Talk:Christianity/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Accusation of cults

The recent edit:

It is important to note that certain groups in this category are widely considered to be cults by many other Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churchs.

is unproductive and more appropriate for church/denomination specific pages. First, what is a cult. It is very difficult to produce an agreed upon definition; just look at the cult article. Two, if we are going to being making critiques of a few churches on this page, then we will need to make critiques about all churches on this page. Three, what is the purpose of the page? To explain what Christianity is or to fully define all of the interior squabbles. If it is the last, we have got a long way to go and we are missing out on some wonderful history within historical Christianity. I am comfortable going either way. If we are going with the later choice, please define "cult" for the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See guidelines at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Cult, sect. --Lethargy 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem I see with it is that you've basically got a graph of references needed here, something from protestantism, catholicism, and the orthodoxy on each of those groups. Furthermore, each ref specifically has to have the label "cult" in it. If these references can be located the sentence might be fine, except maybe reword the "it is important to note" part. Explaning it wouldn't be necessary if all the proper references are found. I tried looking for a few starting with the Watchtower, but annoyingly enough, nobody from a halfway useful source would use the exact word "cult", so that word may need to be widened. (Especially with the thing Lethargy brings up) Homestarmy 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, "important to note" is just like "It should be noted that...", which is listed at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, along with "widely". (I tried adding this a minute ago, but I got an edit conflict) --Lethargy 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this statement for the reasons above. --Lethargy 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This identical statement comes around every few months and has to be rehashed. The difficulty is that once cult is defined, then it is readily apparent that it is a highly POV word. Of course, then there is that part about the followers of Christ being recognzied as a cult members in the early days; some might say that being labeled as a cult would not put groups in such a bad company. I am certain this will not be the last of this conversation. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should fix up the word cult. However, I do think the issue is relevant not because these groups are necessarily any less by objective standards, but because most Christian groups do consider them to be to be outside the standard church. I don't by any means think we should leave out a topic as important as this because it might offend some. Rather, it's a very important note. In fact, we could even add another note, like "these groups dispute that claim" - but the note itself is important, even if offensive. Here's a quick perusal, trying to come up with solid external references, which show that many churches deal differently with the said groups than with other groups:

• http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04.html (the site itself has an agenda, but it's quoting form major newspapers) Notes on Catholicism and Methodism (two significant churches, especially the former) concerning Mormonism.
  • "Delegates to the United Methodists' national convention meeting in Cleveland on Wednesday said the LDS Church "does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith," and that Mormons who convert to Methodism need to be re-baptized." (Salt Lake Tribune)
  • "The Roman Catholic Church declared Thursday that Mormon converts must be rebaptized, a setback to the Mormon Church's effort to characterize itself as a Christian denomination. The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared that baptisms in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are "not the baptism that Christ instituted." The ruling was a departure from the Catholic Church's usual practice of recognizing the baptisms of converts from most other churches. The Vatican held that the Mormon view of the nature of God was too different from Catholicism's." (LA Times)
• http://www.ag.org/Pentecostal-Evangel/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm Assembly of God concerning Mormonism - I can find no similar link for Catholicism, for example.
• http://www.catholic.com/library/History_of_the_Jehovah_Witnesesses.asp - Catholics regard Jehovah's Witnesses for their "Unusual Doctrines": .
• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10570c.htm - Catholic encyclopedia entry on Mormons, specifically uses the word cult.
• (Note, I can't find any specific Orthodox links, because they're frustratingly few, but I have acquaintences who are in the church, and could help me out. As I am acquainted with the church, I know they take this position; it's just a matter of me finding references).

Please pardon me for making 4 out of the 5 articles concern Mormonism, but I had trouble finding JW articles. I hope this clears things up. That's the best I can do for now; let me get back to you if you'd like more. -Patstuart 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a pretty good start, but unfortunently due to the wide-reaching nature of the sentence, you'll need at least something concerning most of the groups before it can be a well-referenced sentence :/. A fair number of references it would be.... Homestarmy 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I propose the following changes, and I am including more references:

Restorationists include Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 12 million members, and Jehovah’s Witnesses with 6.6 million members.

...becomes...

Among Restorationists groups are Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Disciples of Christ, and the Church of Christ. Also among restorationsists are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (12 million members), and the Watchtower Society(6.6 million members), widely considered to have doctrines outside mainstream Christianity (a claim which the groups hotly dispute).

I realize the wording is a bit awkward - please feel free to rewrite it, so long as the same essential message is maintained. Of course, the many given references would be added too. I am providing some more, taking great pains to prove that the groups are treated outside the maintstream:

• http://www.oca.org/QAIndex.asp?SID=3 Orthodox Church of America refers to Jehovah's Witness, but not Protestants or Catholics, as "Cult [or] Non-Christian Group"
• http://www.oca.org/PDF/14thAAC/Evangelizing%20North%20America.pdf Official OCA document implying Book of Mormon, along with Quran, is heretical. Critical of other groups, but not to same degree.
• http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09a01.html - again, from site specifically devoted to cult. Classifies Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant in "essential core" of religion, but says, exactlu: "Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, however, do qualify as cults of Christianity because they claim to be Christian -- indeed, to be the only true Christian group on earth."

Is this good enough? It's important subject-matter. -Patstuart 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism because it does not use the correct formula of "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". That, in itself, is not necessarily a statement about the entirety of practices within the LDS church or JW movement. Catholic ecclesiology is complex, and the quote as it stands does not in any way express this. I am not sure if ecclesiology is the right subject to be interjected into this section, which is merely a descriptive analysis of what groups self-identify as Christian, and their interrelations. Lostcaesar 01:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem with Christian "protestant-esque"ecumenism, which seeks to establish a "least common denominator" of Christian beliefs and hash that out as what it means to be Christian, thus it then has a vested interest in expelling groups that do not accept this bare commonality, and finds support in such from traditionally confessional and magisterial protestant groups. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology is so far removed from this kind of view of Christianity itself that it just cannot be fitted together as such. Lostcaesar 01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided strong external evidence that all groups, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant consider these to be outside the mainstream, more so than each other. That should be enough. That being said, if we must go by personal experience, I have numberous Catholic and Eastern Orth. acquaintances, and they all agree to this truth believe this (as per comments below, you are correct, I used the wrong wording). If you can provide strong evidence contradicting the claims with good support above, please do. -Patstuart 01:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not truth, but belief. It is not a truth that a group is a cult; it is a belief! Let's not begin stretching things out of context and reality.

The LDS church baptisms are "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and in the Holy Ghost". If I am not mistaken the Roman Catholic church believes that LDS ideas of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are so different that the baptism is unacceptable; formula having nothing to do with it.

Also, if you look on the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page you will find other references for it being a cult and by whom. Of course, for that matter, you could also look at Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism_of_Mormonism, Anti-Mormon, and Ex-Mormon; those are some that come immediately to mind. The value of what some Christian groups think of other Christian groups, in the context of this article, is debatable. The topic is Christianity; not the feelings of some Christians for others. I am not sure of the value of the term "cult". I think policy accurately portrays some of the value of the term. It still has not been defined and will need to be so before it is used. Cultists are found in many churches and Christian cultists do use a similar definition, but it boils down to: groups that don't accept the Nicene Creed; or groups that don't accept Christian fundamentals (which is then broken down to the Nicene Creed; a bit circuitous, but I have heard it nonetheless). Being offensive is of little interest to me; being truthful is very important. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my wording above; the concept I meant to convey didn't quite come out right. I meant to say, "they believe this" - not at all "this is true". If I meant the latter, then I would be dead wrong, and my opinion irrelevant. -Patstuart 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Other churches have long labeled the Catholic church to be a cult[[1]][[2]], [[3]], [[4]]; I guess by Pat's reasoning this would need to be included also. Agreed? Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

SR, my apologies— if the right formula is used then it is very unusual to consider the baptism invalid. As you say it must have something to do with LDS beliefs about the Godhead, such that the identity of the words is completely lost, though I will say that it is still not an applicable point here, Pat, because even pagans can administer valid baptism if the formula is correct and there is a modicum of intent. Therefore, the administration of baptism is not a good standard for discerning a group's Christianity. Furthermore, the reception of baptism is an individual matter and probably too cloudy to use as a standard as well. If I may poorly summarize Catholic ecclesiology concerning other groups which call themselves Christian: Catholicism and Christianity are synonyms. The Catholic Church, therefore, is not a denomination of some larger group; rather it is the universal category. To be fully Christian is to be Catholic. If a group does some things that are in keeping with Catholicism, but not everything, then these similarities count and, to this extent, the group is Christian, though imperfectly so. Thus we can discern a kind of sliding scale. As to where certain groups, such as the LDS, fall on this group on the whole is not the kind of thing one would expect to see official statements about. There are obviously similarities, such as a priesthood, sacraments (ordinances), the scriptures (minus some additions), &c. That said, I don't think it is our business to be making such a discernment in the first place. As for the references that you mentioned, only one was really relevant for Catholicism, and that was the Catholic encyclopedia, which used the word "cult" once in the context of polygamy as anti-Christian (no longer practiced). I am not sure if that is enough of a source or not, but it sounds thin.

That business of ecclesiology aside, I think labeling how some groups describe other groups is unnecessary and unproductive here. Perhaps we could have a section in the article on Ecclesiology. There the nature of the Christian Church could be discussed as viewed by different groups: Catholic-Orthodox, Confessional Protestant, Magisterial Protestant, Evangelical, Ecumenical, Pentecostal, and so on. Here it could be expressed how, based on what certain groups define as essential to the Christian Church, the groups express what is essentially Christian. The only other option would be to have a section on excommunication, apostasy, heresy, and schism, a related and relevant section but one unpopular here because so many people see this as an unwanted handicap to ecumenism (which itself is an ecclesiaological position, something they almost always fail to realize). Lostcaesar 08:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the validity of Mormon baptism according to the Catholic Church: while it is correct that Mormons use the proper formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the belief that what makes a baptism valid is this formula is very much mistaken (and extremly legalistic too). Yes, the trinitarian formula is necessary for validity but it is not the only thing - a baptizer must intend what the Church intends in baptisms - and a mere superficial similarity is not enough. It boils down to the issue of whether Mormons do believe in one Gods or more gods. If the latter is true and Father and Son in the formula refers to two different beings, that formula hardly conforms with valid baptism.

I agree, LC, that baptism is no tenable way to distinguish Christian from non-Christian (though the pagan example is spurious, as pagan groups cannout bapitze ... only anybody with the proper intent, not excluding pagans), because there are groups whose Christianity might not be contradicted and still do not use the trinitarian formula (and sometimes this even happens in mainstream parishes).

I agree that it is not "our business to be making such a discernment in the first place", but I think that we must properly report the concerns of mainstream Christians in regard to these groups. "Cults" is not the word to use as it is too much of a insulting label, but what ever happened to the sentence we once had that these groups are considered "heretical or even non-Christian" by others.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done some searching and have found out that the passage was removed by Timothy Usher [

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=next&oldid=50061415] without a stated reason (the one he gives, that it is covered in the following the paragraph is clearly not accurate). I have restored it in a form assimilated to the new context. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Str, thank you for your efforts on finding that wording. One problem I see with the current statement is the claim about the divinity of Jesus; is this more a reflection on the Jehovah Witness' position or am I missing something? I think all the other groups believe that Jesus was divine. Can we limit the statement to just the Trinity?

Str, if concerns of mainstream Christianity are important (and I think they are, but not completely for this article), would this article also be the place to mention the mainstream Protestant views of Catholicism? Some of these thoughts have been around for hundreds of years and are easily referenced.

These types of accusations are slippery slopes. The term cult once had such a benign definition, but now it is a slur that some Christians love to use without any real understanding of the term. However, it meets their purposes...those people believe differently and are therefore wrong. I find that these types of accusations have little academic value. They are similar to identifying the Catholic church as the Whore of Babylon or a cult. I have known some Mormons that also have had similar thoughts, but I believe those thoughts are not of the Spirit. Yes, the Catholic church has done some terrible things during her long history, but within her also lies the majesty of the infant Jesus and the crucified Christ. If we begin to differentiate some groups, then it is only fair and balanced that all are identified by the views of others. That is the slope I hope to resist, but we need to be balanced. Storm Rider ^(talk) 13:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this conversation is getting slightly off-track, wasn't the original point of this sentence to note how most churches, in some way or another, object to the lists of other churchs in question? Because you know the cult word could probably be dropped since it would make it so much easier to find references, and this idea that most large churches object to these certain churches is quite a notable phemominon. I don't think the rejection of the Catholic church's authority that most protestant and orthodox church's have is quite the same, as the Catholic church is quite large, and most of the church's in question at this moment are quite small. (Plus, there's a whole lot more history behind that particular rejection, I think that topic would really be much better discussed somewhere else). Homestarmy 14:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's organize what we have so far: (I'll start with the most clear-cut refs)

Orthodox: on Mormons:[5] on the Watchtower:[6]

Protestants: on Mormons:[7]

Catholic: on Mormons:[8] on the Watchtower:[9]

Hmm, we're gonna need more. Homestarmy 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more refs: Catholicism apparently has been getting the whole "The Pope is the Antichrist!" treatment from the Seventh-day adventist church, so it makes sense that they denounce it: http://www.catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp The Catholic Encyclopedia copied some content from what I presume was a Catholic maganize referring to a marriage between a Catholic and an adventist as an unequally yoked situation: (therefore implying seventh-dayers aren't believers) http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm A Calvanist (and therefore protestant) criticism of the same church: http://www.carm.org/sda/teachings.htm The "Christian Research Institute which I presume is protestant also seems to object most strongly to them in one of their journals.(Christian Research Journal, Summer 1988, p. 13) Seems the coptic (and therefore Eastern Orthodox) pope has had a few negative things to say about them as well: http://news.adventist.org/data/2003/00/1042575589/index.html.en Homestarmy 15:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are going. At first it sounded like you felt the direction was off base, but then you went off providing references for the direction. If you are looking for references on Catholicism and the Whore of Babylon or even being a cult, I gave several above. Many Protestant groups have stated that Catholics are not "real" Christians. Many groups have also stated Mormons are not Christians. As far as size goes, the LDS church is the 4th largest in the US; I guess that means, at least in the US, the LDS church is significant.

Could we please focus on the question: Is the article the appropriate place to identify which groups that have been called cults, heretical, or worse, a "Whore of Babylon". Depending upon the answer, all groups that have been identified as such will then be identifed. In this way we maintain NPOV and balance. Careful of your answer; you will find that there is not a Christain church that exists that as not been identified as heretical, cutltic, or a Babylonian whore. So exactly what is the puporse of the identification? Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The conversation looked to me more like an argument of whether the article should ever use the word cult, as opposed to objecting to other ideas for the sentence. (Which hopefully won't use the word cult, because that's harder to find refs for) I was furthermore stating that since objections to Catholicism generally have more history behind them that that shouldn't be considered in this sentence, and I might also add that since this is a paragraph dealing with Restorationism, objections to Catholicism don't apply. The reason I think this sentence is useful is because of notability, almost all of the "restorationist" churchs in question are probably opposed by Protestants, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox for numerous reasons, and I think that this general trend of opposition to these various smaller groups which all seem to feel they are the "restoration" of the real Christian church is a notable phemominon. Church's disagreeing with each other is one thing, but the largest groups of Christians in the world all opposing specific, smaller churchs who are almost all united under the cause of "restoring" the true Christian church is something much more interesting. Balance and NPOV does not mean we have to obscure a notable pattern of specific, widespread opposition. Homestarmy 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would stress the following points:

1. I have to say that I think the Church of Christ is getting very inaccurately portrayed. They are Trinitarian and accept the divinity of Jesus, and I know of no group that singles them out as non-Christian.
2. As for the references, we need documents with an official judgment, not that handful of websites. For example, it is problematic to infer a statement about a religious group from an analysis of a decision about disparity of cult. Disparity of cult (Catholic married to non-Christian) is technical and has to do with baptismal status in relation to the sacrament of marriage, rather than whether someone is, in a more general sense, specifically "Christian". (see point 4)
3. The view that the Catholic Church entered into apostasy at some point after Nicene, and that this was foretold by allegorical interpretation of the "whore of Babylon" as Rome, is a view standard of almost every group that emerged during the Reformation, as it was popular amongst the reformers. Seventh-Day Adventist is only unusual in the sense that they built their entire eschatology around this idea and they are an apocalyptic movement (thus it is the backbone of their beliefs). Ergo, you would be looking more of whether different protestant communities disavowed this analysis officially or not, since it can be assumed that they more or less all accepted it.
4. Lastly, in older sources, and in technical sources, one must be careful because cult can be used in a non-derogatory sense. The Latin cultus means veneration or worship (often veneration, as there is another word for worship per se), and it is used sometimes properly in that sense (for example, medieval history has the term "cult of the Virgin" to describe the development of veneration of Mary at a given historical moment, without offensive or theological implications. (also, see point 2)

Lostcaesar 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not recommending that the accusations of other theologians against the Holy Roman Catholic church be stated in this paragraph, but only that they should be stated if we are going to start quoting negative accusations of groups. I am not sure if value is correlated to what is interesting, but if it is as you say, then we can make it very interesting by quoting John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Knox's views that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon. It could be placed right after stating the number of members of the Catholic church. I don't like this path we are taking, but these individual quotes are at the very heart of mainstream Christian thought. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But this paragraph concerns Restorationist churchs, not the Catholic church :/. Homestarmy 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

??? Homestar, are you reading anything I write? The question is what is appropriate for the article. "Is the article the appropriate place to identify which groups that have been called cults, heretical, or worse, a "Whore of Babylon". Depending upon the answer, all groups that have been identified as such will then be identifed. In this way we maintain NPOV and balance." If you think it is important to include the negative views one group has about another, then you open the door for all negative views about all other groups. THEREFORE, in Catholic paragraph you would enter the above. Why are you focusing on the restorationist paragraph when the question is about the entire article? Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As per my above comments, I believe the biggest problem lies with the non-trinity or non-Jesus-as-the-only-God churches, as Storm Rider so aptly put it. Lostcaesar is right; Church of Christ should not be grouped in with the other groups. But it's also clear from his comments that even he recognizes that there'ss a recognizable difference between the non-trinitarian groups and the trinitarian groups.

As for per the comments, being "just a handful of links" - I went out of my way to assure that these were from an reliable (and most official) a source as possible, with only a few exceptions. That's why it's the Catholic Encyclopedia, the official Orthdox Church of America, and, for what I could find among the Protestants, the Assembly of God website. LostCeasar is asking for "documents with an official judgment", but I'm not sure we can do much better than this.

As for the word "cult", I think we've all agreed it needs to be dropped in favor of softer language. If it is in one of the sources, that's acceptable (we should't discredit a source because it's uses the word) - but certainly let's not use it in the article.

As for the comments about all Christian groups calling each other heretical, it is a good point, but, but not strong enough. The point is that the mainline-three (i.e., Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodox), are by and large far more conciliatory toward each other than they are towards the non-trinitarian groups. http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp for example, groups Fundamentalists, and even Seventh-day Adventists in the Christian grouping, while Watchtower and LDS are oustide the grouping "Christian". What I'm saying is this: we ought not ignore a bigger trend just because there are smaller trends, and it would be too tedious to mention them all. To pretend that all controversies are equal, just becuase they all exist, is to trivialize the nature of the conflict.

Not all documents must necessarily be right from the top of the church. Can't good lay organizations, which the church openly admits speak for it, work? Like CatholicAnswers.com

One has asked: "Is the article the appropriate place to identify which groups that have been called cults...". I hope I have answered this satisfactorally above: yes, and also to do so wisely. This is important in any article: to have, for example, an article on Islam which fails to mention that the Ahmadi Muslims or the Druze are considered outside the mainstream (and far more separate than the Sunnis and Shia are to each other), would, in fact, do the reader of the article a disservice.

I hope this helps things out. -Patstuart 16:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I still disagree with the value of these judgements, I can live with it. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I will be documenting the thoughts of what people view as mainstream Christian groups and their views of the Catholic Church. I will also be documenting the Catholic churches position of itself and their view of all those outside of the One and only Holy Catholic church.

The base of my disagreement revolves around a simple point. Let's take your example above, do you really think I or most any other Christian is concerned that Shia and Sunnis have a problem with the Druze? Of course not, they are all Muslim and rightly so. Do you think it matter to a Christian exactly what Buddist sect an individual adheres? Certainly not, what is important to know is that the individual is Buddist. If we want to study the different sects of Buddism, then it might be interesting and an interested reader would spend the time to more deeply understand the differences between the groups. It is the same thing with Christianity. The only people who really care about this issue is other Christians and the Muslim and the Buddist could give a gnat's patutie about the immediate differences.

Catholicism and Protestants have had hundreds of years to come to a relatively peaceful co-existence (Ireland aside from the matter). That history has not been an easy one and just because they play nice doesn't mean that it should be all covered over like they have been soul mates from the beginning. These groups burned one another and relished the burning flesh of their brother and sisters.

That grusome history is not so distant for Mormons. Ohio governor, Lillburn Boggs, issued the [[Extermination Order (Mormonism)}Mormon Extermination Order]] in 1838. Mormon women and children were raped, husbands were tarred and feathered, and their homes burned repeatedly throughout their early history. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were murdered in 1844 by a mob; one of the ringleaders was a good Christian minister and the mob was made up of good Christian men. They moved to the Salt Lake Valley not by choice, but by threat of further violence. Upon leaving all those homes in Nauvoo were then purchased at pennies on the dollar by good Christian folk. No, those memories are still present for many of the saints. It may be one of the reasons why I dislike these types of labels and accusations.

What is of importance is who believes what. It does not matter a hill of beans what a Baptist thinks about a Catholic or what a Catholic thinks about an Anglican or what a JW thinks of a Mormon; those are things for religious tracts. They are all things that are strictly POV. What is important in an encyclopedic article on Christianity is defining religious doctrines and beliefs. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this section is getting off track. The section on Christian divisions is intended to merely describe which groups, of significant size, identify themselves as Christian, and into what broad categories these groups can be fitted, so that they may be discussed below using general terms. As to whether one group considers another to be in or out of the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church, is a question of ecclesiology, because one must first identify what a particular group defines the Christian Church as, and only then can assert via that criteria which group is in or out (note, denominationalism is an ecclesiology for this reason, one that must compete with other ecclesiologial views). The notion that certain groups are "not Christian" is by nature an ecclesiological statement, and therefore a point of view. Furthermore, it is not a topic germane to Christian divisions, which is merely a descriptive section, intended to provide an organizational framework within which the topic can proceed. The most we should mention, I would think, is a very general line about apostasy / heresy / schism, which directs the reader to see below (and then we should add a section on either that or (and) ecclesiology). Lostcaesar 09:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the start, this sentence was supposed to be a very general line :/. I see no reason why opposition to Catholicism must be mentioned to make this "balanced" as that opposition can be sporadic, with some groups calling them compleatly non-Christian and others simply stopping at some doctrines, whereas with these restoration church's (Except Church of Christ apparently) the opposition is mostly along the same degree of "Their church isn't Christian/Their worshipping a false savior/etc. etc. etc." and this opposition generally has the consensus of protestants, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox, thereby making it a quite notable occurance in its own right. It doesn't need to be complicated as that would take too long to write, we just need the references and then it should be fine. Homestarmy 14:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to reply both to the issue in general as well as to Storm Rider's query on my talk page:

It was not my meaning of the "divinity of Jesus Christ". As I said, I restored a passage that was deleted some time ago (I hadn't noticed that otherwise I wouldn't have waited so long) and assimilated it to the new context. I could very well do without any specification on the disagreements and leave them to the respective articles. It is true that the disagreements are quite different and the "Divinity of Jesus" bit in its literal form fits best to the JW's position.

With the Mormons, the disagreement about this would not be the actual issue of whether Jesus is "divine" but about what that means, or what divinity, deity, God mean.

Storm, you asked about the Catholic-Mormon divide and I'd say it is that Catholics (and other Nicean Christians) keep balanced the equation between the belief in one God and the belief that Jesus is indeed one with the Father and God, in the words of the Council: homousios. The passage you referred to (Matthew 16,16) IMHO doesn't speak of the divinity of Jesus (at least not per se) but only of Jesus being the Messiah and Son of God. Of course, if Jesus is the only-begotten son of God one in time asks the question whether in the God-creation dichotimy Jesus (in his preexisting state, before the incarnation) falls on the side of God or of creature. The answers to that question are what ancient theology was all about and the answer of the Council of Nicea was the one that included all revelead statements in the definition without chucking any of them out (which was what Arius & Co. did). The Church fathers also opined that Jesus' divinity (and his humanity as well) was necessary for him to attain salvation for us. "The fact that he was crucified and rose again" in my book is first and foremost a testament to God approving of him, which includes approving of all he said, which includes declarations about his being "one with the Father".

Now, as for some things said above:

I do think it is important and notable that some groups are not acecpted as Christians by the mainstream. We do not write an article for a specific group so to compartementalize between Buddhist readers and Muslims readers and Christian readers is not workable IMHO. (And yes, I would expect the Islam article to note the related issue in regard to the Druzes in the spot the Druzes are mentioned.) Such a judgement is indeed a point-of-view and hence cannot be presented as fact. We cannot say "X and Y are not Christians despite their claims" - but we can (and must IMHO) say that many Christians think that.

"Cult" in my view should be avoided as it is more a sneer than a description.

That the whole mainstream has this issue with some rather small groups makes the difference to the "Some Protestants call Catholics the Whore of Babylon" issue. Yes, some fringe groups still do and I could not oppose an inclusion of their (IMO dead wrong) view on POV grounds - only on notabiltiy grounds. Lest anyone forget, half of the world's Christians are Catholics and most of the rest derive historically in one way or another from the Catholic Church.

Also, it is not true that Catholic-Protestant enmity is a thing of the distant past. Germany had the Kulturkampf, a strain of anti-Catholic legislation starting around 1870 (the last of these laws was only rescinded in the 1950s) and France had the anti-clerical "laicist" politics. These events occured way after any Ohio extermination orders. Not that such comparisons matter much to this issue.

User:Str1977 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would feel more comfortable with the entire discussion if we changed "mainstream" to be either "orthodox Christianity" or "those who accept the Nicene creed". Why? Because the latter two mean something, whereas "mainstream" is ever-shifting. After all, that's really what we are talking about, itsn't it? Lostcaesar 19:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An Extermination Order being compared to discrimination is hardly an equivalent action. I think one is a more harsh outcome. The two "movements", STR, that you brought up were more a conflict between Secularism and Catholicism, and not Protestants.

My issues echo some of Lostcaesar's. Introducing heretical without defining by what terms seems backwards. Also, the term Christian is now changing to fit the objectives of Trinitarians. To be Christain does not mean you must have descended from the 4th century organization. To be Christian, or more appropriately, a disciple fits the definition of Christ; those who would follow him. Does Mormonism have a direct relationship with the historical Christian church of the 4th century? No. That church is believed to be the product of men and without authority. The mere fact that Constantine was its instigator is evidence of the fact that it was a creation of men.

To state someone is not Christian because they do not uphold the Creeds is POV. You can only say they are not part of the historic Christian church and its many sects. LDS believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the only Begotten of the Father. That Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, and was crucified. He rose the third day and eventually ascended unto his Father who was in Heaven. That meets the definition of being Christian.

It obviously does not meet the definitions created by men to identify membership in a particulary church or group of churches. Latter-day Saints believe that though those churches have much truth, they have no authority and have error. They are not false, but they are in error. Latter-day Saints believe their church is the restoration of the same church started by Christ (See Eph 4:11-14 for a definiton of that organization).

What we are talking about, as Lost has stated well, is ecclesiology. The topic should be addressed fully there and not in the first part of the article. There is not room for rebuttal or a statement of why Mormons think the statement is unfounded, if not silly.

Further, I am not really opposed to using the word cult. If you will see the article, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will see that we address this fact in the Criticisms and controversy section. The term is a slur and has become a term of art for cultists to degrade the beliefs of others. I think it generally is more a reflection on the user of such terms than the group accused.

My request is that any claim regarding heretical, non-Christian, or whatever else one might wish to use to label the beliefs of others be reserved for the ecclesiology section being proposed. The topic can then be more fully explored and explained. Is this acceptable? Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, extermination and mere discrimination are not in the same league - I just wanted to point out that all was not well between Protestants and Catholics quite recently.

And of course, the French issue was not a Protestant one - the German however clearly was - Bismarck was no secularist.

As for "heretical" - it is fact of the matter, that this term is used (and it is not a sneer as "cult" is). We cannot and should not define it as we merely report the opinion of others.

I have no objection against using the term "orthodox" Christians instead of mainstream, if no one else has concerns for either NPOV or for a possible confusion with Eastern Orthodox. "Nicean" however I think not accurate, as large parts of the mainstream concerned here has no conscious connection to that Council, and because these views are not necessarily connected to that Council either, e.g. in regard to the Mormon concerns.

"To state someone is not Christian because they do not uphold the Creeds is POV." - that is true and the article should only report this and not endorse this. However, you could just as easily say "To state someone is not Christian because they do not XYZ is POV".

And please, could you avoid constantly speaking of "definitions created by man" - it is akin non-Mormons speaking of "these books written by Joseph Smith" instead of referring to the book of Mormon, the Great Pearl etc. Your view notwithstanding, it would help atmosphere.

I don't see why a short mentioning of the concern in the divisions section is out of place. However, we can move all treatment of the content of the disputes into another section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the word orthodox, especially if we employed a lead sentence expressing its use as distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy (and replaced uses of the word Orthodoxy with Eastern Orthodoxy / Eastern Orthodox Church). I prefer it because it means something on its own. As for the Nicene creed, I think this is a useful standard still — true, some groups in the "mainstream" do not formally accept the creed, but they are in the mainstream exactly because they accept its promulgations, regardless of their views on the authority of councils. I will say that I think we do need to define the word "heretical" if we are going to use it — a definition means we are using it technically, rather than as a merely pejorative. Lastly, Storm, I think I should be clear that I do not want this section of the article to iterate a bare-definition of what it means to be Christian, rather I want it to describe groups of decent size that self-identify as Christian. I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with your characterization of the Church as profane (founded by men regardless of God's agency) which I, and the majority of Christians, consider to be instituted by God and absolutely Holy. I think it best to move away from this line of analysis and concentrate on the proper description, rather than proscription, of Christianity.Lostcaesar 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider the term "historic" Christian church?

I won't indent, but this is a continuation of the above thread.

Str, my objective was not to offend you, as a Catholic. However, the topic is labeling Mormons as not even part of Christianity. The fact that in this discussion you want the "accused" to improve the atmoshere is ironic. I know that speaking of councils of men creating doctrines of men is offensive to those who hold those councils to be the true reflection of the will of God. Please imagine how you might feel if this article focused on the Catholic church not even being Christian or of being the Whore of Babylon or any of the ridiculous claims that have been made by other churches and their ministers. IMHO, the motivations for the inclusion of the current information is not born of attempting to improving the article, but of something far more base and repugnant.

These topics can be handled properly in an encyclopedic article, but they need to be discussed with accuracy in a balanced manner. I will remove the current sentence until the topic can more fully be addressed in the forthcoming section. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain how the proposed sort of sentence labels anybody non-anything at all, it was started as and hopefully will be a sentence relaying the notable phenominon of the most major classes of denominations all having the opinion that certain groups are non-Christian, and how interestingly, these are mostly "restorationist" churches. Councils have absolutly nothing to do with the intention of the sentence, because the references so far don't seem to focus very much at all on the councils in particular, but rather, focus on more general things. Of course, adding the sentence may make readers think that something is wrong with these churches since so many of the large ones oppose them. Or, conversly, it may make readers who don't see things very black and white feel sympathy for the smaller groups. It is not compleatly certain how exactly the majority of readers will consider this sentence, should it come back in a hopefully better form, but it is a sentence which, if the proper references are found, would comply with WP:V and would be notable as an example of a widespread, focused, internal opposition to particular groups, without taking up very much space since this is, after all, supposed to be about one sentence. Homestarmy 21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement I deleted read:

... the last two are viewed by some as outside of mainstream Christianity and/or are considered heretical or even non-Christian by many mainstream Christian groups.

I would think that is a pretty strong label to put on any group; particularly one with the name of Jesus Christ in the name of their church.

The phenomenon of which you speak is not recent. Religions of all stripes have been doing it from the beginning of religions. Though an interesting topic, I am not certain of its value to this article. My objective and I believe the objective of most editors is to write an excellent, encyclopedic article. Writing such about relgions can be tedious simply because of the deeply held beliefs of all involved. Take for example the last comments by STR and Lostcaesar. We were discussing the viability of calling Mormons and JW's heretical and non-Christian. As long as the topic was related to something foriegn to their beliefs there was nothing wrong (I acknowledge that Lost felt it should not appear in the article yet, but it was a comfortable topic to discuss). However, when I began talking about the Councils, something held Holy to both individuals, the dicsussion was becoming uncomfortable. Bluntly, as long as we talk about "their" being non-Christian we are okay, but when we talk about "our" beliefs being perceived as in error the dicussion is uncomfortable.

Each of us reacts in the same way. Lost and STR did nothing wrong. They react like we all react; when others accuse or present our sacred beliefs in a negative light, we become uncomfortable and would prefer it not be said. Being objective in writing religious related articles is difficult for each of us. It is much easier to point fingers at others rather than to have a finger pointed at ourselves.

Home, no one is saying that these disagreements and doctrinal positions should not be put in the article. What has been said is they need to be presented in an objective, documented, balanced manner. A.J.A. or Lost, which one of you are going to take the first stab at writing the section on ecclesiology? Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that the sentence needs work, but why bother trying to work on it unless we can agree it can be in the article? (Or eventually agree about what references we use, since the content will likely determine what the sentence says). Cult is right out because most of the references I know about which object to these churchs won't even use the word, simply leaving it as "heresy" would then also leave the same problem, it would seem to me that simply using the word "non-Christian" would suffice or something to that effect. A strong label sure, that's part of what makes the labelling notable since it is declared by the biggest groups of churchs. Besides, anyone can put the name "Jesus Christ" in their church. And I would say the phenominon is recent, because this section discusses restorationist church's, none of which have been around since the "Beginning of religions" and many of which mostly arose in their present form in fairly modern times. Since we aren't writing about religion in general, I don't see why this has to be so tedious since its a much simpler situation than discussing all religions at once. Finally, the sentence can easily be worded in an objective, balanced, and well referenced manner, all that has to be done is to state exactly who the parties in question are, (which it basically does already) say it with the support of references, (which at this rate is pretty much a certainity) and then not add anything emotional in it beyond what the references show. (which remains to be discussed) Homestarmy 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Christian" sounds worse than "heretical" to me. A heretic can be a Christian, but a non-Christian is either an "apostate", an "infidel", or an "atheist", all of which are worse, generally speaking (I am using the words in their technical sense). If I could propose something, I would simply add a sentence, not about restorationists but in general, somewhere in the section, which reads something like this: "Based on differing ecclesiological doctrines, some of these groups consider certain others to be outside the Christian Church [or Body of Christ], and therefore do not extend to them the label "Christian" (see Ecclesiology [or see excommunication, or apostasy, or some fitting links])." —, well, something like that at least. As for as working on an ecclesiological section, I would be happy to contribute, but it might be a bit slower than others would like, since I have many projects atm. Lostcaesar 07:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Storm, I am not offended that easily. And I don't demand that you change your wording once in a while. I am only suggesting that it might be better not to use inflammatory, polemic vocabulary all the time, when the editors of other persuasions do nothing of the kind. But do as you wish.

As far as "the accused" - please please stop portraying yourself as the accused. There is no accusation. The article certainly does not label Mormons or others as non-Christian. I does merely report that some reject the inclusion of others into Christianity. That is all.

As far as the unsigned suggestion above is concerned: no, "historic" does not work. Mormons, for instance, are historic too by now.

I have changed the passage back to the former wording, as narrowing it down to two groups is not only inaccurate but also unfair to these two groups who remain there while others are taken out for no actual reasons.

Lost, sure, "Non-Christian" is worse than "heretical" and it is supposed to be worse. Hence the word "even". We need this word because the fact of the matter is that some groups are considered not merely heretical but non-Christian by the mainstream.

Citing "ecclesiological doctrines" will certainly not do, as it is not ecclesiological doctrines that make the case. For instance, from an RC viewpoint JWs and Lutherans are not actually different ecclesiologically, but still the former are generally considered non-Christian while the latter clearly arent. The LDS are even closer ecclesiological to Catholics than Presbyterians. The issues with the LDS church have nothing to do with ecclesiology but with "Theo-logy" in the literal sense of the word. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, to point out that this is not about endorsing any view or any denomination. The passage on Restorationists says that they "do not describe themselves as "reforming" a Christian Church continuously existing from the time of Jesus, but as restoring a Church that was historically lost at some point" - this is basically an accusation of apostasy levelled against other churches but nonetheless it stands as it is in the article because Restorationists do believe that, and the article does not endorse this either. Why should such a report only be allowed one way? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Point (1): The reason why I characterize this as ecclesiological is as follows. The claim that a group is unchristian is equivalent to saying they are not part of the Christian Church. Hence, one must assert what the Christian Church is first. If we say that belief in the Trinity is essential to the Christian Church, then we can say non-Trinitarians are anathema and thus unchristian, i.e. outside the body of Christ. Any statement about who is outside the Church is a statement about ecclesiology, by definition. In this respect I am using the phrase “ecclesiological doctrines” in a different sense. Of course, this is also a statement about theology, if the reason they are excluded from the Church is on account of doctrinal teachings. Perhaps my characterization is an oversimplification, as I concur with your observations about RC ecclesiological / theological views of Lutherans vs. JW.

Point (2): It seems like what we are really saying is this: groups that do not accept the teachings of the Council of Nicene [at least about the Godhead] (regardless of what they think about councils) are considered unchristian by groups that do. Are we not saying that? And, if that is what we are saying, why not just use words along those lines.

Point (3): The Church of Church is completely different, theologically, from JW and LDS – and I don’t see upon what doctrinal (theological) criteria they would be considered any less Christian than (for example) Baptists. I am willing to let this discussion take its course, and the subsequent decision to be binding, but I will not accept such a characterization of the Church of Christ, for no other reason than it is wholly inaccurate. Lostcaesar 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: But these are not ecclesiological issues. It I said someone who is not trinitarian is not Christian this is not a matter of "Ecclesiology" but of "Trinitarian Theology" or of Christology. Your "by definition" statement is not accurate. What does it mean to be "outside of the Church"? Speaking from the Catholic standpoint anyone who is validly baptized is within the Church, even if he is outwardly separated from the Church subsisting here on earth. Protestants would say similar things in regard to faith and their concept of the "invisible church". That concerns the individual. Regarding whole bodies it is a whole different ballgame. What are we talking about here?

Point 2: I don't think we are saying that. At least, that is not the only issue in this regard. Yes, the trinity plays a large role in such consideration, but I don't think that sums up everything. And, I don't think we can call someone Nicean if they don't give a thing about the Council in a conscious way. I mean, Lutherans would count as Nicean since they still, at least as a body and if not theologically liberal, uphold the first eight Ecumenical councils. The same goes for Anglicans. But not for all Protestants.

Point 3: Assuming you are talking about the Church of Christ, it is (and that is the crux in some former edits here) not our job here to judge whether such a claim is correct. Now, I don't know what others think of the CoC and if no one considers them non-Christian, then so be it. This is one of the reasons why the phrase is worded in such a vague manner and, lest you forgot, contains the word "heretical" as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Point (1): If someone is baptized but is subsequently excommunicated, or if he falls into apostasy, then he is outside of the church, baptized or not. There are baptized people in Hell, and they are outside the Body of Christ. Furthermore, to what extent particular groups are in communion with the Church is equivalent to the degree to which they are Christian. Similarly, a heretical group is imperfectly Christian, whilst a group in apostasy is not Christian. Lastly, isn't the very divide here expressed in the baptismal formula? After all, the Church does not accept JW or LDS baptism, and that seem to me to be the only referencable citation of official Catholic statements that discuss those groups as anything like non-Christian.

Point (2): So what, besides not concurring with the Nicene formulation of the Godhead, are we discussing? I am not saying that certain group consciously accept the council, rather I am saying that, if their expression of the Godhead is the same as Nicene's, then the "mainstream" counts them as Christian. Is that false? What would be an example of a group which does accept this expression, but is still not considered Christian by the "mainstream"? Furthermore, what really can be said about the "mainstream" as a unifying concept, i.e. what makes them a group, other than that they are "pro doctrines equivalent to those expressed at Nicene"?

Point (3): Give me one group that thinks the Church of Christ is non-Christian, that does not also consider every group other than itself as not Christian.

Lostcaesar 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gotta say, the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ don't seem to be groups that protestants, catholics, or the eastern orthodox would oppose universally as non-Christians, but everyone else on the list appears to fit inside the purpose of the sentence, and furthermore, I think there's a couple other restorationist type groups which could be mentioned there as well which would give the sentence more of a point. Homestarmy 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1: Again, LC, you are mixing up the state of the individual with the state of a group. Relevant here is only the state of the group as we are talking about groups. And no, "to what extent particular groups are in communion with the Church is" NOT "equivalent to the degree to which they are Christian.", unless you mean indirectly through their members' baptism (but then again, there are groups that don't baptize or at least not using proper form and intent). If I am not mistaken a group as such can be "in apostasy" only in a few very limited cases (e.g. one Christian parish suddenly falling into apostasy collectively).

2: Mainstream is a fuzzy concept but is mainly defined by a certain amount of agreement on various things. It is no coherent group at all but an assembly. And no, neither is the Council to be reduced to its trinitarian formula, nor is it merely the Nicene formula that is relevant here, though it is the thing most accessible. For instance, the problem with Mormon doctrine is that it holds another view of God, divinity alltogether. Yes, you could indirectly subsume that under the Nicene creed as well, as the creed says "I believe in ONE God, the Father ALLMIGHTY, Maker of ... ALL THINGS", but IMHO that is a bit of a stretch, as it concerns basic things never controversial during or before the Council.

3: I don't know why the CoC or DoC are suddenly singled out. No one to my knowledge has claimed that they are considered non-Christian. I have scant knowledge of them and the relevant WP article did not help very much. Anyway, what is the relevance of this discussion?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A question for Oriental Orthodox

I would like to add a clarification for us who are unfamiliar with the term Oriental Orthodox in parentheses. I know that, to speak personally, I was confused about their identity until I saw the graphic below which identifies them as Monophysite. The problem is that Monophysite associates the group with Eutyches of Constantinople and his teachings, also called Monophysite, which are considered heretical by the group. The texts I am familiar with make a distinction between "real Monophysites" (of the aforementioned theologian) and "verbal Monophysites", such as Severus of Antioch. Would there be an objection to listing "Oriental Orthodox Churches (verbal Monophysite) with an appropriate footnote with reference? I say this here because, on the one hand I don't want to step on toes, while on the other hand the word Monophysite is very helpful in explaining who the group is historically (or perhaps non-Chalcedonian?). If this is a problem please state so, and I will drop the idea (and we should talk about the graphic, which doesn't try to distinguish between real and verbal Monophysites) Lostcaesar 09:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am no OO but maybe I can shed a bit of light on this issue:

Commonly all who hold that there is "one (divine and human) nature" in Jesus are called "Monophystic". The term "one nature" was originally coined by Cyrill of Alexandria, who thought he was using a text by his predecessor Athanasius (in fact, the text was by Apollanaris of Laodicea).

Eutyches was Monophysitic because he taught "one nature" and was, in the end, condemned in Chalcedon.

The Egyptian Church agreed with this condemnation but large parts (eventually the Copts) would not also accept the definitions of Chalcedon. Later Syrian groups and Armenians also took this stance. It is these that today make up the OO churches.

Historically, there have also been groups within these churches that strayed further and have been condemned as heretical (e.g. Julianists)

Today, Chalcedonic and non-Chalcedonic churches tend to agree that they agree on basic doctrine though not on the wording of the definition.

I don't think that "real" vs. "verbal" is a helpful or valid wording to reflect these differences. Who is to say that someone is real? Are the Copts not really believing in "one nature"?

(Just my two Eurocents.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Str, the terms "real" and "verbal" are techinical and not meant as judgement per se. I will drop them per your concern. If the OO today are Syrian could they be called Jacobite fairly (as per Jacob Baradaeus)? Lostcaesar 09:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) PS, what about the graphic then? Should it be changed? Lostcaesar 09:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The OO churches are the Copts in Egypt, the Jacobites in Syria and the Armenians. So the Jacobites are only one "branch" of the OO.

The only change in the graph I could think of would be to place Miaphysitism alongside of Monophysitism. I wouldn't replace the one with the other, since Monophysitism is so much more known and is not basically inaccurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Something to consider is that today, I think at least some if not most Coptics would deny they are monophysite, even though they have been regarded as such for some time. So I think this might be yet another case of how others label the group, versus how the group chooses to label itself. Wesley 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically they are monophysites since their theology considers Jesus to have one nature. That they practically mean the same as the Council only using different words (for whatever reason) is another matter and has led to the development of the word "miaphysistism". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Covering ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc.

LostCaesar's suggestion above that we include coverage of ecclesiology is an excellent one. While I continue to believe that certain subjects don't need to be split by denomination (e.g., Catholics on the Trinity and Baptists on the Trinity would be redundant), in this case I think the differences are extensive enough that a denominational structure is the only rational way to cover it. Here's what I would add: the section on weekly worship services loses coherence by trying to cover too many disparate things at once. (Also it has bullet points where it should have prose.)

So here's my suggestion: Ecclesiology, "Weekly worship services", and "Sacraments" would go into an overall section on "doing church" and would be subdivided into Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, etc. etc. A.J.A. 16:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you A.J.A., I think. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing we write, for example, on Sacraments, stating what is in common and then which groups have differinig views or processes? Is that accurate? Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. That's how we cover the Trinity, but here I don't think there's enough in common for that to work. I suppose you could group Catholics, Orthodox, and certain Anglicans and Lutherans together, but even here there would be a need for constant qualifications. For example, Orthodox understand Apostolic succession differently and don't recognize episcopi vagante, and, as I understand it, neither affirm nor deny substance-and-accident transubstantiation. A.J.A. 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Extending a bit: what truely is common -- sermons, singing, the Supper, baptism -- can be described in very general terms, by simply saying Christians practice these things, but once we get into specifics there are so many differences a single coherent description is impossible. So the section can have an intro paragraph saying, essentially, "Christians gather once a week and do X, Y, and Z" followed by the denominational subsections I proposed above. A.J.A. 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that "weekly worship services", which might also be called "Christian liturgy" more broadly, or "Sunday worship" or specifically, could use improvements along the line AJ mentioned, especially with attention to sacramental theology, since that is the backbone of Christian worship in the sense that a church's sacramentology (or rejection of it) almost wholly defines the nature of worship. As for ecclesiology, I think that would be a better section along side eschatology, scripture, and the like, rather than in the section on worship per se. Lastly, I think we can sketch out similarities and differences here without becoming overly "factional" (for lack of a better word). Lostcaesar 06:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The Controversy section is currently tagged as containing weasel words. Can someone speak up about specifics? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Images of depiction of White God, Black devil is relevant

File:White angel killing devil.jpg

Michael the Archangel The European angel killing casting the African Devil into Hell.

One of the elements in the making of the “slave-master paradigm” was the depiction of God, and subsequently the divine ethnic social dynamic, which placed Whites as masters, Blacks as Slaves. These images single-handedly upheld a system of subjugation and oppression: Christianity became the context for the cultural prevalence of European culture, European names became Christian names and those who adopted or were forced into Christianity automatically adopted European culture in an attempt to beome more "Christian."

During history absolute majority Europeand of lived in societies where they didn't see anyone non-white. Most of slaves from early medieval era were Slavic and Balt people and the for most of the time the flow was into Africa and Arabia, not the opposite way. Pavel Vozenilek 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So why then do Africans and other think God is white, i am not talking about 2000 years ago i am talking about now. Do you know these images are printed in Europe and feed into Africa as stickers and posters? The above image was found in Ethiopia. Considering the direction of the Christian faith Africa and Arabia (middle East) had the religion prior to Europe. Anyway the point is this needs to be included somewhere---Halaqah 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The person who removed your picture seemed to feel that this picture doesn't actually depict what you claim it does. Since the description says it is actually a photograph of the picture, taken by someone from the organization you seem to represent on your userpage, I would say that it is not entirely reliable to take the photographers word on it that the picture actually represents some Christian endorsement of slavery in some obviously brutalistic fashion, who knows what the picture was actually created for? Where exactly did this photographer find this picture? Homestarmy 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This information about the paradigm might be relevant to an article about Colonialism, racism, the paradigm itself, but not to the overview article on Christianity.

Mechanisms you describe might indeed have influenced Africans, but this is not notable for this article here.

Your picture caption is at least Original Research, as long as no published source describes the picture like that (and then it has to be attributed and worded in an NPOV manner). The caption is certainly wrong, as it does not show the Devil being killed - as according to Jewish and Christian (and Islamic, I guess) tradition the Devil is indeed immortal (as all angels are).

The different colours in the picture are easily explained as symbols depicting light and darkness, good and evil. Such symbolism has in itself nothing to do with racism. However, it can be (and probably was) exploited for racist thinking. However, that is off-topic in this article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, this specifically depicts St. Michael the Archangel casting Satan into Hell -- this is a traditional artistic depiction found in many Roman Catholic churches and books. While the Archangel is indeed depicted as Caucasian, there is nothing definitive in the Devil's features to suggest he was from Africa or any place else. LotR 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

African Christianity is as old as Greco-Roman Christianity, since Africa was part of the Empire and events there were integral to it. The contributions of African civilizations to Christianity have been significant: for example, there have been four African popes. If you want specifically black skinned individuals, rather than just African in general, there is a famous mosaic found near Naples that represents the cult of a late antique saint - a black skinned bishop. I could point you to the relevant texts if you like, but I suspect it is a waste of time, since you don't seem to want to learn. Lostcaesar 17:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the devil in that picture look almost as white as the angel? A.J.A. 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

AJ, if the image is Italian Renassiance, or at least modeled on that, as I suspect, then the devil would likely be German (which is how he looks). That is standard, due to the tensions with the religious (Reformation) and the political conflicts between the two regions. The poster here doesn't know any of that, and doesn’t care — only the latter of which bothers me.Lostcaesar 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither is particularly pale. Yes, the "skin colours" seem similar, which is not surprising since we see two angels battling each other. The Devil is slightly darker because of the shadow and because in falling down he is burning himself (also a feature in some legends ... that the Devil burns himself black while falling from heaven). As a German, I cannot confirm that the Devil looks particularly German.

You are right, LC. It's no shame to not know something, it is a shame not to care and to resist learning. Errare humanum est, perservare in errore diabolicum est. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall reading about an Italian artist of that time getting in trouble because some neutral figures in a scene with Jesus looked German and the authorities thought this showed Lutheran sympathies.

To my admittedly untrained eye it looks modeled on Italian Renassiance rather than from the period itself. The coloration looks influenced by Technicolor, and the landscape in the background is very abstract. A.J.A. 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is a simplified version of Image:St. Michael the Archangel.jpg ([10], which is not only a famous painting by Guido Reni but the devil is a portrait of Pope Innocent X, an Italian. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery section

I've removed the slavery section. It made the unattributed assertion that "Slavery was integrated into the social fabric of the Christian world." If this article needs such a section, it should be limited to cited, notable, scholarly discussion about the relationship between the religion of Christianity and the institution of slavery. As it was, it was very close to original research, or just plain old-fashioned innuendo. Elliskev 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Such a section would be a case of undue weight, giving too much space to one small element in the history of Christendom.

The assertion quoted above is also false in its implication that Christendom was particularly pro-slavery, when in fact, as far as the West is concerned, there was hardly any slavery in the Middle Ages and in the Early modern period only in the colonies, and also consideríng the fact that Christianity is the only "force" that abolished slavery twice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery existed prior to Christianity and continues to exist today in non-Christian parts of the world. Thus, it is a subject not exclusive to Christianity and therefore has no place this introductory article. The few passages found in Scripture address existing social structures/hierarchies and have metaphorical meanings (i.e., submit to those in authority, respect those under your authority) in addition to the obvious literal ones. Good job spotting this. LotR 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh but why is their a section on Slavery in the Islamic section? You guys are so not serious. I will rewrite it and cite some sources and we can have the debate about SLAVery in Christianity. The same way the Muslims had to deal with it so too can the Christians. And yes i have gone to that page and encoraged those who discuss the issue to come here and contribute. Slavery is mentioned in the Bible okay, i didnt write the bible i am dealing with facts in the book. lets pretend the slavers who entered Africa didnt come with a Bible full of justification --Halaqah 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Str is right that devoting a whole section to it is undue weight. That may or may not be the case with Islam, but simply referencing the Islam article will hardly establish that this article needs one too.

In any case, a mere (inaccurate) listing of Bible verses is not encyclopedic content. I'm going to take it out again. A.J.A. 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

there is an entire section on slavery and Christianity you have cited no reason to remove it, YOU DONT remove work without a discussion, please i don’t want to put a POV on this page. Do not remove the section unless you have successfully discussed it. The fact that a large topic exist on slavery and Christianity yet you deny having a sub-section on slavery is utterly undemocratic and biased. I have changed the article to be more open and still you delete it. --Halaqah 09:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with A.J.A. The slavery section does not belong here. Read Str1977's above. ^rossnixon 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that this was giving undue prominence to one small issue in this overview article (there would be nothing wrong about a NPOV Slavery and Christianity article), the section also contained zippo information. The "Bible quotations" are perfectly irrelevant and not in any connected to the rest (that didn't contain information either). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the semi-protected template and request that someone with the ability make it official until this is setteled. Lostcaesar 12:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection will doing anything in this case. It just keeps IPs and new accounts from editing. A.J.A. 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you should leave the section in there because "Slavery is referenced in the bible" hence it is an aspect of the faith. The bible doesn’t talk about the internet so that is a foreign topic, but i have a section that is seriously debated in Christianity, the church has discussed it. Don’t forget during Slavery the church indorsed the slave trade., It was a pope who the entire exploit of Africa was backed by a church going to salvage heathen souls, or is this part of my imagination. If Muslims have to face it why cant Christians. or only Muslim have this history? When Prince Henry started slaving the pope said: He promised that God would forgive all of our past sins for this noble conquest of the savages. This is what brings humanity down, the dishonesty and you people up here probably go to church and pray to God--God knows your heart. You are not protecting God, you are covering an terrible evil, And it is silent voices those which turn a blind eye that have made the world so cruel.--Halaqah 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, your opinion means absolutly nothing on Judgement day.... Homestarmy 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference between your imagination and reality is: (1) sources, and (2) removing the chip from your shoulder. Lostcaesar 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is no slavery section in the article Islam, nor is it discussed in the section devoted to criticism and controversy, nor does a find word search find any appearance of the word "slavery". Halaqah appears to be referring to Islam and Slavery. Wikipedia has two separate articles at Christianity and Slavery and Christianity and slavery. A.J.A. 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, there is an old saying in America you may be familiar with; "you can get more with sugar than with vinegar". On WIKI, taking an aggressive stance is often met by an equally, opposing stance and little progress results. You may achieve your means by a more cooperative interaction with editors here. The Christian Bible does not directly condemn slavery, but simply states that all can come to Christ and that we are responsible for the manner in which we treat others regardless of their station. Do you think it acceptable to just refer to the two articles on Slavery and Christianity? (If there really are two, shouldn't they be merged?) I am not aware of any present day Christian group in the US or Europe that condones slavery or its practice. On this point you are preaching to the choir. Let's make sure that we do not over-balance the article with this topic given its separate article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, unlike your claims, slavery was never promoted by the Catholic church. No pope has ever endorsed the slave trade. In fact, Pope Paul III issues an official Bull against slavery in 1537, stating, "He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty" Keep in mind, slavery was practiced by the Ottomans during this same period. Further, Pope Paul III stated in his Pastorale Officium that all Catholics who participated in slavery faced the threat of excommunication from the Church. That Brief was officially confirmed as well by Popes Gregory XIV, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote in another Bull that, "[w]e, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples." --Strothra 23:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments seem to arise from what is effectively the same racist assumption that is made by many slavers and other colonialists: the false identification of Christianity with European cultural imperialism. This is potentially rather offensive to non-European Christians. Myopic Bookworm 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what is the connection between being the Messiah and being called "Christ"?

Hi, I just wonder what this sentence in the opening paragraph means: "Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ." Is there some ancient tradition that Messiahs are given the name "Christ"? I had assumed that "Christ" has something to do with "cross". I'm not trying to be silly here, I'm just wondering what the "Christ" part actually means. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Messiah = Hebrew for Anointed One

Christ = Greek for Anointed One. Thus, Christ is the Greek translation for Messiah (there are many other such Greek translations, like Devil for Satan (English: Tempter), Hades for Sheol, and some others I can't think of.

Eventually, however, the title Christ was used so often that it became like a proper name for Jesus. Even by the time of Paul's writing's, and the writer of Hebrews, the two words are used interchangeably ("that I might know Christ..."). By the 2nd century, some people had even forgotten the difference, apparently; there was one writer who laboriously spoke in his writings of how "Christ was not the Messiah" - missing the irony in his speech (he would have done better to use the name "Jesus"). -Patstuart 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. So I was completely mistaken - "Christ" has nothing to do with "cross". So, does this mean that Christians, by definition, follow "The Anointed One", whoever that may be, and not necessarily Jesus of Nazareth? If someone else popped up with a better claim to be the Anointed One, would that newcomer be the one that Christians follow? I know it's a pointless question, but in philopsophy we would say that the terms "Christ" and "Jesus" are logically distinct but ontologically identical (like the Morning Star and the Evening Star). Do Christians, then, follow Christ (who happens to be Jesus of Nazareth) or do they follow Jesus (who happens to be the Christ), in which case the word "Christian" may be something of a misnomer? Thanks again. Leeborkman 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We follow Jesus because he is the Christ. Jewish theology has always set up that there would one day be a Messiah to come; in fact, the 1st century was rife with people claiming to be messiahs, because the Jewish people so desperately wanted one. The messiah was always taught to be the one who would come and save the Jews from their enemies; people naturally thought that would be a military conqueror, someone who would vanquish the Romans and set up permanent Jewish reign in Palestine, in the ideals of the ancient one set up by David in the 10th century BCE. Jesus actually had quite a bit of trouble dispelling this myth, even among his very closest followers; in fact, the idea that he could be accepted among non-Jews was so contrary to the traditional idea of Messiah that many considered it was anathema (to use a Greek word). Anyway, the idea here is that God always planned for there to be a messiah - but only God can pick him, not people. And there was only ever to be one (some modern Jews say there might be two, but even they think they would come together). So just anyone claiming to be Messiah doesn't get approval; in fact, they are liars, and to be rejected (unless God picked them, of course, but there are no more after Jesus). Is this a clear answer? Perhaps more than you wanted, but I wanted to be thorough in my answer. -Patstuart 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Christian" may be something of a misnomer - ha, interesting you'd pointed that out. I never noticed that before. Actually, the term was used very early on, within maybe 15 years, and it's Greek for "little Christs" - a term meaning little imitators of Christ. But it had nothing to do with "Messiah" - it was a reference to Jesus. So you see, even within a few years of his coming, the term Christ already referred to Jesus in much of the world. -Patstuart 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much for your time. It's a scarey thing to say, though, that anyone now claiming to be the Messiah (did Jesus ever claim this for Himself?) is necessarily a liar. That assumes two premises 1) There can only ever be one Messiah in all time; and 2) Jesus is the Messiah. Are both of these necessary beliefs for a Christian? Would it be so outrageous for God to decide that the time was ripe for another Messiah? ;-) Thanks again. Leeborkman 02:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus never said the words, "I am the messiah" except for once, and that was to a Samaritan woman (the Samaritans of course being semi-Jewish, but quite separate from the Jewish community) [11]. There is much speculation about this, but many think it's because of the faulty concept of Messiah that I described above: interpretations of his words could only be bad. Even after Peter, after he guessed him to be the Messiah (properly, according to Jesus)[12], had to be scolded and told to try to stop Jesus' mission [13]. Jesus inferred it often, however, even to the crowds, (example: [14]).

However, the idea of a single messiah isn't that scary. No more scary than, perhaps, the idea of one God, or especially only one faith [15] and one way to Heaven. Sure, if God wanted to bring another Messiah, he could. But God doesn't want to. God wanted all salvation through Jesus - or so Christians believe [16]. Therefore, if:

• a) there can be no more Messiahs, and
• b) someone new claims to be a Messiah
• then c) that person is wrong. So your first assumption, #1 is correct.

So yes, these are both necessary Christian beliefs. Even the many offshoots of orthodox Christianity have never claimed to have a better Messiah (e.g., Gnosticism, or some modern versions). Even some of the farther out groups (e.g., Sun Myung Moon, or the Branch Dividians) have only claimed to have the second return of Jesus.-Patstuart 03:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)