Talk:Christianity/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Conversion to Christianity

This article is up for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion to Christianity). The consensus, so far, is to redirect to Religious conversion as Conversion to Christianity horribly fails several Wikipedia policies and, essentially, lacks any clear & useful information. Perhaps, through this note, I can convince some of the regulars editors of this article to participate in the AfD discussion and devote some of their energies to the article itself...? Thanks, Scientizzle 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this count as campaigning? Anyway, I voted speedy keep, and revert to an early version. The article did have some POV problems out to wazoo. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's campaigning, and that's certainly not my goal, but I think it's obvious that the article wasn't going to be deleted. Even the nominator changed his/her "vote" after my redirect suggestion.

Voting speedy keep is great, but I was mostly hoping encourage editors more knowledgable of the topic than I to consider improving the article, and/or weigh in on the redirect/keep-as-is/keep-earlier-revision decision and my proposal (comment after Edison) to redirect until a consensus-type, solid article can be created. -- Scientizzle 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but it looks like we're saying the same thing)Anyway, guys, the article was kept, but it was necessary to revert back a while, as the article had some really really really bad POV problems. I'm formally asking everyone to chip in and help fix this article and bring it up to par, as there's little to no content in it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear...Thanks. -- Scientizzle 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jacobite," Nestorian" and other such terms.

...Have no place in this article. While perhaps common in the past, they are offensive to those to whom they are applied, are not really accurate, and so should not be used. I made change in this regard, and have been reverted a couple of times; hence, I'm bringing it here for discussion/consensus. --Midnite Critic 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These are the names they are commonly called by. By the same vein, "Copts" must go as well, as would "Roman Catholic". I would not object to using to names side by side. My issue with Syriac is that is claims all of Syriac heritage for the, sorry, Jacobites (and now, I don't like the term either, for once as it enables confusion with other Jacobites, and because I think Severus a much more important figure in the history of Syriac Miaphysitism). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am with midnite critic on this one. "Jacobite" and "Nestorian" are terms that are (1) applied only by persons outside those churches, (2) not the only name those churches are known by publicly, (3) negative judgements on the (assumed) theological stance of those churches, and (4) a drastic mis-representation of their actual theology. As to "Roman Catholic", that is, at the present, the agreed upon option arrived at through conversations like this one. You will note that, while it is similar in that it is (1); it is not (3) or (4), and that is the main complaint here. There are all sorts of theological insults and "name-calling" (which is what those terms amount to for me) that we could resurrect on the basis of "These are the names they are commonly called by": "Papist" for Roman Catholic, "Turk" for Muslim, "schwarmer" for Baptists, etc. Pastordavid 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

+1 --Pjacobi 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but while I see that "Nestorian" is rejected because of it linking a certain community with a man of "bad reputation" and therefore offensive, I cannot see the same thing about "Jacobite" - are the Syriacs really rejecting the heritage of Jacob of Baradaeus? My aim is certainly not to offend but I don't want to sacrifice clarity on the altar of non-offensiveness. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They are of the opinion that their church wasn't founded by Jacob of Baradaeus but is in the unbroken tradition of the Antiochenian patriarchate. --Pjacobi 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is correct Pj. Further, Str1977, "Copt" simply means "Egyptian" and as such, is merely an ethnic label which carries no more of a negative connotation than does "Armenian". I agree with you re: Severus, BTW, but none of these churches can be identified with any one person, whether Jacob, Severus, or even Cyril. And you are right in that the West Syrian heritage is shared by the Oriental Orthodox (OO) Syriac Orthodox, the EO "Greek Orthodox" (Antiochian) SyriAN Orthodox, the Byzantine Rite "Melkite" Syrian Catholics, the Syrian (Rite) Catholics, and, of course, the Maronites. The problem with "Jacobite" is that, to OO ears, it carries a very negative connotation. In English, the Syriac Church adopted the name "Syriac" to distinguish itself from the "Greek Orthodox" Syrian Church, so when I hear "Syriac" I immediately think OO, but that may not be generally the case. In any event, I am open to suggestions to deal with your concerns, but let's avoid the use of "Nestorian" and "Jacobite," okay? --Midnite Critic 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I have posted notices at the Christianity portal and the Eastern Christianity portal, to bring in some more folks to help us reach c consensus on this. Pastordavid 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I think we must use the terms "Jacobite" and "Nestorian", at least in some way or another, since those are the names that English speakers know. Sorry but its just too confusing otherwise. Maybe we can put them in parentheses if you'd like. And I really question just how "offensive" these are. Maybe the groups don't use them (but, of course, until recently, the groups didn't commonly use English words to describe themselves anyway), but I don't see what's so offensive about it. Lostcaesar 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In rereading the section in question, I am not sure it is even necessary to list the various OO Churches. Therefore, I propose the following text:

Eastern Christianity: Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, the 100,000 member Assyrian Church of the East, and others with a combined membership of more than 300 million baptized persons.

--Midnite Critic 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems to solve the problem with the term "Jacobite"; does it also address the term "Nestorian." If so, I think we have a good solution. Pastordavid 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as it completely removes the term "Nestorian" from the section, which parenthetically referred to the Assyrian Church of the East as "Nestorian". --Midnite Critic 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have modified the text in the article accordingly. --Midnite Critic 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eucarist/Communion/Lord's Dinner/Lord's Supper

Is there a reason we are quoting Justin Martyr's description of Eucharist and not Paul's earlier description of the tradtion, commonly called the words of institution, from the book of Corinthians?--Just nigel 01:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Because we quote JM earlier concerning early Christian worship, so its a matter of consistency. Also, JM is more detailed than Paul, and is less subject to various interpretations. Lostcaesar 01:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)