of the language by reviewing all the definitions and meaning associated with a word is able to gather information from a dictionary as to the differring connnotatoin a word tends to imply in usage is able to discern this. For example, I'd agree with you about the difference between "large" and "broad," although they not exactly synonyms it still serves as an example of words that do carry a negative and possitive general connotation in most usage. But, this can be picked up from a regular dictionary too, when we see that "large," has some usage and meaning to indicated "a. Pretentious; boastful," or what is now obsolete even "Gross; coarse." Broad, on the other hand, has positive meanings: "Full; open: broad daylight. 5. Covering a wide scope; general: a broad rule. 6. Liberal; tolerant: had broad views regarding social services. See note at broad-minded . 7. Relating to or covering the main facts or the essential points. 8. Plain and clear; obvious: gave us a broad hint to leave." All these are decidely positive, wheras as "large" does not carry these suggestions. This does not mean that your reference tool is not in some ways supperior than a dictionary for the purpose you describe above. No doubt it must be, but a a good dictionary is by no means impotent in this regard either.

The issue, though, is for the word suppress, and while the word does have a negative connotation as an act, as it connotes a use of force, I disagree that it implies in any way that what is being suppressed is positive in nature. I take cough medicine to suppress my cough. The cough is bad, and I want to suppress it.Giovanni33 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the issue is the word 'suppressed.' I think the issue is the sentence "The Roman Empire, having become Christian, suppressed both the old pagan cults and Christian sects that were deemed by the orthodox church authorities as heresies." This seems to me less neutral, and less accurate, than it could be. That I did not remove it does not mean I endorse it. Still, if we want to consider how the word "suppress" is used, it might be instructive to search this talk page and see how "suppress" is used here, when we are talking with each other. For example:

• "Your excuse to remove it because you think its "bloating" is not convcinging, but suppressing it due to POV is more likley.
• "To suppress Giovanni's contributions and those of any editors who do not follow only one version of events, a version that is not even defended here with any references is a classic case of an article that is slanted by one POV."
• "Now you admit its true, but apologize for it by saying that it was only "heresies" which were punishable by death. At least we are making progress, although you still wish to suppress this fact."
• "Now you repeat the same revisionist history here (which is whitewashing since you wish to suppress facts that cast Christians in a less than positive light."
• "Yes, by modern standards they are quite unsavory, but do you think that because of this we should outright omit/suppress these facts of history?"
• "I think it's a historical fact that many modern Christians don't realize (and some of them perhaps try to suppress, by asserting that the early Church had a unified body of agreed doctrine)."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the use of suppress is negative because of the democratic nature of our modern society holds that ideas should not be hindered along the lines of John Stuart Mill's harm principle, but it's important to note the difference with the meaning of the word itself the nature of the things it describes. If we are to describe or report about an action that most hold to be negative, this is not a problem about the text or word choice, since it has no choice but to convey the meaning that we want to convey, in this case reporting a historical fact. There is no need to hunt for euphamisms when a word does fit for the occasion. For example, consider the word "genocide" as applied the elimnation of the Native Americans that started by Columbus. Scholarly works, accept that word usage, and even though its seen as negative; it's not POV to use it to describe the reality of the historical fact. It would be POV to say "genocide is morally wrong, it's bad, etc" But, simply because a word might indeed be mostly used to describe events that we now hold to be negative doesn't necessarily mean it's not the best word for the job or that its POV, given an appropriate subject matter that its being empoyed for. Infact, avoiding calling genocide genoicde would be giving way to a POV. Using suppressed here is actually a much milder word, and I'd prefer stronger verbs such as "then sought to: eradicate, annihilate, exterminate, extinguish, obliterate, root out, etc., to describe what was done by the Empire under direction of the State Church, which did exactly this, even along the line of Orwells 1984's "thought crimes." My point is sometimes we can't justly avoid using a word that is seen as negative in some instances when it's used to describe something that most people do think is negative in nature, without obsuring it by using a euphemism to hide it, and thus be guilty of being POV in the name of not wanting to offend. Is there a word that can be used to describe something most people consider negative, such as genocide, with words that do NOT have mostly negative usage? I think not.

About the text above, I'd like to know what about it is not accurate or neutral. When we can identify the problem with it then we can move to address and fix it. Otherwise it just seems what is not liked abot it is that this fact is being reported. Giovanni33 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

edits

Besides restoring information that was removed without explanation, I noticed the citation that was given for this sentence (requested): "A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles, and was certainly formalized by the 3rd century ⁷" did not support the assertion. The citation references the Council of Nicæa, which was in the first quarter of 4th century (325). The Pastrol Epistles was in the first century. If a proper citation is given to support this we can retore the origial sentence. Until then I modified it for accuracy based on the reference Str did provide as follows: "A church hierarchy was certainly formalized by the 4th century ⁷. Giovanni33 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference I provided was for the formalizing in the 4th century. I forgot to include the reference to the pastoral letters, 1 Timothy and Titus. I have done so now. Anyway, there was no reason to remove the information, maybe unpleasant to some, that the hierarchy goes back to the first century. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously...

"...at first Arianism was widespread (as among Goths and Vandals), but later succumbed to the orthodx Catholic Christianity, beginning with the Franks"

"Succumbed?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Succumbed" might be the wrong word. I changed it because the word "prevailed" is also not neutral for the purpose. I'd welcome a change to a more neutral word choice. Giovanni33 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you did effect a more neutral word choice, "converted," which is addmittedly better than either of the other two, both flip sides of the same problem. I don't agree, however, about removing the other section about "different versions," but I'll leave your change for now and consider it. Giovanni33 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Prevail" is a perfectly neutral word - accurate reporting of reality, be it in the presence, be it in history, is not POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

To explain my latest edits:

• I reverted back to "Jewish religion" - the change to Judaism was never explained. STR

No objection to this, as I was not the one that changed it. I had no preference, but in light of Myopic Bookworms explantion, I prefer the reversion back to "Jewish religion."Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who changed that I think, and saying Judaism is shorter and more accurate. Why don't we rename this article "Christian Religion"? Because the proper way to reference it is Christianity. Why would someone prefer Jewish religion to Judaism?

KV 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I add that jewish religion redirects to judaism already.... further showing that they're the same thing.

KV 05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Jewish religion" bit is not supposed to link anywhere - later we have a link to Judaism. Why not rename "Christianity" the "Christian religion"? First of all, this is not about renaming articles. Secondly, because it is quite clear, Restorationism notwithstanding, what Christianity is, as it is solely defined by faith in Jesus Christ, while "Jew" and "Jewish" are not that easily definable, having both religious and "ethnic" meanings. The point is that Judaism, as we know it today, is the Rabbinical Judaism that organized itself in the time 70-160 AD. Of course it is based on the whole of Jewish tradition since Moses, especially on the branch of the Pharisees. However, the same goes for Christianity, another branch and development of the Jewish religion. The wording is supposed to avoid the POV that Rabbinical Judaism is identical in all things to the Jewish religion pre-70. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No one said "Rabbinical" You can say Ancient Judaism, but saying the Jewish Religion just looks like you don't know what you're talking about.

KV 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any reference for the claim that "even more diversity existed among Gentile Christians"? I restore the historical connection of Gentile Christianity and Church while retaining some reference to "diversity" + the Layton quote. STR

I don't think there was greater diversity among Gentiles. I think what was meant was to not limit the diverity that did exist only among either Jewish or Gentils Christian sects. The way it stands after your change is acceptable. I'd only add in the word "also."Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly would you like to add "also"? I have taken a shot and hope that it is what you wanted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the comments further down (or rather the lack of it), I consider this issue closed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why the change from Roman Emperors to Romans - these Christians were often Romans too. STR

Not my change and I support the reversion back.Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the comments further down (or rather the lack of it), I consider this issue closed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I reinstated (again) the separate passage on theological dispute, which Gio blindly reverted. He still hasn't commented on this suggested compromise. STR

I have not blindly reverted, and I've commented on the reasons for all my edits, each time. I explained previously regarding the separate disputes section, and I have not removed it. I only moved it to the paragraph that deals with the disputes, heresies, and orthodox. Each paragraph should deal thematically with their respective points and not jump back and forth. That is why I moved a couple of sentences around. I don't think it affects the chronological accuracy at all.Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain again: we have a section on the exchange between Christianity and its environment (philosophy, mystery cults, paganism etc) during which we first mentioned Christian theology. After we have introduced theology we can proceed to the theological disputes that emerged from it and the way it was dealt with. Such conflicts and decisions preceed Constantine. Then we move on to Constantine and Theodosius and the establishing of Christianity as the state religion with all that goes with it. That is a valid sequence IMHO. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I made the date of the legalisation of Christianity less specific. Sure, the "edict" of Milan can be dated, but that was not the end of persecutions, as Maximin and Licinius (originally part of the tolerance edict) had to be conquered first before persecution ceased. STR

I don't have any objection to this change.Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Gio, "an orthodox" is a contradicton in terms - there can be only one orthodoxy - there can be debates about what this is (but that's not our job here), but there cannot be two orthodox. "An orthodox" is utterly meaningless.

Actually some scholars argue there were more than one "orthodoxy" among early Christianity--in the sense that they all believed they were correct and there was no clear mainline, dominant version yet, hence a heterodoxy, but this is besides the point here. Assuming you want to to idenfity only one, "an orthodox Christianity" is singular. Using "an" is just like "a" used in in front an a word that starts with a vowel--so it's singular unlike "some." Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That definition of "orthodox" is what I meant by making it "meaningless" - of course, they though themselves right, everyone does. To state that Theodosius made a version of Christianity that considered itself right the state religion is meaningless, as a) there is no different version not thinking that, b) why would he make establish a religion that considers itself wrong (assuming such a thing could exist). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• The constant repitition of "regarded as heretical", "deemed as heretical" is clearly POV pushing and IMO a reversion of both is absolutely correct. However, I am willing to compromise and retain the "preface" in the first passage. In the second it is superfluous.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is only adopting NPOV langauge, and that is the POV it advances, not to adopt the voice of the victor giving a value judgment and assesement of the winner being correct and legitimate it its use of such labels against other versions of Christianity. But, I accept your compromise here. Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But the constant repition makes it pushing a point, which in the end resilts in taking the side of the loser. Which is POV too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is pushing the point that we don't want to declare it an incorrect belief. It's not taking the side of the loser, it's only declaring things as it is. If it said "falsely deemed a heresy by" then it would be pushing the point of the loser. Here we only state what happens without making a value judgement. I reject this reversion.

KV 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with you KV. I want to strike a resonable compromise and will look over the recent changes and see if i can improve it. I've just been a little busy and want to make sure that when I do edit it, it's not done in haste. Giovanni33 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

KV, have you actually looked at the revert. In fact I did retain Gio's "deemed heretical", but only once. But my grammatical changes made a second preface of that kind superfluous anyway. (And it was the constant repeating that alerted me. We don't write like this on other topics.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You always complain of Christianity recieving special treatment, having to be more NPOV than others...... It's basic NPOV doctrine, and in pages like Alchemy, I wish this could be enforced there as well, but I've been by myself there, and not focusing on it. When I write, I try to use such NPOV language, and why you would actively oppose it, if you're for NPOV, is beyond me.

KV 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to work together in good faith, we need to recognize that we all want neutrality, we just disagree on what that is. Regarding "defining heresy in contrast to orthodoxy" or vice versa: Did they really do either one? Did they carefully craft a definition of one, and then define anything not fitting that definition as the other? Or did they judge particular doctrines to be orthodox or heretical on an individual basis? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the "Jewish religion" wording: although Judaism strictly covers it, this name tends to be associated in many people's minds with Rabbinical Judaism, much of which is contemporary with rather than prior to Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 11:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Of course Str's right about 'Romans;' I'm glad he fixed that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor question: was it Str1977 who wrote the original bullet points above, beginning with "to explain my latest edits"? It's hard to tell with all the interleaved comments. And regarding Judaism versus Jewish religion, I would prefer either "Jewish religion" or "Hebrew religion" to describe the religion prior to the Temple's destruction and end if animal sacrifices in 70 A.D., and "Judaism" as shorthand for the Rabbinical Judaism that followed it. Both Christianity and Judaism claim to be the legitimate continuation of the earlier "Hebrew religion," both are markedly different from the Hebrew religion in that they both discontinued all the rites that take place in the Temple. Both formalized their scriptural canons well after 70 A.D. Wesley 17:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was Str1977. Giovanni33 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. I have added "semi-signatures" to each point. For Judaism, see me reply to KV above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The latest round of changes claimed to fix neutrality problems, but only served to remove good material and inject POV in the opposite direction. This is not how we get NPOV. I suggest we move more carefully and avoid losing text that is accurate and cited. In particular, the early history of Christianity as state religion is not something we should be hiding. Alienus 08:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you have enough Wp experience to know about such things, about weasel words like "claimed" and what they imply. My changes reverted a whole series of this pov pushing. To only mention the highlights: Christianity did not start with the followers of Christ but with those claimining to be followers of Christ - the Communist regimes are not really Communist (probably because Communist means good) but only claim to be such.

But maybe we should preface any sentence with it is claimed, it is said, how about:

Christianity is claimed to be a so-called religion which is deeemed monotheistic relating in what could be described as a centring way to what is purported to be the life and thought to be the actions of a man called Jesus from a town dubbed Nazareth, a man of which some people say that those known as Christians call him Jesus Christ, in such a way as it is recounted in a book that it sometimes alled a Testament which is though to be New.

Would that suit your purposes? If I did this over at another page (not that I am planning on doing this) you would be appalled and you'd be right in that. Str1977 :^{(smile back)} 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The first mistake you made was to mix up two different kinds of edits. If you just wanted to trim a few words, you should have stuck to that. Instead, you moved things around, making it hard to compare the two versions to see what was cut out and what was only moved around.

Once a comparison is made, the results are not at all neutral. For example, a section that used to say "in 391 Theodosius I established orthodox Christianity as the official and, except for Judaism, the only legal religion of the Roman Empire" was whitewashed to say " In 391 Theodosius I established orthodox Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire". Note how this change hides the fact that all other religions were not merely unofficial but actively persecuted. Now, if this implication is factually wrong, then let's get some citations out here. Otherwise, what you did was censorship, pure and simple. Alienus 09:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I agree that I could have made my edits in several stages, one for wording issues, one for content issues. But that can hardly be basis for such reactions.

Yes, I removed the "only legal religion" bit as possibly misleading. It has been controversial for quite a while and you can blame Gio as much for putting it in as me for removing it again. Now to the content dispute: religion is a term with more than one definition and given our understanding of the term the above wording suggests a searching through the Empire and persecuting anythign not Christian (orthodox) and not Jewish. It evokes pictures of the Inquisition that are hardly in place here. Theodoisus edict made Christianity (orthodox) the state religion (instead of Roman Paganism and Sol Invictus and instead of Arianism which under Cosntantius and Valens had already effectively been the state religion and had employed much more vicious measures than their Nicene counterparts), it closed down all pagan cults and forbade private sacrifices. That meant the end for the practicing of paganism. It did not restrict or suppress more intelletual endeavours, like philosopical schools, or pagan ideas etc. Judaism retained its status as before (don't know whether Judaism was mentioned at all in the edict), Manichaeism was already persecuted since Diocletian and that didn't change. It is however misleading, as the passage seemed to suggest that, Theodosius' edict turned the Empire from a colourful side by side of all different religions to a sudden monopoly (with a Jewish exception). It wasn't like that and because of the connotations I prefer it to limit the passage on what the actual edict said and did. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Persecution

I removed the following as wildly inaccurate:

In the UK some see the current government as discriminating against, and in some cases persecuting, Christians, as in the government's banning of public Christian celebrations (such as Christmas), and in their elevation of ethnic faiths and Neopagan festivals to greater importance than the Christian festivals.

The government has not banned public christian celebrations. Some local councils with a political correctness gone mad stance have stopped people decorating their offices but the streets were full of nativity scenes, virtually every child under the age of 8 will have been in a nativity play and the TV was full of Christian christmas services. Currently there are easter cards in all the shops - some with rabbits on them but also religious versions and the Easter holiday is much looked forward to by all - even if just for a rest. All school children up to age 16 must take part in a daily act of worship that is "broadly and in the main" christian. The Christian church get tax breaks and there are many many state assisted church affilated schools. How is any of this persecution?

As for elevating other faiths and pagan festivals - the May day holiday is more to do with the Labour movement and there are no public holidays for Ede or Ramadan - the only religious festivals given public holidays are Christian ones. Sophia^TalkTCF 08:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with the removal. Myopic Bookworm 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming what you say is true, then your right, it probably should be removed :/. Homestarmy 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The added sentence "Some also believe the media to be anti-Christian and to discriminate against Christians. [citation needed]" seems practically meaningless, since in an international context it is hardly possible to generalize about "the media". In parts of the US I'm told it can almost be hard to find a radio station that isn't overtly pushing evangelical Christianity, while by contrast the BBC is generally scrupulously neutral (but has a strong tradition of Christian broadcasting), and "the media" includes newspapers such as the Christian Science Monitor (neutral) and L'Osservatore Romano (explicitly pro-religious). So "some also believe" merely flags up that some people will believe practically any conspiracy theory going. Myopic Bookworm 14:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In im America and I find it very hard to find a radio station that does have evangelical Christianity, in fact, the closest one i've ever found is pretty well taken over by advertising. Homestarmy 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Secularization of Christmas would be the place to put any substantive material about it. I don't think it constitutes persecution. Maybe 'self-persecution', if there is such a thing. I suppose scrupulous neutrality is determined more by the listener than the speaker, and even then we have to choose what to be neutral about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since decorating your home and putting up Christmas trees is pagan anyway it would be hard to put not being allowed to decorate your office under the heading of Christian persecution. In the mass media here there is certainly no anti Christian bias - as I said above it has a special status in the school day enshrined in law so there is no way persecution or even suppression is taking place. The UK still has blasphemy laws that protect only Christianity but these are rarely used these days. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Complaints of discrimination have also been made of and by Christians in various other contexts," while no doubt true seem a little vague. I think this should be taken out, unless someone can expand upon it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It does look like a general whinge and is not specific in anyway. Since this is a paragraph covering persecution not discrimination it really doesn't belong but I've stripped a lot out in the last day so I left it be to see what happened. If no one has a problem I'll take it out and suggest that specific cases are documented. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)