Talk:Christianity/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Good job!

I appreciate the changes made to the section on Christian beliefs. It gives more meaning to the religion doctrine-wise than before. Before, the phrase "most Christians believe" was used to describe the belief in the deity of Christ and His virgin birth, morally perfect life, crucifixion, and resurrection. This served to render Christianity self-contradictory and meaningless. The Trinity section still bears the phrase "most Christians believe". I'd hope to see that corrected, but I like the improvements already made.Jlujan69 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Self-contradictory" and "meaningless"? I have no idea how that comes into the picture, but we would not hesitate to use it if "most christians believe" was true and there was a citation for it. Nonetheless, that doesn't appear to be the situation now. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 11:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to your praise, I believe as it is currently written it presents a false view of Christianity. Much of the doctrine seems to be written from a Protestant POV. The beliefs of "the deity of Christ and His virgin birth, morally perfect life, crucifixion, and resurrection" are believed by most Christians, but certainly not all Christians. There are numerous weasel phrases suggesting that those who do not hold to these beliefs (and the Trinity) are not Christian. This needs some serious work to accurately reflect the diversity of faith among Christians. Vassyana 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that one is believed by Catholics too if i'm not mistaken, and since that particular sentence doesn't mention the hypostatic union I presume the eastern orthodox would agree with it as well... Homestarmy 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, part of the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches was over interpretation of the Trinity. The Orthodox had further disputes internally, leading to the Oriental Orthodox. Vassyana 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The only way to write an article on Christianity is to present what most Christians believe. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. A brief look at other religion articles such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Islam demonstrates that articles can be crafted to present a more inclusive view of the religion. I am not saying these articles represent the perfect ideal either, but they do clearly demonstrate the point. The Christianity article is distinctly unbalanced in some regards. (Such as its assertion "Christians identify Jesus as God incarnate and the Messiah." The former is not universally true and many Christians who believe in Jesus' divine nature would take sharp issue with the phrasing.) The impression one receives from the article is simply misleading and does not accurately reflect the entirety of Christian belief. I am not saying we should detail every single divergent viewpoint, but we should be inclusive in our description per WP:NPOV. NPOV demands that we not only include the majority view, but also the views of significant minorites (though with less attention/space devoted to the minority views). Remember that articles should not have "one religious viewpoint [that] is given preference over others". I really think we should take a broader overview of Christianity, mentioning what the majority tend to believe while including some text about the more significant minorities. Just my thoughts on the matter. Vassyana 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. These articles are following exactly the same principle as this one here and as referred to by me above, stating first the core of the religion. I don't see that mainstream Muslim beliefs are diminished by a large treatment of Ismaili views. It is not a matter of majority but one of mainstream, including historical continuity and huuuge majority). And, in contrast to your claims, I can't see where the fact that other opinions exist is concealed. We already do what you propose. If you disagree about details, then you can make your case here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is an introductory article on Christianity, which, by definition, is a set of beliefs/doctrines about the person of Christ (Greek for Messiah). To deny Jesus as the Messiah is to diverge beyond the realm of Christianity. BTW, Christianity is already, by definition, the most inclusive of all belief systems, but it is a belief system nonetheless, meaning that contrary beliefs are "anti-Christian." LotR 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think my comment belongs to this thread. An anonymous IP (75.81.17.21) added the word "only", making it "Christians believe that salvation from "sin and death" is only available through faith in Jesus as saviour."[1] A few minutes later, the same editor added that denial of the divinity of Jesus is "the thing that turns [groups] into a cult."[2] User:A.J.A. undid the second edit, but not the first.[3] Perhaps I shouldn't feel this way, but the second edit was so obviously trying to promote a particular belief, that I can't help looking more suspiciously at the first one. Regardless, I feel that to say "Christians" (rather than "most Christians"), followed by a statement that they believe that salvation comes ONLY through faith in Jesus is a bit problematic. I know of numerous church-goers who would say, if you asked them, that that salvation comes from leading a good life. I wouldn't want, in an encyclopaedia article, to start making a really, really, rigid list of what you have to believe in order to call yourself Christian. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any list at all. At the very least, I think that we could say that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, was born of a virgin, died on the cross, and rose from the dead. But I think we should avoid stating that "Christians believe" (as if we're talking about all Christians) when it comes to some of the more complex issues. ElinorD 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the dif covering both edits and hit the "undo" link. I intended to undo both but it only undid the most recent edit, and I didn't bother to edit again to take out "only", which may not reflect what all average churchgoers believe (or even what all denominations believe), but is the Christian view of the matter. But if you take it out I wouldn't put it back. A.J.A. 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, already has been taken out. A.J.A. 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you just nailed the point, in my opinion at least. Vassyana 11:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elinor too. If this is really about recent disimprovements (I hadn't noticed) I agree with you Vassyana. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like those below pepper the entire article displaying obvious POV. Other viewpoints are presented, but loaded language and the implication (and sometime explicit statements) that others are heretical (or even worse, non-Christian) is distinctly not NPOV. I hope this clarifies the issue I have with the article as it stands.

1. "Christians identify Jesus as God incarnate and the Messiah."
2. "Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day since his crucifixion, then later appeared first to Mary Magdalene, to his assembled disciples on the evening after his resurrection, and to various people in several places over the next forty days."
3. "Christians believe that salvation from "sin and death" is only available through faith in Jesus as saviour because of his atoning sacrifice on the cross which paid for sins."
4. "Christians believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures,[31] and that his active participation in a believer's life (even to the extent of "indwelling", or in a certain sense taking up residence within, the believer) is essential to living a Christian life."
5. "Christians trace the orthodox formula of the Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — back to the resurrected Jesus himself, who used this phrase in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20)."
6. "Christian is one who believes in the Trinity, and non-Trinitarian groups (e.g. Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses) are not Christian."
7. "Christianity regards the Bible, a collection of canonical books in two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as authoritative: written by human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore the inerrant Word of God."

Vassyana 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are various problems in there (some of which I tried to fix):

1. All Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah but not all believe that he is God incarnate. Hence the two should be separated grammatically.

2. I see no problems with that item (except maybe that is too detailed, but that is merely a stylistical concern).

3. Had a Protestant bent by including "only" (thought that might have been intended to a "Jesus as the only saviour"). Also, one particular theory of Atonement was emphasized too strongly.

4. I see no problem with that item.

5. What exactly is the problem with this.

6. Such a statement would indeed be out of line, BUT:

• it is prefaced by "According to the definition of the Athanasian Creed, accepted by the Roman Catholic church[43] and numerous Protestant denominations, [44]" - still it might be implying that those accepting the Athanasian creed per se see non-trinitarians as non-Christians, which would be OR, but therefore it has been
• fact tagged.

7. This is probably too wordy, placing to many statement in one setence. Though this is the mainstream view in general, maybe not all would agree with all these wordings.

In my observations please note that the entire section is prefaced by "Although Christianity has always had a significant diversity of belief, mainstream Christianity considers certain core doctrines essential." This refers to all the following items and hence "Christian" is to be understood in this light. However, maybe this isn't clear enough when reading one subsection in isolation.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on the Athanasian creed one, I had to look that one up, previously it just said it was true matter-of-factly, so as I looked for refs the Athanasian creed was all I could really pin it down to, so that's why it says "Athanasian creed" now. Homestarmy 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But this is no way to proceed. I have reread the Athanasian creed and found nothing of the sort. It repeteadly says "This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully." ... It does not say that those disagreeing are not Christian. Therefore I will remove that reference again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you intend to say by your statement above ("this is the catholic faith...") but it might help to know that "catholic" - with a small c - means universal. As a member of the Coptic Orthodox church, of which St. Athanasius was also a Pope, I have always been taught that his intent was to say that this is a universal understanding of Christianity. Further, if there was disagreement about this, it would not be a pure Christian faith. I believe this was a main point of contention when the Oriental Orthodox churches first split from the remaining churches which went on to be the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox churches after the great schism which occurred at a later ecumenical council.

Because of the history of Christian faith and the variations that arise as time goes on, I recommend that the definition of "Christianity" be organized and presented according to the various ecumenical councils, the points at which certain churches split from each other, and the REASONS for which they split. This might allow for the most organized and all-inclusive presentation of the subject.

I am not sure it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article - or a Christian who writes such an article - to have any one church to denounce other beliefs as "non-Christian." I firmly believe my Church's interpretation of Christianity and - as logically must follow - I believe that those who disagree are wrong. BUT, it would not be NPOV of me - or Christian of me - to denounce those beliefs as cults, false, wrong, or otherwise problematic. The only way to present such a complex topic as Christianity under one definition is to explain how the Church split over time based on various disagreements and alternate interpretations. Perhaps someone with more time to address this will make an effort to make such edits before I find time to get back to this, but I look forward to following the progress of this article. Best of luck everyone and remember to keep Christian values at the heart of all your efforts, changes, and comments. --Markemark1005 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yea, I wasn't looking it up to reference the last part, I was in the dark there. I just wanted it to cite the affirmative part. Homestarmy 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for numbering the quotes. I should have done that myself. I will use such a format in the future.

2. This is but one of a variety of differant accounts of his ressurection and appearances. This particular one is drawn from Mark and John. Matthew's has Jesus meet both Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary". According to Luke, the first appearance was to Cleopas and Simon. Paul's in 1st Corinthians differs also (having more agreement with Luke than the other Gospels). This is not even considering the variety of Christian legends/traditions regarding the appearances of the risen Jesus.

4. This strikes me as more than a bit dogmatic. Automatically assumes acceptance of the masculine personage of the Holy Spirit, which is hardly universal even among Trinitarians. Phrasing such as "essential to living a Christian life" reinforces impression of a dogmatic POV. I do not believe mentioning the belief of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in and of itself is not problematic however.

5. Implies universal acceptance. Also implies the complex formulation of the orthodox Trinity is expressed therein, which it is not (though one may certainly say it provides implication).

6. It also includes the filioque which would also exclude the Eastern Orthodox who split from the Roman Catholics partly over its inclusion (which they view as heretical). Additionally, the Athanasian Creed includes not just a very specific formulation of the Trinity and the filioque, but also a very specific formulation of the relationship between Man and God within Jesus. It is also notably includes the doctrine of bodily ressurection. The statement in the article serves only to give the impression of the "wrongness" of Nontrinitarianism IMO.

7. It certainly needs to be rephrased. Also, I do not feel inerrancy should be part of the statement, as the belief is a matter of some vicious contention.

I quite understand there are some disclaimers and there are alternate views presented. It just feels like the article includes just enough of them to try to be the letter of the law in regards to WP:NPOV instead of actually living up to it.

P.S. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me. It is appreciated.Vassyana 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2. If it is the details you are up about, I would propose slimming things down already for stylistic reasons, even though I do not agree with your (apparent) deductions from the different texts and seeming contradictions. (Later apparations BTW are not important here, as we are talking about the Easter-to-Pentecost-period, when Jesus - according our beliefs - still physicall walked the earth.

4. It does not assume a masculine personage (whatever that is) of the Spirit, but merely uses the male grammatical gender, as it is common with regard to the Holy Spirit. Opposed to this is the natural gender but the Spirit, being Spirit, has no natural gender. As for the rest, these are nuances and emphases that can be solved.

5. Regarding the acceptance, this should be clarified. I do not see your second implication.

6. I have now completely removed this bit, as the Athanasian Creed actually did not live up to what was claimed. Certainly, non-trinitarians are often considered non-Christian, but this cannot be based on the AC. The filoque is of no concern here as we are trying to outline mainstream Christianity (and not so much disagreements). The bodily resurrection is clearly stated in the Gospels, BTW.

7. Let's see what we can do.

PS. You're welcome. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not looking for my opinion to be perfectly accomodated or reflected in the article, and you seem similarly flexible. I appreciate that effort towards consensus.

2. Not trying to assert they are necessarily contradictory, just pointing out various accounts can give various impressions and in practice do give various impressions. Slimming it down works perfectly well.

4. As I mentioned, commenting on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is perfectly acceptable and it can certainly be reworked.

I must be off to do wage slavery, but I will take time late tonight to comb through the article more and continue to work with you to build consensus and improve the article. Vassyana 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for that. I have now slimmed down the resurrection, but what occured to me that the whole "Death and resurrection" subsection somewhere down the line got bloating into retelling history, when it should be about Christian beliefs. I will in time have a look into this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added Paul to the resurrection sectgion - i thought he was as worthy of mention as Mary.

And I have changed BY faith to THROUGH faith - in keeping with Paul's words.--Just nigel 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to your changing BY to THROUGH (though of course, Paul's words are in Greek).

Your (and others) additions to the resurrection section however I removed again. This again move the passage into a narration. This section should be about beliefs, not about retelling the passion. There is still much work to be done in this regard. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The section was transformed with this edit. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Str1977's revisions put it back to this:

Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day since his crucifixion and his assembled disciples and to various people in several places. After forty days, Jesus ascends to heaven after having instructed his Apostles to "...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...",[24] a command known as the Great Commission.

Some of the problems with this are:

1)It uses passive voice. why say 'Jesus was raised' when we can say 'God raised Jesus'.

2)the next bit doesn't make sense it should talk about appearances.

3)The 'after 40 days' is very problematic. Only Acts describes it like this. The gospels all say something else.

4)In the Bible the 'great commission' is not linked to the assencion at all.

5)Why list Matthew's commissioning to 'all nations' and not Mark's to 'Galilee'?--Just nigel 10:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I have moved all comments on active vs. passive voice to a separate section.

2) You are right. There is a break in the text.

3) Actually Luke and Acts form one unit in this. The other three gospels do not contradict it (hence they do not say something else on this).

4) The Great Commission is in the farewell chapter in Matthew. Both Matthew and John (and the second ending of Mark) have such a farewell chapter, which corresponds to the Ascension narrated by Luke, even if they do not describe it as vivid as Luke does. The current text only says that the Ascension happened after the Great Commission, which is clearly the case. There can be no Commission after the Ascension.

5) There is no "Commission to Galilee" in Mark, merely an appointment to meet in Gallilee. This appointment is present in Matthew too and hence it is absurd to create a contradiction. Also, the passage in Mark is already part of the "second ending" which gathers information from Matthew and Luke. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1)As stated below I can live with middle voice.

2)Cool, easily fixed

3)Luke's account of Jesus being lifted up into heaven does differ from the Acts account. Luke seems to have it happen on Easter Sunday, much earlier than 40 days. Paul in his letters seems to have Jesus appearing to him, as he had to the other disciples, much later than 40 days. John has Jesus first rejecting touch (from Mary) on Easter Sunday because he has not yet ascended to the father, but a week later inviting touch (from Thomas). John also emphasises Jesus being lifted up on the cross - before Easter Sunday. Matthew and Mark see no need to describe a chronological ("which day was Jesus glorified?") nor spacial ("how far up did he have to go to get to heaven?") ascension at all - they emphasise Jesus' glorified in mission (to the ends of the earth) and discipleship (back in Galilee). Whether you agree with all that or not - I still maintian that only Acts describes "after 40 days" and that timeframe is not a measure of orthodox Christian belief.

4) Sure there are similarities in "farwell discources" but that does not make them correspond with the ascension in a way that lets us say finitely which happenend first. It is not clear to me that the commission from Mathew happened before the ascension. Your asertion otherwise sounds like your assumption not logic. Why can't there be a commission after the ascension? Paul had no trouble hearing from the risen Lord after your/Acts 40 day timetable.

5) It is not a matter of trying to find 'contradictions' or 'harmonise' the different acounts. You may have misuderstood me if that is what you thought I was trying to do. I was trying to read and accurately summarise each of the gospel accounts for what they are. <warning preachy tone ahead> Call it a commission, an appointment or whatever but I think the call in Matthew and Mark for the followers of Jesus to follow him back to Galilee, the place where their discipleship began and they were first called to fish for people, is as significant for the church's beliefs and practices as the call in Matthew to make disciples of all nations. My question remains why list one and not the other?--Just nigel 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

3) Reading this in isolation it certainly seems this way. But a) we needn't read it in isolation to another book by the same author, b) it is irrelevant as this section is supposed to be about Christian beliefs not a retelling of Gospels and Acts, giving all sides. Paul doesn't matter at all as his vision of Christ is a completely different matter, long after the Ascension. His actually was a vision and not a bodily appearance. I grant you that only Acts specifies the Ascension/disapperance as happening after forty days but the other sources do not contradict it (and since Matt, Mark and John seem to place it in Galilee it would have to take some time.

4) The corresponding between these events does not make either happening before or after but identifies them. However: clearly Jesus could not give a Great Commission if he had already ascended into heaven. Why? Because it is Jesus, bodily present, that authorizes the Eleven Apostles for their mission. Paul gets something specific from his vision but later gets the approval of the Twelve. Even if you claimed that Jesus could give the Commission by a vision, he doesn't do so in Matthew. He is physically present and talks from man to man.

5) I don't care about the words either, but Matt has it like this: women seeing the empty tomb, Angel sending the Disciples to Gallilee, Jesus appearing to the women and reiterating his ordering the disciples to Gallilee, Disciples going to Gallilee, receiving the Great commission END (not ascension or disapperance mentioned, so it must come later) - this clearly distinguishes the Great Commission to baptize the nations from the previous, in the long run unimportant order to go to Gallilee.

You say: "I was trying to read and accurately summarise each of the gospel accounts for what they are." - That is exactly the problem, regarding this section. This section should not be a summary of the gospels period.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some idiot vandalised this article. Can someone fix it? 24.218.198.220 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What section is it in? You can remove it yourself too, just edit it out. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

There are two examples of "saviour" and one of "savior". I use the British spelling ("saviour") myself, but I don't want to jump in and change it, as I imagine many Wikipedia editors are American. I do think the article should be consistent, though. Thoughts? ElinorD 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The original article used the American spelling so that is the one that should be used as per convention [4]. Sophia 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected one of the occurences of Saviour to Savior. However, the remaining one is part of the Justin quote and hence cannot be changed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Useful link, Sophia. ElinorD 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection: passive or active voice

Regarding the "was raised" versus "God raised Jesus", I prefer "Jesus rose". That's what's in the creed. I remember reading somewhere that NT Greek has a "middle voice" in addition to active and passive, and uses that voice for the resurrection, but I'm not sure. Does anyone here know Greek? "God raised Jesus" might imply that Jesus isn't God. Perhaps I should have discussed that before changing it, but somebody told me to be bold. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back.

In addition to my "was raised" versus "rose" change, I also made some change to the bit about the third day. It had "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day since his crucifixion". I think that "the third day since his crucifixion" sounds a bit awkward. I can't really explain why, but I prefer "after". In any case, there is some ambiguity with "third day" when using modern English to talk about this belief, since it seems to have been a Friday afternoon to a Sunday morning, so "after" would make it more misleading. My change says, "Jesus, having been crucified, rose from the dead on the third day", which I think makes the interpretation of "third day" a little freer. ElinorD 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Greek does indeed have a middle voice. It is a topic of some contention in academia and apologetics. In Attic Greek (Classical), the middle voice was often reflexive (the subject acting upon themselves). In Koine Greek ("Biblical" Greek), the middle voice was considerably more neutral and its application was generally determined by context (like English). However, the use of the middle voice in Koine can be rather ambiguous. In modern English, there is no middle voice per se, but it does exist by context. When an active verb is used passively, that is generally considered "middle voice". Hope this clears up the topic, if slightly. Vassyana 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add the caveat that I did oversimplify a bit in my explanation. ;o) Also, by all means, be bold! If I or another editor disagrees, we can always work towards a consensus. Vassyana 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the differences among Christians, I believe this to be an excellent article. There is, however, one word that I would like to see changed. The article states that Jesus was "raised" from the dead. As a Christian who believes that Jesus Himself is one of the Persons of God, I would say that Jesus "arose" from the dead, thereby indicating that He did not need anyone's help. DMADO 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)DMADO 2/3/2007

I was typing something about that just as you were saving your comment. ElinorD 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'middle voice' is clever because it glosses over arguments about who did the raising. I certainly would not like an edit that said Jesus raised himself. cf Romans 8.11 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you." etc. We still need to modify that "40 days".--Just nigel 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed, in the English versions used in that article, uses "the third day he rose again", in the active voice. The Latin is "et resurréxit tértia die", which is also active; I'm not sure about the Greek.

To say that he rose again does not mean he raised himself; neither the English nor the Latin (nor, I believe, the Greek) uses the reflexive. --FOo 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the Greek text predominently uses the passive voice - i.e., God raised Jesus. There are times that it is stated other ways, but this understanding is dominent. Only according to modalist theology is that a tautology; classical trinitarianism says that the incarnate second person of the Godhead was raised by the first person. Give me a day and I'll pull some grammatical references from the Greek text and Greek creeds. -- Pastordavid 07:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

English translations of Luke 24 (Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here but HAS RISEN. . . must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and on the third day RISE) tend to use the active voice. I think there was some early Church Father (Ignatius, or Iranaeus, perhaps?) who wrote something about the flesh of Christ "which the Father in His goodness raised." ElinorD 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is from Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. You can find it here. Vassyana 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) (edit conflict) That was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (6.2). "[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." (Copied from Jurgens: The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, p. 25.) I think the rose/was raised issue was discussed here before, so there's probably something about it in the archives, but I wouldn't know where to look. Musical Linguist 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the active as the passive voice are admissable as both are used by scripture and the early fathers. This does not denote a difference of opinion but merely one of wording and perspective. Of course, God raised up Jesus, the Father raised up the Son, but since in Christian believe the Father does everything through the Son he also raised up the Son through the Son. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is pretty clear on the topic:

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Cor 15:15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

Acts 2:31-32 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Acts 10:40-41 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,

Acts 13:34 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'

Acts 13:37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

Acts 17:30-31 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

1 Cor 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

2 Cor 4:14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Eph 1:20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Thess 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Heb 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

1 Pet 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Pet 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.215.164 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 February 2007.

If you mean by saying that the Bible "is pretty clear on the topic" that it's only correct to say that the Father raised the Son, and not that the Son rose, I'd have to disagree. There are other verses which speak about the Son "rising" from the dead. I've already quoted Luke 24, but there are others. Did the Father raise the Son? Yes. Did the Son rise? Yes. Is it okay to focus on one rather than the other? Yes. Is it okay to deny the other? No. We need to find a wording that acknowledges that both interpretations are orthodox. But perhaps we should really be discussing it at this place, because there probably isn't room in this article for a great deal of theological discussion about the Resurrection. ElinorD (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Being Bold

I altered the end of the Christian divisions section. Expanded it slightly. Added fact tag until we can cite the claim. Just because we know it to be true is not sufficient. Feel free to revert if people object, but please explain why if you do. Vassyana 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited that because I think it adds little new information, and that which it does add is unbalanced globally/historically. It focuses very much on evangelical views on 'dodgy' groups, whereas globally/historically other groups have/have had an at least equally significant disapproval of other groups for various grounds. In most mainstream non-evangelical churches, groups like the Jehovah's witnesses - to which the article refers - are not regarded as 'properly' Christian. TheologyJohn 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You should have removed the reference to evangelicals, rather than reverted the entire change, if that is the crux of your concern. It does add new info, as it includes reference to those with open canons and continuing revelation, which also are beliefs meeting much criticism and hostility from many mainstream and evangelical groups. The mention of evangelicals seemed appropriate, as they are the principal active critics of such groups, generally speaking. I also don't understand why you removed the fact tag from an uncited claim. Vassyana 09:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored my edit, minus the evangelical reference. If you have further concerns about this change, please discuss it with me. Vassyana 09:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the last sentance of the Jesus Christ section. Removed numerous examples in parantheses and wiki-linked to the appropriate articles instead. Vassyana 08:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortened up the Non-Trinitarian section. It is a minority view and has an article of its own. Removed the bit about those sects denying the mortality/human nature of Jesus, as while this affects Christology and in some theologies is part of a non-Trinitarian belief, it does not necessarily negate a Trinitarian view. Tried making the section a bit more NPOV as well. Vassyana 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglicans

• Are you sure that the Anglicans should be considered Protestants? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.11.210 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
• Could you elaborate? Zazaban 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. "Others, particularly some Anglicans, eschew the term Protestant and thus insist on being thought of as Catholic, adopting the name "Anglo-Catholic."" Vassyana 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May we agree to call them "Anglicans"? [:-)

Opuscalgary 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two main schools of Anglicanism: "High Church", which is more formally called Anglo-Catholic Tractarianism, and "Low Church", better called Protestant Reformed. The latter stems from Messrs Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, et al, the former from an address given in 1823 by John Keble (see [Anglo-Catholicism]). Haoran 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Resurrection section: beliefe or narrative

Since my concern above got a bit drowned, I will open a new section to raise it again: the Resurrection section currently is a retelling of the Passion narrative as gathered from the 4 gospels. This is valid information but IMHO fits more into articles like Jesus than in a subsection of Christian beliefs, which should be more concerned with what Christians belief about Jesus' death and resurrection than about a narrative. The underwent a big transformation from a very sketchy presentation of beliefes to a narrative in this edit. I don't want to simply move it back to this former state but the current version is not good either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. Really, this section should be relatively short and sweet. I'm also very surprised it makes no mention of the Passion, which I'm fairly certain most would agree is integral to the topic. If anything, I'd like to see it gloss over the details and focus more on its central importance to Christianity. The sacrifice of the Son, including the Passion, should be the central focus IMO. Thoughts? Vassyana 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's collect some things that should go in:

the crucifixion, death, resurrection, atonement of course, post-easter events like the commission and the ascension, reference to the passion, last supper (with links to mass etc.). What else? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should break this down into two sections? One addressing the Last Supper, arrest and passion. The other addressing the crucifixion, death and ressurection with mention of its central role in atonement. I think sticking all in one section might be a bit much at once and provide for a rather large section. What do you think? Vassyana 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

St Paul himself argues that the resurrection is a core belief in Christianity. (1 Cor 15:12-20) As such, it may well deserve it's own section? This may also be helpful, in context: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." Haoran 11:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Salvation

I'm quite surprised that Hell, Purgatory and universalism are missing from the Salvation section. Without at least briefly touching on these topics, a reader unfamiliar with Christianity would come away with a very incomplete understanding of salvation/damnation in Christianity. Thoughts? Vassyana 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, universalism isn't the most notable of things to start with, I was under the impession that going to Purgatory basically meant you'd be saved anyway, and I think an easy way to include Hell would be to replace the word "death" with Hell, since after all, the death article includes physical death, and unless you just so happen to be a Christian at the time of the rapture, your body will still technically die, so in a way you aren't technically saved from it. I presume the original writer of that part probably meant death as in the death of your eternal soul kind. Homestarmy 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Universalism is indeed notable. It is a distinct and influential minority view, and was the majority view of early Christianity (ref. universal reconciliation). Purgatory is also notable, since it is part of the theology of the largest single sect of Christianity, Catholicism. Also, it is worth noting for our discussion that many Christians, and most of early Christianity, believed in a physical ressurection whereupon the damned would suffer a second death, while the saved would be spared (indeed saving them from a literal death). Vassyana 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hell, Purgatory etc. once were mentioned. Universalims is indeed a notable minority view. However it s was not the majority view of early Christianity, en contraire it was not a position held by early Christianity at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed the majority view of early Christianity. Only the Carthiginian/Roman theological school taught eternal damnation. The Edessan, Antioch, Alexandrian and Caesarean schools all taught universalism. The Ephesian school taught something in-between (more or less). Augustine also said himself that the majority of Christians at the time believed in universalism. Vassyana 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since what you say about schools is largely unverifiable (just as some of these schools), you could at least give a reference to where Augustine says that. The only one I know of who held such views was Origen and he rightfully got a lot of criticism for it. Your claims sound strange given the verses Matthew 9,48; 25,41.46; Mark 3,29; 2 Thessalonians 1,9; Jude 1,7.13 and Revelation 14,11; 20,10 and that nothing indicates that everybody would be saved (which anyway is an absurd and unjust idea). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying universalism isn't notable period, i'm saying it isn't the most notable of things, and so it isn't. Especially for a very small summary style section of Salvation in the Christian faith, I really don't see how Universalist thought is that major in comparison to, well, almost every other view out there, most of which aren't even in the section either. I also do not understand how the majority view of early Christianity would of been so very flawed and yet still sustainable, I mean, there's no logical reason to spread a faith if everyone goes to heaven anyway, if early Christianity was dominated by universalism, I don't see how Christianity would of continued existing. Oh, and much of the reason many early Christians believed they literally wern't going to die physically or spiritually is probably because, likely in the tradition of most of the later books of the Gospel, many of the writers seemed to feel that Jesus was going to come back for them in only a few years. Homestarmy 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say it isn't notable, does not make it so. Just because you feel it is illogical or "wrong", does not make your view factual. Universalism is a well-documented view (minority in modern times, majority in early Christianity). Beyond that, remember that "Gospel" is good news. Speading the good news that our sins have been paid for, is logically coherent. Offering a chance to accept Jesus, turn around one's life and thereby avoid aeons of punishment is also logically coherent. Vassyana 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually reading? Homes did say that universalism was not notable. BTW, Universalims is not necessarily good news. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Please re-read his post and mine. I know he said it was notable. I replied his say-so does not make it so. On the "good news", the Gospel is "good news" and I was replying to his assumption universalism logically precludes evangelism. Vassyana 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have reread your post, which leads to the same result: Homes said "I'm not saying universalism isn't notable period ..." and you replied "Just because you say it isn't notable". Spot the contradiction.

I know fully well that Gospel (Greek: Euaggelion, Latin: Evangelio) means good news. What I was saying is that Universalism is not good news IMHO, as it does not properly address the problem of evil. A different (!) point: Universalismus may not preclude Evangelism but it also makes it pretty pointless. You of course are free to disagree. PS. Still waiting for your Augustine reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He followed that with "i'm saying it isn't the most notable of things, and so it isn't".

The point(s) both you and Homestarmy put forward are based on a gross misunderstanding of universalism. I will reiterate that universal salvation does not preclude punishment. I know of very few universalist theologians who would assert that universalism is a universal get-out-of-jail-free card (mind the pun). Usually, universalist theologians assert an eventual reconciliation, not an immediate escape from punishment. On the question of evil, do you not rape, steal and murder solely out of fear of eternal damnation? On the question of evangelism, wouldn't you like to know who granted you such a gift as eternal life? Vassyana 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your reading ability seems to be impaired. Homes said U. is not able but not the most notable of things. Your second however doesn't sit very well with all these references to an eternal punishment I refered to. And, yes, I am still waiting for your reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please drop the snarky attitude. And on eternal punishment, please research the matter. Contemporary (to the NT writing) usage shows aionios/aionion does not mean eternal/everlasting, but aidios/aidion does. Also, please see above for references. Vassyana 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was you who was bothering others with claims that ran to counter to what they actually said. My fault for pointing it out? Comments on the issue will follow below. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So because i'm wrong to not use any sources out of the assumption they wern't necessary yet, you're automatically right about your assertions? I dislike just telling people they've commited so-and-so logical fallacy as I think its just annoying and uppity, but observing that my flawed application of Wikipedia policy (which I was hardly trying to apply anyway, I mean come on, I was being pretty OR) results in your application being correct isn't a very good way of solving a situation as complex as the notability of viewpoints in early Christianity. I didn't say spreading news wasn't logically coherant, (Which, no matter what the news was, it couldn't be unless your speaking gibberish or something) I said more or less that the continued spread of this particular type of news would not be logically coherant if there was little point in continuing to spread the motivation to spread the news. There would of been precious little reason for a group of people convinced that everyone is going to heaven no matter what to continue spreading their message, humanity is not known for its near-universal alturism, (Especially when nothing is at risk) and I doubt hearing the message of universalism would of made the people of Israel and Rome leap to their feet and dash into the public square to tell everyone the news that there's no cause for alarm, everyone's going to heaven, just keep doing whatever you're doing now and you're more or less ok. But please, I certainly haven't given any actual references which count by Wikipedia standards, so feel free to bring forth the first references. Homestarmy 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, how do I reply in the right order for my comment to make sense here? :/ Homestarmy 15:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is probably for the best if you reset the indent. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Str1977 for some references on the matter. Vassyana 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The schools can be verified [5]. Augustine in Enchiridion Ch.112 says "some, nay, very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so;". (Very many, "quam plurimi" usually means "most" or "majority".) Origen is not the only one to assert such a position in early Christianity. Notably on the anathema against Origen, his universalism was not one of the points against him. (It was not until the mid-6th century that the doctrine was condemned, and that condemnation had much to do with Origen's theory of the transmigration of souls.) Clement of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa all espoused universalism, as examples. Of course, there are other such as Justin Martyr, Iranaeus and Tertullian taught eternal damnation. Again, you misrepresent universalism as denying some measure of exclusionism and punishment, which is only true of its most extreme form. I would counter it is an unjust and absurd concept that a loving, merciful and just G-d would condemn infinitely for finite wrongdoing. Also, the New Testament is as filled with messages of universal salvation as it is exclusionism. 1Tim 4:9-10 "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." 1John 2:1-2 "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Vassyana 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved this down here as it has no business being posted above.

"The schools can be verified". But not by that link.

This link also says nothing about a universalits majority, rather the opposite: the first Universalists were Gnostics (...) and then then there was Clement and Origen and a few others (about which it says nothing specifically).

You are so mistaken when you say that Origen was only condemned in the 6th century and only for his transmigration of souls. Origen was already controversial during his lifetime (his self-castration being by far not the only thing) and he had his admirers as well as his detractors throughout the next centuries. But the admirers always tried to minimize Origen's chief errors. The most famous case if Rufinus who "cleansed" his translation of Peri Archon ... which led to his bitter feud with his former friend Jerome. Origen's errors were repeatedly condemned by bishops and synods. The 5th Ecumenical Council only was the pinnacle of this and in contrast to previous condemnations and canon law, the person of Origen was condemned too. The reason was not so much migration of souls but ideas like that all beings, even the devil could and would acquire salvation after a long process ... in other words "universalism".

As for the New Testament, I see no shred of universalism in it. Unless you call the fact that everyone is invited as Universalism. The quotes you use above are totally out of context (John is speaking to Christians, not to everybody). Twisting of words is also convient: eternal means no longer eternal, as you explained (but what about the worm that never dies? does that mean it never dies until it does?) You do the same with Augustine, who says "very many" which does not mean the majority (majority of what anyway, Augustine didn't travel the world). This is wishful thinking.

What actually is "some measure of exclusionism"?

"infinetely condemn for finite wrongdoing"? Whoever said that the one guilty (man) could belittle his crime by calling it "finite". And that's not only an attitude of self-exculpation, an attitude of salvation on demand, but also an attitude of book-keeping, giving out wages and punishment. But God doesn't condemn us for the sum of the little things we do. Damnation is the result of our rejecting him. We can either have communion with Him or not. In the long run, there is no inbetween. And why should God shove salvation down the throat of those that never wanted it during all his previous offers? Do you think He should change them all against his will? And if He doesn't change them, will you place the muderer next to his victim for eternity? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you again to please moderate the attitude. It is not necessary. This was posted above, as a reply to your comment, as is standard.

The link does indeed verify the schools. "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked." Pretty plain, no?

I did not take John out of context. Yes he is speaking to Christians. And he says, "not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

The link does not assert that the Gnostics were the first universalists, but rather its first advocates. There is a distinction, particularly when discussing historical doctrines.

Most of the rest of your comment continues to show a gross misunderstanding of universalism and borders on a polemic. Vassyana 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Touching on "quam plurimi". It is literally translated as "very many", but nearly always means "most" or "majority", much akin to the archaic English "the many" or (less archaic) "multitude". Vassyana 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take on the 1 John point, I don't want to interrupt too much heh. That verse says that Jesus is indeed the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world and of Christians, but it doesn't say that this sacrifice is forced upon anyone. It is like a man coming to your trial after the judge has declared you guilty and says you have to pay a 500,000 dollar fine, except the man who comes to your trial pulls you to the side and tells you that he is willing to give you the 500,000 dollars for your fine. Someone who is a Christian has accepted this gift so to speak from Jesus, but for a non-Christian, it is often that the person either can't hear the offer because they are so busy still breaking the law, or because they hear of the offer and reject it anyway out of some foolish sense of pride or something. The man is Jesus who was willing to pay for our crimes, the judge is God, and the only difference is of course the fine, it is no mere 500,000 dollars. It is a fine of infinite price, since God had a standard of infinite justice. The offer of Jesus is indeed addressed to the entire world since He died to pay the price of the sins of the entire world, but nobody is forced to accept Jesus's free gift of payment for our sins against God, if God would force everyone to accept the gift of salvation, why wouldn't God simply of forced us to not require salvation in the first place by forcing Eve to not sin? Homestarmy 20:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The response from the unversalist perspective would be that it is not forced on anyone. Universalism does not conjecture that man's free will need be violated. To put it simply, it is the thought that everyone will eventually reconcile with G-d or, if you will, come to their senses. Vassyana 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose in a theoretical sense, everyone who gets sent to Hell would technically have to eventually come to their senses no matter how stubborn they are, since as far as I know, there's an infinite time period of punishment, so logically at the very least most possible events are bound to happen down there. But coming to one's senses isn't enough to recieve salvation, I have read many times of people who earnestly realize the offense they have commited against God and dearly realize the price that they deserve to pay, yet believe that their sins are so great, Jesus is somehow not willing to forgive them anyway. (Even met one of these people myself, dunno if he ever got saved or not :( ) There are also, even worse, people who realize that, logically speaking, they deserve to be punished, yet don't care. Sometimes its because they have a low view of God's standard of justice or think that "all their friends" will be in Hell or something like that, or at the most extreme end, people who despise God's justice so much that they declare that if God sends people to Hell, they would gladly go there out of contempt for God. These people all "come to their senses" in a way in realizing that God must, as a being of perfection, logically judge the wicked, but never actually become saved. To accept Christ's gift, people have to become born again through faith in Him, in my judge example, its not like a guilty person can just turn to the man and say "Hey, cool, thanks" (snatches money) "Here ya go judge!" and then just walk out without even giving the man who helped him so much as a how-do-you-do. Jesus gave rather specific instructions on how to accept the gift he was preparing to give to the world, and simply having the intellectual knowladge and understanding of what He did wasn't the whole of the instructions. Homestarmy 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is not the standard to post something that has been requested numerous times prior to the requests, even if things were not as confused as they are here (for which I bear my share of the blame). Also, may I remind you that you started this by claiming that universalims was the majority. I now see the reference to the schools, though I cannot follow the observation given in this text. Furthermore, these schools are not "the majority of Early Christians", at best they are the majority of Christian theology over a certain period of time. I insist that you took John out of context. The link does assert that Gnostics where the first Universalist, which is the first advocates (or do you think they were hypocrites and adovacated something they did not believe in?)

Maybe my comment is polemical. Maybe I do understand something else by Universalism than you and maybe you seem to find it in Scripture. I don't find my "universalism" in there. The Universalism I am talking about is itself a gross misunderstanding of Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (in edit-conflict)

Briefly replying, I post it under the original request. The majority of Christian theology for the first half millenia of Christianity is certainly indicative of the state of Christianity at the time. It does not assert that they were the first, simple the first advocates. It is not the same thing and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. And honestly, I think you have POV blinders on in regards to biblical universalism. But, let us continue this over here (User_talk:Vassyana/Salvation) as there's no sense in bogging down the talk page further with our debate. Vassyana 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it's not (and it's not half a millenia but 300 years at best). Theologians quibble over things, forgetting the core of the faith. Look at the Arians and their subgroups. Half of the Empire's bishops were Arian but where did all the Arians go afterwards?

It is intellectual dishonest or linguistically clumsy to say they were the first advocates and not the first period. Maybe you are trying to say that they were the first that we know of?

The problem with your reply to Homes above is the failure to recognize that a man cannot come to his or her senses once she's dead. Dead is dead. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Trinity

Do we really need the paragraph about the Reformed Theology take on the Trinity? It seems to emphesize one particular POV and there's already an article for RT and the Trinity where such details would better fit. Why not remove that paragraph? Also, should we split off that paragraph about the Holy Spirit into its own section titled Holy Spirit? These change would drastically change the section and perhaps create another, so I'm not quite going to be bold on this until I hear some other feedback. ElinorD? Str1977? Vassyana 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the RT paragraph from Trinity and split the Holy Spirit paragraph into its own section. Vassyana 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections, so I made the changes proposed. Vassyana 15:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Accademic views on Christianity

I wish to see the info of the following accademic journals in the article which will add credentials to the modern Christian movement

http://www.theandros.com/

http://www.quodlibet.net/

http://www.caps.net/jpc.html

http://www.jecb.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

http://www.acfe.org.au/jcehomp1.html

http://www.acl.org/tcl.cfm

http://www.luthersem.edu/ctrf/JCTR/default.htm

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/buddhist-christian_studies/index.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cicm

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Hallo, what would you like to see included in this article? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone who are interested in studying the religion, then he/she certainly wish to get the veritable infomation from somewhere of which the accademic publications are the only authentic places to which the article should direct in the mean time.

Proposal for change to the category "Christian denominations"

I am putting this proposal here instead of at Talk:Roman Catholic Church because I think it needs the consensus of a wider group of editors.

There is a debate over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church regarding whether the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the category Category:Christian denominations. In a nutshell, the problem is that there is a popular tendency to characterize the Catholic and Orthodox churches as denominations similar to Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Catholic and Orthodox churches reject such a characterization.

I do not think there is a resolution to this debate short of one side forcing a majority "consensus" or "lack of consensus" result down the throats of the other side.

However, a compromise solution has occurred to me. Instead of having the category "Christian Denominations", why not have two categories: the first of which would be called "Major branches of Christianity" which would include the Catholic church, the Orthodox churches and Protestantism". The second category would be called "Protestant denominations" and would not include the Catholic church or any of the Orthodox churches. The category "Christian denominations" would be deleted (and salted).

This still leaves the question of what to do with the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. Do these reasonably fall under the category "Protestant denominations" or not?

--Richard 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lima 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. As for momorns et al., they could be "Reconstructionist denominations" or something like that. Lostcaesar 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Two issues. First, common parlance. WP is descriptive not presecriptive. How are the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches conceived in ordinary thought and referred to in ordinary parlance? Clearly to me, they are thought of and spoken of both as branches of Christianity as well as denominations thereof, and if the disinterested layperson categorizes them in this way, the categorization in WP should reflect that. As it happens, the RCC and the Orthodox churches meet both definitions, here and here.

Second issue: Where are you going to put self-identified Catholic churches who do not recognise papal authority but yet do not claim that they represent a branch of Christianity, such as the Old Catholics and Independent Catholics? Where are you going to put Anglicans who consider themselves as both Catholic and Protestant, forming a distinct branch of Christianity?

I would suggest, as a compromise, that a category of Major Branches be established, using the graph appearing at One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as a template; and that all the branches except Protestantism be reproduced in a category to be called, simply, "Christian Denominations." Anglicanism can appear as a Branch, and the Anglican Communion can appear as a denomination. Fishhead64 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about just renaming Category:Christian denominations to Category:Branches of Christianity. This will avoid any debate on what constitutes a "major" branch, as well as some of the other issues raised above. -- Cat Whisperer 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will work. Does the 300-strong Reformed Mennonite Church count as a "branch of Christianity," for instance? Fishhead64 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To take a page from the modern ecumenical movement, the cut to the chase answer seems to me to be the category name "Christian communions". This takes away the question of whether or not I consider my particular communion to be a denomination. Further, I wonder if the broad category of Protestantism is useful any longer. The oldest churches of Protestantism (e.g., Lutheran, Anglican) identify as much with Catholicism as they do with modern American evangelicalism. In one sweep, objections to being identified as "denomination," "Protestant", and "Roman" (for those not in communion with Rome) are taken care of by the category "Christian communions". -- Pastordavid 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

David speaks wisely, but I am still not clear on how best to handle the conflict. We are speaking of nuances to the term denomination that is lost on the majority of people on the planet. I generally reject most attempts to categorize unless there is a clear objective of gaining understanding rather than just attempting to say one is somehow better than the other, which is what I think is at the base of the denomination conflict. Trying to identify who or who isn't a "major" branch (again, one is better than another, an evaluative statement rather than any true desire to provide understanding) seems self-serving. Christian churches serves just as well as anything else. If the objective is to portray who belongs, it works well. Christian denomination also works just as well. Keep the evaluative statements for each church's home page and maintain a policy of strict neutrality everywhere else. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd advocate putting them into denominations as

• it is more NPOV to do so or at least any concern about special treatment is precluded
• thought the Catholic Church is not a denomination like others are, the permanent existence of different groups turn it into a denomination of sorts
• there are occurences of denominationalism within the Catholic Church too, i.e. special emphases on distinguishing factors beyond their traditional importance (obviously I am not talking about the Eucharist, but there are other things). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Category:Christian branches and denominations? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I just suggested that at Talk:Roman Catholic Church Fishhead64 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian branches and denominations seems good to me. It avoids any ecumenical definition problems with "denominations", and "communions". (Note: While we need to take account of self-definitions and self-naming, that can only extend so far; it can't interfere with routine classifications using neutral terminology, like "branches" or "dead"; see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Names aren't precisely the same situation as categories; the rationales of consistency & using ordinary English language apply even more strongly in categories than they do in names.) Having two terms with different meanings gives it that air of broad inclusiveness that both helps make it clear that this is intended for broad divisions/movements/branches/etc; while using only the major descriptive terms for those divisions. One can easily see that more specific subsets would fit nicely under the hierarchy, with whatever terminologies are appropriate ("denominations" for Protestants, for instance). --lquilter 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an emerging consensus for "Christian branches and denominations" with "Christian communions" being the only other serious contender. I will throw "Christian traditions" into the mix but comment that only churchy people and seminarians understand what this means. The same problem holds for "Christian communions". It's the "right" solution but only for pastors and seminarians. For the layperson, "Christian branches and denominations" is far more familiar than the other formulations which are likely to make the lay person "scratch their head and wonder what it means".

So, if there isn't any major objection, shall we agree to "Christian branches and denominations"? The folks over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church have already concluded that the consensus exists for "Christian branches and denominations" and are talking about how to implement it.

(Snide but good-natured aside from a "sort of" Catholic: It takes a Catholic to find a consensus where only a majority exists.)

--Richard 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Wow! I had no idea that we had so many Catholics on Wikipedia, then.  ;) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the current discussion over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, I am no longer sure that the premature finding of a consensus came from a Catholic. See my comment below. --Richard 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, not a Roman Catholic, in any event! Fishhead64 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The current proposal over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church is to rename the category to Category:Christian churches and denominations. The artgument against Category:Christian branches and denominations is that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Branch Theory either and so it would not consider itself to be a "branch" of Christianity. See Talk:Roman Catholic Church for a more detailed discussion. --Richard 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The contention is that Catholicism recognizes itself as the trunk and everything as a branch from itself. I find the argument compelling, but I still think the term denomination applies for the common individual. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So the argument over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church is that the Category:Christian churches and denominations allows us to neatly sidestep the question of whether the Catholic Church is a "church" (which is what they consider themselves) or a "denomination" which is what some Protestants and non-Christians would call it. The category can include just about everybody since those who do not consider themselves a denomination would generally be happy to be called a church (or, in the case of the Catholics, "THE church"). Now, there could be some hair-splitting about those who would prefer to be called a "branch of Christianity" or a "communion of churches" but I hope we don't have to deal with that. --Richard 08:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Catholicism recognizes itself as the trunk and everything as a branch from itself" is something that belongs, if it can be documented from reliable sources, in the article text. It shouldn't be controlling our categorization. What, should we create a category of Category:Roots of the Christian church from which all others are mere branches, a category intended to only ever have one single member, all so that the Roman Catholic Church never has to acknowledge that it is not the only variety of Christianity? If we did that then we'd have to place Jack Chick into a category of Category:Exposers of the giant Satanic Vatican conspiracy -- that's certainly how he describes himself, isn't it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am the only one pedantic enough for it to matter to, but I still like the suggestions of Christian Traditions, or Christian communions. In fact, I think "Christian communions and traditions" would be perfect :) . In all seriousness, maybe we should consider using one of those terms in combination with what we have suggested right now. Maybe "Christian churches and communions" or something to that effect? Just an idea. Pastordavid 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be clear to an average reader just what "communions" and "traditions" referred to in this context? If I didn't already know which category of entities we were trying to find a group term for, I wouldn't be able to guess it from that group term. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's not very intuitive to the average layperson - moreover, "traditions" is ambiguous. By the same token, "organisations," "groups," and "churches" are similarly subject to multiple interpretations. After reflection, I still endorse the suggestion of "Christian branches and denominations," or perhaps, "Christian denominations and ecclesial bodies," or some combination thereof. By including "denominations" we are being the most intuitive, and a supplementary word like "branches" and/or "ecclesial bodies" satisfy those groups who do not consider themselves denominations, without being too general or obscure. Fishhead64 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

----You guys are too wordy. Have a look at situations in every parliament house where how major parties works with those Indepent MPs.

Wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name...

there will be three or more opinions as to what to call yourselves.

That's what Jesus should have said.

What happened to "They will know them by their love."?

OK, let's take a straw poll and see how things are falling out. If I missed your favorite combination, feel free to add it below.

Christian churches and denominations

Support

1. SigPig. The Anglican Church of Canada. The Roman Catholic Church. The United Church of Canada. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Presbyterian Church in Canada. Et alii. Church + church + church +...=Churches. And yes, while I as a post-Nicene Christian believe there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (prescription), I know that the majority of these groups self-identify as "church" (description). As for denominations, Newfoundland had a denominational school system, and I never heard anyone complain (RC included) about that particular word. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 08:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

   Also, refer to the World Council of Churches, the Canadian Council of Churches, not the "World Council of Ecclesial Groups"...if the churches themselves abide by the usage, so can we.--SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

2. fishhead64. This seems to be the most neutral, descriptive, intuitive, understandable, inoffensive, and comprehensive option on the table. And that's saying a lot. Fishhead64 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Wassupwestcoast 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).Support. This seems reasonable. Will it satisfy the partisans? The un-churched, the lay-person, the common person on the street is going to think "denomination" first when doing a search or speaking about the different types of Christians. To a layperson, a church is a building. Still, it is the best compromise although my cynical self thinks it might be wasted effort: it'll offend those who take offence. Of well...
4. Slac speak up! 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I can't see any immediate problem with this one. It seems practical.
5. Agreed. I am old-fashioned enough to prefer to distinguish between "church" (building) and "Church" (people), but I recognize that this distinction is largely abandoned. Lima 08:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
6. EastmeetsWest Yes. This works fine and apparently without a downside.EastmeetsWest 11:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Andrew c Though I believe denomination has a dictionary meaning in the English language, I see nothing wrong with adopting more inclusive language for the sake of being politically correct. No need to offend Catholics. -Andrew c 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Christian communions and traditions

Support

Oppose

1. lquilter 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC) - Not fond of "communions" for this purpose, but "traditions" is way too vague and could include things like "Christmas". --lquilter 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Fishhead64 - Oppose on the grounds that "communion" is a technical expression having differing definitions (e.g., is the Reformed Mennonite Church its own communion or part of the Mennonite communion? I don't know whether they are in communion with other Mennonite churches). And "traditions" could mean anything. Fishhead64 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Wassupwestcoast 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).Oppose. I think if we had access to a "focus group" as they do in the ad business this choice would not do well. Communion is too technical a term that is really not used secularly. Traditions are associated with turkey and mother-in-laws. Pace mother-in-laws.
4. Anglicans seem to be the only ones who use this term with regularity in the ecclesial sense. In the ecclesial sense it is a technical term too easily confused with the sacramental sense of the same word.EastmeetsWest 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian denominations and ecclesial groups

Support

Oppose

1. SigPig. Ecclesial group? I know this was mentioned above; but is that a neologism? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Fishhead64 - Yes, SigPig, it is a legit expression, the Vatican uses the term "ecclesial" community or group to refer to non-Roman Catholic churches. But I think it is a little too technical for laypeople to know what is being spoken of. Fishhead64 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Wassupwestcoast 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).Oppose. Ecclesial is jargon pure and simple. Plain English is better.
4. EastmeetsWest Actually, "ecclesial community" is a Catholic term which is a slight pejorative. It is used for bodies that do not meet the three requirements of sacraments, succession and scriptural canon, leaving only the Orthodox, Old Catholic and Lefebverite bodies eligible for the term "Church" in the technical sense. For this reason alone, the term should not be considered and I am wondering how it ever came to be proposed.EastmeetsWest 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Still not been moved

I note that the category, Category:Christian denominations remains. Am I to assume that this issue is no longer of concern, or simply that editors are unable or unwilling to assume the task of recategorizing such a large array of articles? I know I am. Fishhead64 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Repeated Added Text

The following text has recently been repetitively added and then deleted:

In contrast, on the basis of discovery of Talmud Jmmanuel some Christian researchers do not believe that Jesus died on the cross.

This material is not suitable for this article for a number of reasons. I think that the most compelling is that it is an extremely minority view in academic circles, even if the research is supposed to be taken seriously. I genuinely cannot understand why someone keeps adding it. I have removed it again as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. And if you deny the resurrection, then how exactly do you call yourself a Christian? It's like me claiming to be a Muslim, and then insisting that Jesus must be the Son of God because I'm a 'Muslim' and I believe it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheologyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm in favour of including minority viewpoints, particularly those with significant recurrence or strong notability. However, this is not a notable minority viewpoint by almost any criteria. It is widely derided as a hoax by the academic community. It is written by a UFO researcher who claimed it was entrusted to him by Pleiadian extraterrestrials, there is no available original Aramaic manuscript (only modern "translations") and it is printed by a UFO vanity press for Billy Meier. It should definately stay out of this article. Vassyana 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicene creed - in our out?

Rather than attempt to argue with each other through edit summaries, I thought we should go to talk.

These, so far as I can tell, are the main arguments voiced in removing the creed:

1. It's a prayer and/or it sounds like preaching. - This I think doesn't hold much water. This is simply the way theologians talk. The creed was put together by bishops after who knows how many debates. They knew how they wanted it to sound. Just because it may clang in modern secular ears is no grounds for removing it. 2. It takes up too much space - this is a more substantial objection that we can explore. But frankly, if the article is too big (and I don't know that it is), then other sections - i.e. summary, commentary, interpretations - could be culled in favour of something that comes from the proverbial horse's mouth. If we wanted to provide buckets of external links, we could do that on credal interpretation. 3. We're better off providing the text at Nicene Creed. Point taken, but the problem is that belief - specifically the contrast between orthodoxy and heresy - plays a central role in Christian self-definitions (Christianity is not an orthopraxic religion such as Islam or Judaism). Describing Christian beliefs in the article on Christianity is always going to be, to put it mildly, a big job. In this context, the Creed provides an excellent base for succint summary and analysis. It doesn't take up that much room after all. Slac speak up! 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly feel it should be mentioned, but I don't know if the text needs to be included. Even though it's fairly brief, this article's already pretty long. Justin Eiler 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to duplicate the creeds here? There's no reason we can't include a general précis of the main theological points of the creeds (while pointing to the more detailed specialized articles). In the case of the Nicene Creed, it may be necessary though to add comment on the later additions of Filioque etc that are not accepted in Orthodox Christianity. Also, if we include the Nicene Creed here, would we not be obligated to include the text of the Chalcedonian Creed as well to contrast the stand of orthodoxy with that of the non-Chalcedonian Oriental churches? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removing: 1) It duplicates information that is only one click away. I took time to link directly to the EXACT copy of what we have in the article not just another article that needs to be searched. 2) The linked to version is superior as all all the disagreements and differences are explained clearly - precising this is not easy and necessarily glosses over some of the global differences potentially giving a US POV. 3) Theologians may see the Nicene Creed as central and a great explanation of core beliefs, but anyone who thinks this creed states in accessible language what Christians believe has lost sight of the fact that most people (and a lot of Christians) don't understand the significance of some of the particular wording.

I wish Gio hadn't raised the prayer thing. I think that is wrong and devisive - this is an article ABOUT Christianity and will obviously contain material others do not agree with or even find offensive. What to include should be all about article layout and completeness - don't let's make this a them vs us situation as the article always loses when we do. Sophia 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually my reasons for the removal are the same as Sophia's. I even copied this version of the creed into another article that it links to (besides the fact that Sophia did something similar). If anyone is interested in the Creed, and in the wording of this version, it will take them there. There is no reason to double (even thriple) the whole text of the creed. I confess mentioning the prayer, preaching was more to see the reactions I'd get, and it was predicatble. For that I'm sorry, and as Sophia says, it was devisive. This was not really my reason for wanting it removed. This article is already quite big, so trimming it down where it clearly can be trimmed without losing anything is beneficial and enhances this article. I fully agree that we ought to talk about the theological points and significance of the creed, and other fine points, along with general "musts," however the actual full wording of the creed is best left to the links where those who want to learn about its meaning can read about it in full. For an introductory level article on Christianity, we simply don't have enough space within this article to get into the detailed meaning behind the particular wording of this creed, without which begs the question about why to include it in full here?Giovanni33 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is such a significant belief for so many Christians that I can understand reticence for accepting it being deleted. However, we link to most quotes from scripture or any other published source. I do not know what is gained by having it quoted that would be lost if it was simply linked. The belief is already summarized and though it is integral to the vast majority of Christians, I still support just linking it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the importance of this creed and its ability to cover a wide range of beliefs, the only proper reason for removal would be that this article is too long. This might be the case. However, there are other section that first need trimming, first and foremost the currently misused "death and resurrection section". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Concurring with Str1977. I would add that the note about the Filioque clause makes less sense without the Creed itself preceding it, and that keeping it but removing the Creed gives undue weight to the areas of disagreement as opposed to the areas of agreement. A.J.A. 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The Creed is a statement of what Christians believe. I wouldn't say that it's not in any way a prayer, since its recitation is part of public worship of God, but it's not addressed to God, and it speaks about him in the third person. But traditionally, being a Christian meant believing what was contained in the Creed. I wouldn't vehemently oppose its removal if other, less relevant sections were removed first, and if it were still felt that the article was too bloated. ElinorD 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The other point that has not been address is that in the case of the Nicene Creed, it would be necessary to add comments on the later additions of Filioque that are not accepted in Orthodox Christianity--AND--if we are to include the Nicene Creed here, we are obligated to include the text of the Chalcedonian Creed as well to contrast the stand of orthodoxy with that of the non-Chalcedonian Oriental churches, or else suffer from bias/npov. That is why its best to leave the links to cover these full texts as there is not enough space for them all, nor is there any reason why the links should not suffice to read the full text of the creeds. Giovanni33 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you'd say that. The Nicene is clearly a more comprehensive summary of Christian doctrine. Another experiment? A.J.A. 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A. Can we please stick to the subject without baiting people. There are valid points you have not replied to before reverting. Sophia 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a self revert Gio as we really haven't finished talking about it here. However I do agree that to only give one version of the creed in full does give a POV slant to the section. As the Nicene Creed article contains all the versions with full explanations and history it is a much better to link to it than duplicate. Sophia 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does each creed version really differ so much that using one is POV exclusion of the other? It's not what the words are that matters, its the meaning they represent. Homestarmy 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that reproducing the entire thing here isn't necessary, or what one might expect to find in a short encyclopedic summary of Christianity, although I'm not sure what the rush to remove it is. Given its importance, I suggest that instead of simply wikilinking to our article, we also include a {{Wikisource}} box in the beliefs section, linking to the text, so that readers who are expecting to find it can do so easily. Jkelly 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd second the wiki-box idea for the belief section.Giovanni33 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd find the box acceptable, though I'm also not sure why there's such a rush to remove it. It is a very basic part of Christianity. By the way, I clicked on the box, and there was no Wikisource article on the Creed. Does that mean we have to create one? ElinorD 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation problem. Fixed now. Jkelly 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the wikibox solution. Failing that, remove the creed and just link to it. per User:SOPHIA above. --Richard 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My preference is for the creed to be in the article. I think it more accurately summaries centuries of Christian beleif better than our paragraphs do at the moment.--Just nigel 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the full text of the creed has to be in this article, but it's worth giving it extra emphasis in some way, like perhaps the wikisource box that Jkelly suggested. Whether the filioque clause is included is indeed very significant; having it in brackets with a brief note, as the article does now at the moment, is probably the fairest way to present it where we do have just one version of the creed. Not that it matters, but it's true that the Creed is regularly incorporated into the prayers of Orthodox Christians, and I'm sure many other Christians as well, so it's not unreasonable to call it a prayer. Other prayers are also not explicitly addressed to God, such as "Come, let us worship God together." This sort of thing is all over the Psalms and in many different Christian traditions of prayer. Wesley 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. I agree with the first part of what Wesley wrote but, while you can debate whether or not a creed is a prayer or not, creeds are quite different from other prayers precisely because of the concept of a "creedal test". For all other prayers, there is a sense that individuals may agree or not agree with the prayer. The entire point of a creed is to establish a common understanding as to what the points of shared faith are. Rightly or wrongly, creeds have been used for most of the history of Christianity to say "Profess that you believe this or you are not a Christian. Believe this or die (or get out)." It is for this reason that creeds are important to discuss in this article (not include verbatim but discuss). This article can describe Christianity without mentioning the Lord's Prayer (Christianity's most important prayer) but it cannot do a good job without describing the role of creeds in dividing the church. --Richard 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

MR GIO, regardless of whether anyone wants the creed in or out or linked or whatever. Stop your misprepresentation of the talk here. There is no consensus to remove it and any unilateral attempt by you will be reverted in due course. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But Str, if our opinions wern't discounted here, Gio wouldn't have an excuse to remove the skillful and sneakily POV-pushing insertion of a prayer which will convert everyone who reads this article instantly, guarenteed relevant and well-placed material which goes so well with this section of the article! Think of the readers Str, and what they have to go through when Wikipedia has to build consensus before changing something :(. Homestarmy 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I knew it! I can see despite the striked out lines: "skillful and sneakily POV-pushing insertion of a prayer which will convert everyone..."The true motivations behind keeping this here despite all logic is now out in the open! heheheGiovanni33 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahah, now you've fallen into our trap, by assuming bad faith, our Christianity Cabal will now see to it you are perma-banned! We may even choose to invent a clever excuse, such as being a possible Willy on Wheels sock, you should feel honored that we would give so very much attention to excluding your point of view (or lack of wanting a lack of a want of a point of view that is lacking in a lack of a view to a point over a tree under a bus....) from Christianopedia, why do you think we revert you so much? I mean, it's not like our opinions have any good faith weight around here, am I right? Homestarmy 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah but if one admits in a confession as to the true reasons, I can refer to that statement as a reference to support the claim--hence there is no assuming bad faith because there is no assumption at all in this case! Its been confessed to openly by the evil cabal. I shall liberate you all from the deamon that posses your mind! heheGiovanni33 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mwahahahah, the pit you dig for yourself continues to deepen, as now by attempting to back up your position by publlicly declaring intent to defend yourself in accordance with Wikipedia burdens of proof, we can now accuse you of Wikilawyering too, what with the possible literal interpretation of WP:DIFF and all that! (Err, you would use diffs to refer to my comment, right?) But we are not an unreasonable Cabal, perhaps if you surrender quietly, we'll lower your 50 year Back-room anti-skepticism cabal voted upon Community ban to a 49 year and 364 day ban, wouldn't want to appear that we're discriminatory, yet wouldn't want anyone to challenge our Prayer pushing mania. Good prayers are so hard to push these days, you know? I mean look at this situation, you even tried to put A.J.A on an accursed slippery slide in one of your recent edits, though he barely avoided it by not actually trying to predict anything, but rather, by simply pointing out that if something occured, then this would occur simultaneously, rather than in a speculative future. Homestarmy 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What if I convert and become a Christian? How would you know I was not an inside agent bent on destroying the evil cabal from within? How do you know I have not already seeded several implants that are even now working to undermine your beloved Cabal? You do underestimate the power of the Skeptics. We will be triumphant in the end!p.s. I can attest to the power of that creed/prayer which despite my mental shield posed itself a considerable force to content with. Luckily, my mental discipline prevailed and I did not succumb to its mind-numbing effects. Even your best weapons are no match for the power of the skeptics, who use the mighty arsenal of logic to crush and tear assunder the effects of even this significant cantation. Giovanni33 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've asked too many questions Gio, be careful, or we'll spring all three creeds on the article at once. Not even your greatest spies will be able to resist, the moment they try to revert it, they'll look at the creeds and instantly be converted. I mean, now if people can resist, they may get offended that there is the text of something from a Christian point of view in the article, and then where would we be? We'd need some sort of anti-censorship policy, but then pr0n would flood the wiki I suppose, no, best to just leave at least one creed in, lest people don't feel that we edit in bad, Christianity-pushing faith without actually harming article quality while doing so. Homestarmy 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Power of the Skeptics", Gio? I don't see no skeptic around here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Double negatives means you do see. But, I agree with you--you don't see. That is part of the problem. But since when do you believe things you see?Giovanni33 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gio, don't paint yourself stupider than you are. You know what I mean! But actually, I see a skeptic around here, but it isn't you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just love it when Wikipedians say "there is no consensus to do X ..." when they mean "I don't agree that we should do X". Am I mistaken when I say that most of the above discussion seems to be in favor of removing the Nicene creed and maybe putting a link to it in the Wikibox?

Str1977, if you don't think there is a consensus to remove the text of the Nicene creed, do you think we should take a straw poll to see how far we are from consensus? --Richard 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I never mentioined consensus, I simply said per talk, which means per the reasons stated on talk. As far as consensus goes, it does look like most are in favor or removal with link and wikibox than leaving intact.Giovanni33 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In case I was unclear last time, for the record, I'm not in favour of removing it. I said that I could accept the box as a compromise if the text is removed, and I do thank Jkelly for the suggestion. (Giovanni33, in your rush to remove it, repeatedly, you don't seem to have made any effort to put the box in.) If we did vote, I'd vote to keep the text, but I don't think it's worth an edit war. There's a lot in the article that I think should go first, if the issue is bloating. ElinorD 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, that was a bad faith remark. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... perhaps it was... although you may have read more bad faith into it than I meant. What I meant to say was... without actually having counted heads, it seems that the consensus was running towards removing the creed and that your statement that there was no consensus seemed to represent your view or, at best, the view of a small minority. However, since trying to read through the entire discussion and count heads was too much work for me, I figured that running a straw poll would help us see the consensus (or lack thereof) more clearly.

Part of the problem is that it is not at all clear what consensus means in Wikipedia. At a superficial level, consensus means unanimity. And using that meaning, you are right "there is no consensus because at least one person objects". However, it is traditional in Wikipedia that a "supermajority" can substitute for a consensus in order to keep obstreperous minorities from blocking movement forward.

More importantly, it should be said that optimal operation of consensus requires that the majority respect the minority opinion enough to refrain from moving forward until the minority agrees to move forward AND that the minority respects the majority opinion enough to give in on issues which are not so important as to require "falling on one's sword" to stop the majority from having its way. This seems to be the stance that ElinorD has taken and I appreciate that.

Do you feel that this is so important that you have to "fall on your sword" to have it your way? If not, I would urge you to accept the majority opinion and move on.

This sort of edit warring just leads to page protection which doesn't allow any part of the article to be improved.

--Richard 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Richard, if you tear my posting apart like that, copy my signature from the bottom part to the top as well.

Now, if you have a look at the article's history, you will see that a single user is keeping this article under fire, shooting in intervals not caring about the dicussion at all. That he claims to be editing "per talk" makes it all the more cynical. My view is only of secondary importance in this. We don't want to have our article dictateted by a bully. I am afaraif Gio is once again moving back to his former self. I see no consensus on this talk. Other editors have worked hard on this section and now it should be removed at whim by a single man (who at the time thinks this whole thing "offensive")? Give me a break.

So, no the Creed issue itself is not that important that I would fall on my sword (metaphorically, there is no reason ever to do it literally). However, Gio's bullying is. I can still vividly remember what he did last year. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to your mischaracterization. "Not caring about the discussion at all." What evidence do you have for this false claim? If I didn't care about the discussion then why have I been discussing it here? I am not the only editor who has removed the text of the creed, and it takes two to edit war. Moreover, my edit is not done "at a whim," as you say. And I have already explained what I meant by "per talk." I stand by it. Lastly, you are edit warring then you are no so innocent. Your history of edit warring is no less then mine so don't be hypocritical by calling others bullies. I am no bully. In fact, is this not a personal attack?Giovanni33 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterization indeed ... by you! I haven't two dozen puppets to push my POV. Don't try to paint us all as black sheep. You have been discussing, in your old style: post something and revert. You are not the only one to remove it but you're the one to edit war. BTW, I don't see that it takes two to edit-war. If the edit-warrior is immediately successful, the war was short but it did happen. Or is that some kind of wiki-pacifism? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, multiple mischaracterizations are by you alone, as I detailed above, and now more. I don't know that you dont' have a dozen puppets to push your POV, but I won't accuse you or insinuate such to cause bad faith. I only know I don't. Paint as black sheep? Nope, never did that either. If I am the only one to edit war then that means I edit war with myself? That makes no sense. If there is no reverting back and forth there is no edit war! So what your saying is nonsense. I explained my resons, others agreed, and then I proceeded to be bold and make the changes. Yes, when others revert me and I revert back its edit warring. However, it takes a minimum of two to edit war. When your revert back again, its also edit warring no less. At least I admit it--and I dont make personal attacks lik you have been doing. And, speaking of pacifism, didn't Jesus teach this, and to turn the other cheek, etc? If only those followers would actually really follow his advice...Giovanni33 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the puppet, we all know that you used to use them. But it is a thing of the past (I hope so. But still you want to portrary us as "all black sheep". You are not edit-warring with yourself but you alone started it by repeatedly making unilateral changes. Though Jesus didn't teach pacificism, yes His followers should follow his advice more. And I hope you will not follow the advice of your favourite people. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't know, you simply make the accusation and bad faith speculations. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. If you think its a "thing of the past," why bring it up here, now? To poison the well? This suggests frustration that you lost the arguments on substantive grounds and now must divert away from the issues into petty personal attacks (the mug slinging) that are quite meaningless here but indicative of this fact. But, I wonder, who are the mysterious "us" that I am supposedly trying to portray as "black sheep?" Perhaps you should onlyu speak for yourself. I don't think others will buy into your us vs. them mentality--whoever these "us" are supposed to be. Still in the crusade mode? Who are the blacksheep? Do you feel like one? I think you might be projecting and speaking of yourself when you speak of me since clearly you are trying to protray me in that manner with all kind of insinuations and falsehoods that are even not relevant to any topic here. And my favorite person is now Mao? hehe I guess your logic is that because I insiste on NPOV (see Cultural Revolution)and not allow you to push your anti-communist POV on articles, it must make me pro Mao? By that logic then, I guess Hitler must be your favorite? You seem to uphold NPOV in that article at least at it pertains to him, although you don't want to call him a fascist. Giovanni33 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all you have ever done over there is defend this murderer and his crimes, belittle the victims and justified the politics of the day, and also verbosily stated why Mao's China is so much better than India (not that I am a big fan of Indian politics). Have I myself ever defend any action of Hitler. Your claiming parallels is so absurd that everyone can see how it is born out of malice and bad faith. Hence, I consider it a personal attack. Good day, Mr Giothinker. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, untrue, again. I have never done any of those things you purport to me. I understood all you want to do is call Mao a murderer, and make statments that are not NPOV, make claims that are not supported by any references, etc, and object to my insisting that the article adhere to standards of NPOV. The India/China study is a valid and important study. Things are not as white and black as you seem to think. China's revolution was progressive and had positive effects, as well as terrible negative effects. The article should mention and discuss all significant pov's. Sometimes your POV gets in the way with NPOV requirements, I understand, but luckily you have me here to put you in check. This does not make Mao my hero, but it does make me a hero for Wikipedia! heheGiovanni33 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, Gio the hero of Wikipedia. Everybody who knows him see the hilariousness of that claim. Thanks for the entertainment, Professor. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Gio at your service. Laughter is the medicine I prescribed for your condition. I'm glad to see you are taking your medicine----even if it's profound truths that make you laugh (better than getting mad, again at the truth).Giovanni33 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not take anything from you, as I can never be sure that your medicine is not as deadly as the one presribed by your Mao. Oh and BTW, please discuss this act of genocide and all its "positive as well as terrible negative effects" in its proper place and not here, Mr NPOV77. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gio, your edit summaries, not counting those were you wrongly called the creed a prayer and used the nonsense argument that it is somehow offensive) included:

• "per talk removed whole actual creed and left a discussion of it with links to the actual wordings."
• "removing full tex of creed as uncessary given links to article and for other reasons as explained on talk"
• "per talk removal of full text of creed that is linked to in article"

"per talk" usually means that the talk page is the reason for the change, either because a discussion has reached a consenus or because the editor in question has produced some (new and in his view convincing) argument for this. You haven't done this, Gio. I know, Gio, that you think your utterances self-evident but they arent't.

That is not to say that are not well-based arguments either way, but this is no way to proceed.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The creed is an important topic to keep in the article, due to its central place in Christian culture and majority identity. However, I really see no reason to include the full text of the Nicene Creed in the article. What are the reasons for inclusion? Shouldn't full text quotations and full treatments of the various subtopics be left to their main pages? The latter is my reason for believing the full text should be excluded. This is an overview topic and the details, including full text quotes, should be left to the appropriate topic page. Vassyana 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As feared the battle lines are drawn but I hope there is enough good faith left that we can all be honest about what makes the best article. I think the infobox looks really good and if anything highlights the importance of the creed. In an overview article of Christianity there really shouldn't be any texts given in full as it does break the flow for the reader. Also the significance of the creed is lost on many without the accompanying article to explain the history and significance of particular wording. As to why delete it now - I never really thought about it until this point came up and then it just made sense and was easier to read. Sometimes you have to hit the obvious points first before you can then start work on other areas that may be bloated. Edit waring is evil so I will not engage in it but it would be a real shame if the state of the article was decided by who's prepared to game the rules. Sophia 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And now we have no choice but to discuss as my request for page protection has been granted. Sophia 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the three comments above. Edit warring is bad. If you want to change the article, and you have 3 editors reverting you, you can't win (not without discussion). No one can simply force controversial changes. We have all been here long enough and should know better. That said, Vassyana raises some good points. The Nicene creed is very important to Christianity, and should be discussed, but I see no need to include the whole text in the top tier article. Having a main article link, and the wikisource link seems like a good compromise that most editors seemed favourable to.-Andrew c 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, I may not be able to comment immediately but I will do so in time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Have I missed it....?

Is there any link for the topic of Christian mysticism in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Should the cross be used to identify Christianity

The use of this symbol is abhorrent to many active and faithful Christians across the globe. Further more, historical evidence and the Bible itself suggest that this symbol has its origins in Paganism rather than Christianity.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape."—London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.

Traveller74 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The cross is the symbol espoused by the vast majority of Christians now and throughout history, it refers to the central tenet of the Christian faith. The quote above is completely irrelevant to the issue. We cannot disregard the overwhelming consensus to adhere to a narrow interpretation not supported by historical facts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't even need to get into whether John Denham Parsons is right or wrong. Sure theologicals may debate "should the cross be used"? Historians may debate the first time a cross was used as a Christian symbol. There are some particularly puritan or iconoclastic Christian traditions that do not themselves use the cross becasue they shun all images/symbol. And don't Jehova's Witnesses deny Jesus was crucified on a cross saying he was tied to a tree trunk? But none of these things changes the historical fact that the cross has been and is used as symbol of Christianity. So it is accurate to say that it is a common symbol of christianity.--Just nigel 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

According to my lexicon (Liddell and Scott), a σταυρός is defined as a stake when used as a building foundation. It can only be applied in the sense you suggest when it is used for impaling a corpse - ie., someone already dead. The root of the word is the Greek letter Τ, representing the shape of the implement used for crucifixion, and is attested in non-Christian literature as such. Whether churches should have a tau in front of them instead of a cross is irrelevant, however. The fact is they have crosses or crucifixes. If there is evidence for its pagan origin, it would be most interesting to see - but again it is irrelevant. More likely, the † shape emerged in art as a way of representing the title that Pilate ordered placed on the cross. Fishhead64 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's at least be sensible! The cross was/is used by the vast majority of Christians throughout history. To suggest otherwise borders on the absurd. There most certainly exist Christians who do not use the cross as a personal symbol, me for one, but to attempt to dispute the validity of the cross and what it represents to many true Christians is not acceptable. Please move on with something legitimate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Storm that its absurd to question the fact that the cross is used universally as the symbol to represent Christianity, even if some Christians choose to object to it. That is a fringe minority. Still, this is interesting and I wonder if it might merit some mention in the controversy section, provided that John Denham Parsons is notable and accurate in his claims on the matter.Giovanni33 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To Str1977, you'll find it is supported by history (see wiki article on the Christian_cross).

To Just nigel it's actually spelled Jehovah, and they believe he was nailed to a wooden stake, not "tied to a tree" as you suggest.

To Fishhead64, no offence, but your own research doesn’t match that of John Denham Parsons, who is a renowned expert on this particular field.

To all the others, most answers totally miss the original question, which of course is "Should the cross be used" not "Is the cross used". No one is disputing the fact that the vast majority associate Christianity with the cross. The fact that "it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution by impalement and exposure.", and the fact that it was used in various religions well before the birth of Christ should raise some questions as to why it's used to represent Christianity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 February 2007

Well, without it, i'm fairly certain at least one Messianic prophecy would of failed, so at the very least something similar to crucifixion must of taken place, hence, the signifigance of the crucifix in Christianity. If Jesus's death wasn't painful and gruesome in some manner, the "Bruised for our iniquity" prophecy probably isn't really fulfilled either, and i'm fairly certain there were some other prophecies dealing with the problems the Messiah would go through that involved something bad and execution-esque. Besides, to my knowladge, i've never met a Christian yet who believes that the cross is somehow an offensive representation of Christianity, (I don't know your religious beliefs after all) and I read many things about Fundamentalist Christianity related stuff which would likely of turned up this belief somewhere if it was slightly notable, (Fundamentalist news sites are great for finding those obscure doctrinal things and commenting on them) which is sometimes worth more than all the academic respect some historians get. Besides, I don't even see this person's wiki article if he even has one, that should raise some questions about how seriously we should take a single man's reaserch supposedly backing an undefined size of Christians who supposedly support his conclusions. Homestarmy 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the original question and specifically expressed that I thought it was irrelevent to this article. The aim of wikipedia is to accurately describe what is, not debate what should be. But if this is something that interests you find an online discussion forum about religion to discuss it there. But feel free to make contributions in line with wiki protocol that could improve the article.

PS Sorry for spelling Jehovah's Witnesses wrong. No disresepct intended. --Just nigel 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Traveller74 For what is it worth, you are correct. W E Vine states, "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake." An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words And that as he further states the "Cross" was accepted into Christianity hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. So yes "cross" may not be only inaccurate but also offensive, however the fact remains that most Christians except it as the instrument that Jesus died on. Thus an encyclopedia can present this, namely that the cross is a symbol of Christianity since most Christians except it as such, regardless if "cross" is accurate or not. Of course, such a stance can be qualified to show that not all Christians accept it as their symbol. Does the article indicate that "all" accept it? IF you feel it does how do you propose a change? In addition, to debate whether Christianity should use a cross or not is not fitting for an encyclopedia but is for those who would like to debate theology. Johanneum 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, why not add this to the controversy section?Giovanni33 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no controversy? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a controversy here. The question as mentioned above is irrelevant for Wiki as also statement. Nice topic for theology, but I am not sure of its significance. This has been an issue for JW's for quite some time, but I have never understood its value. What if a stake was used? It is making a mountain over a mole hill. It would not change doctrine, it would not change the Atonement, it does not affect the ressurection; the virgin birth, His life and teachings. It changes nothing. On the other hand, there is intrinsic value on getting the story straight. I guess we all have our small points of interest, for me it is Jesus' baptism; he came up out of the water, which I interpret as being fully immersed. LDS find this to be a significant issue, whereas so many other followers of Christ find a sprinkle to be sufficient. I guess its importance is a matter of perspective. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider, You’re right about the theology bit, that's why I won't comment further on it, and the question has been re-phrased(see below). Regarding you POV on baptism, see wiki article baptism in which there is overwhelming evidence by various historians, and the catholic encyclopaedia to support this view. Besides the Jehovah's Witnesses, there are many other contemporary Christian movements that reject the cross, and worshiping images, which leads to the following question. --220.233.175.116 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Of course the cross represents Christianity. It is the very essence of Christianity! The Apostle Paul said: "...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles... " 1 Corinth. 1:23 Jesus himself said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Of course, this is the "stumbling block" for many, if not most, anti-Christians -- the part about "denying oneself" and "taking up the cross." LotR 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing that I have yet to see. That is the fact that the cross has been the symbol for more than just Christians throughout history, along with the fact that it is not the only Christian symbol. The fish for example. It stands for the fact that Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew as it is intended to be) was a "fisher of men". As to whether it should be used as a Christian symbol or not, that should be up to the individual. Some people don't think its proper to display it due to the fact that you are focusing on Yeshua's death, not his life, yet some (like LotR who really needs to keep his own opinion out of the topic and discuss this properly, bcc feelings cloud one's judgement when in a theological discussion) beleive that it is the very essence of the relgion. I looked at this topic from both sides of the arguement, and it seems as if it is a cimple clash of opinions, not beleifs. If I am right and that is the case, then its ridiculous due to the fact that everyone is going to have a different opinion than someone else.Solon Olrek 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the fish has also been a Christian symbol -- I don't think anyone would object to that statement. I would not object if both symbols were shown on the page. But the cross has been the symbol universally identified with Christianity. If I see a building with a cross on it, I know immediately that it is a church (or a Christian place). Is this my opinion? Yes. But the cross (or more precisely, what it represents) is prominent in the teachings of the Apostles and of Jesus himself -- I am not the one who made up the doctrine about taking up the cross. Funny too how the Gospels themselves devote an inordinate amount of space to the last couple days and hours of his life, and the New Testament overall expounds on his death. LotR 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While the cross is a "sacred cow" for Christendom, there is strong evidence that suggests most bible translations are incorrect when translating the Greek word 'stauros' to cross. Most Greek scholars agree that there is no basis for translating it as cross. There is also a lot of evidence showing the cross comes from ancient pagan origins. --Traveller74 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the fact that the cross is seen as a Christian symbol, but to say that it is "universaly" seen as a Christian symbol is a little far fetched. There have been many religions in the past that have used the cross as their symbol, not just Christians. Heck, Satanist today use the cross as their symbol. It amy not be the exact version that the Christians use, but it is the cross none the less.

It also came to my attention that the cross itself isn't just used on Jesus. That was a device used to punish criminal and heretics before and after the cruciction.Solon Olrek 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So, are we deciding that the symbol of a cross, in any of its forms (the Latin form being the most common, but this must also include the Eastern, Tau, Celtic, crucifix, etc. forms), is not the symbol of Christianity? Even if the origin of the symbol (in all its various forms) is pagan (of which I am skeptical), does the symbol now represent "paganism"? Even if the literal translation of the Greek is not "cross" (I cannot personally verify this), I believe the Latin Vulgate translation is "cross." Even if the Latin translation is somehow inaccurate (both literally and idiomatically, which I doubt), the word "cross" in the New Testament still refers to the torture device that Jesus died on, and the symbol for this word, has, for more than a millennium, symbolized Christianity. I would not object to adding other symbols alongside the cross, including the fish and other forms of the cross (for example, the Eastern cross), but it would be a serious omission to suppress the cross altogether. LotR 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress the cross altogether, rather to somehow qualify that the cross, although symbolising the vast majority of Christendom, is not representative of ALL Christians. --Traveller74 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking if it is an accepted symbol of all christians, then yes it is, as it is widely accepted, but of course with quantitatively and politically minor opposition. Hence, it is not universal, but merely common.

However, if you're asking if it should be an accepted symbol of all christians, then it has no relevance here. That is for theologians and other such experts in the field to debate, and not for us to judge. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was the former, not the latter, that was being discusses.(Ariedartin)

I do not argue that the cross is a main Christian symbol. I live in a town of 2000 that has seven churches, so you can realize how many people are Christians (of which I am not), and everywhere I go I see the cross on shirts and houses and teh like. However, I was pointing out that the cross does not fully "belong" or "represent" the Chritstian faith, due to the fact that it is not unique in the use of the real thing or in which religions use it. It is like the star of David which is used in the Wiccan relgion, and it is also Jewish.Solon Olrek 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the cross represent all Christians?

In answer to Homestarmy, not sure how you've come to the messianic prophesy (please don't answer). Nor is it the view of one man and his research. If you take time to read the wiki article on the Christian cross you'll see many more in agreement, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also, I might remind you that wikipedia is a relatively new, open encyclopaedia, not having an article is in no way an indication of the veracity of any particular subject, and vice versa.

To Just nigel, no offence taken. Just thought the facts should be correct regarding the tree statement. Also, in answer to your most recent reply, I'm not sure if it does describe, "what is", being that a growing number of active Christians do not identify themselves with the cross. Surely the cross could at least be qualified with a small statement below, something along the lines of "Not all modern-day Christians identify themselves with the cross, see the Christian cross article"

Thanks Johanneum, you've certainly examined the facts before speaking. You're right about the question posed, perhaps it should read "Does the cross represent all Christians", and yes, the argument of "should" should be left to a theology debate. On first glance, the article seems to identify all Christians with the cross, there is nothing to indicate otherwise. How would I change the article to indicate this? Perhaps a small statement directly below the cross, something along the lines of "Not all modern-day Christians identify themselves with the cross, see the Christian cross article".

Re: Controversy Section: Would do this, if I could edit the Christianity page? --Traveller74 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the cross represent Christianity? Consider Jesus' statement of the identifying mark of his Discilpes (John 13:35) .By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”” also there is the Prohibition of symbols given by Jehovah (Deuteronomy 5:8)“‘You must not make for yourself a carved image, any form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth.”does this help?Kljenni 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to 'universalize' that one verse is clearly a mistake, as the same book instructs the Israelites to make carvings of cherubim and place them on the Ark. Unless you're Amish, you probably don't have a problem with 'forms of things on earth'. As Jesus himself is called the "image of the invisible God", most Christians have clearly had no objection to using the Christian Cross, painting pictures of Jesus, etc.

Aside from that, I'm surprised there's been no mention one way or the other of the Red Cross. :-) Wesley 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well There Was a Commandment to make the Cherubs. A commandment from God Himself and not without reason. A Cherub is an angel of high rank with special duties. Figures of cherubs were included in the furnishings of the tabernacle set up in the wilderness. Rising above each end of the Ark’s cover were two cherubs of hammered gold. They were facing each other and bowing toward the cover in an attitude of worship. Each had two wings that spread upward and screened over the cover in a guarding and protecting manner. (Ex 25:10-21; 37:7-9) Also, the inner covering of tent cloths for the tabernacle and the curtain dividing the Holy from the Most Holy had embroidered cherub figures.—Ex 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35.

These cherubs were associated with the presence of Jehovah: “And I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover, from between the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony.” (Ex 25:22; Nu 7:89) Hence, Jehovah was said to be “sitting upon [or, between] the cherubs.” (1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2; 2Ki 19:15; 1Ch 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Isa 37:16) In symbol, the cherubs served as “the representation of the chariot” of Jehovah upon which he rode (1Ch 28:18), and the wings of the cherubs offered both guarding protection and swiftness in travel. So David, in poetic song, described the speed with which Jehovah came to his aid, like one who “came riding upon a cherub and came flying” even “upon the wings of a spirit.”—2Sa 22:11; Ps 18:10.

Ezekiel also relates a number of visions in which symbolic cherubs of unusual description were seen. After speaking of them as “living creatures” (Eze 1:5-28), he later identifies them as “cherubs.” (Eze 9:3; 10:1-22; 11:22) In these pictorial visions the cherubs are intimately associated with the glorious personage of Jehovah and constantly attendant upon him.

resource: Insight on the Scriptures Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Kljenni 01:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kljenni, the question of "Should the cross represent Christianity?" is not within Wikipedia's purview. Whatever your individual views or the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses, there are 2.2 billion total Christians in the world--and only 6.5 million active Jehovah's Witnesses. For the vast majority of Christians, one form or another of the cross is the symbol. To argue that it should not be so is not a topic for Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I was replying to a question posed by another, but I believe it is a good topic, and I will continue to discuss it as long as anyone else wishes to. incidentally the number of people who are called christian by Jesus and the number calling themselves Christian will differ. Only Christ can say by how many and who these are,but he did say there would be many people that call him lord that ultimately are not truely his followers.

(Matthew 7:21-23) “. . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.”

Kljenni 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of who is a "real Christian" is also outside of Wikipedia's purview.

As far as your belief that this is a good topic--I quite agree that the topic is interesting. But does it serve a purpose here on Wikipedia? Considering that Wikipedia works on community consensus, and considering that all views are represented here, perhaps such a discussion would be better served on another forum. This forum is specifically for dealing with the article in question, but there are several Christian forums available on the internet that might serve your purpose better. Justin Eiler 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am again in the wrong. I thought the talk page was outside of wikipedia purview and need not need to conform to cyclopedic standards of neutrality. The topic does serve a purpose on wikipedia. As a Christian I would witness to anyone anywhere would I not? Of course I would. Just Trying to get people to read their Bibles. Kljenni 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, talk pages do have their own guidelines, but the biggest thing might be to remember that they are intended for the discussion of the article itself, not for theoretical discussions of the topic the article covers. But don't worry--it's a common temptation, one that I've had to be reminded of from time to time. :) Justin Eiler 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Completed Judaism

I added "Most Christians consider themselves to be completed Judaism because they have the Old Testament and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah—the one who the Jews are still waiting for." but Zazaban reverted it. I think it's an important piece of information that should be included. Why was it taken out? Gert2 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look gramatically correct, I certainly don't consider myself to be a religion, and I know of no Christians who consider themselves to be religions. Homestarmy 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. I didn't even notice. I'll fix it and put it back. Gert2 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Supersessionism is a view, but unless you have evidence to back up the claim that "most" Christians believe this, it is original research. Fishhead64 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that sentence works too. Thanks, Gert2 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn Protection

{{Editprotected}} Doh! I just went through a major reordering of the belief section (totally unrealted to the creed issue). I added the whole paragraph for "God" and as I went I made small copy edits along the way. But now I can't post it for you'll because the protection was added in the midst of my edit.

<dramatic voice> Damn you "revert war"ers you have foiled me again. :(

Anyway my new order was...

Belief

God

Jesus Christ

Death and Resurrection

Holy Spirit

The Trinity

Non-Trinitarians

Salvation

Eschaton and Afterlife

Scriptures

Interpretation

Creeds

Especially with linking sentences between some of the sections it flowed very nicely, if I may say so myself.--Just nigel 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Information for any reviewing admin - this change has nothing to do with the request for page protection which was caused by a slow edit war over inclusion/not of the Nicene Creed. (Sorry Just Nigel that you got caught in the crossfire) Sophia 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. I think this reordering would be a good direction to go in and help gel together this article. Vassyana 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object. This exactly wrong, and that for the same reason removing the Nicene Creed is wrong. It moves the article in the direction of being a bunch of little one-paragraph sections with no overall coherence. Just like it was before I rewrote the Beliefs section. Why? Where is the policy that says overview articles have to suck? I'm also strongly against the edit by Vassyana. Removing content and spliting a good section into two stubs? Why? A.J.A. 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear here on the talk page what I intended to do. Since it was a significant edit, I specifically solicited opinions. After no one commented for a day, I mentioned I would make the change change if no one objected. After I waited a full week and there was no disagreement with my proposal, I made the change and noted such on the talk page. You have edited the main page and talk page during that period and could have taken the opportunity to object, but you did not.

That all being said, let me address the rest of your comments. An overview article like this one should in essence be a series of stubs touching on the major topics. There is no reason to duplicate the detail when there are articles covering all those topics in depth. It doesn't mean the article has to "suck", but rather it serves no useful purpose to have a huge sprawling article on a complicated topic when there are many articles covering the individual points in depth.

Now touching on my edits again, the content I removed was a single paragraph detailing a single POV to the exclusion of others. There is already an article on Reformed Theology and another for the Trinity where such detail about a specific school of thought can be addressed. It serves no use in an overview article like this one and is certainly undue weight. To be balanced, we would have to address other POVs as well, and an already large overview article is not the place to do it. The reason I split off the part about the Holy Spirit is because the text solely addressed that topic, not the topic of the Trinity. I hope this clarifies my edits and position. Vassyana 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If the change suggested really does make the article a "series of stubs" as Vassyana puts it, i'm afraid I must be opposed to that. Summary style isn't just about making a bunch of tiny series of paragraphs on large topics which are often lacking in vitally important areas of broadness or are often so un-important that expansion is mostly impossible, its about taking the best and/or most important content from a parent article and summarizing it in a fair, yet concise and understandable manner. Stubs generally are not fair to a topic by and large, generally by not having very much content in them, and often missing many critical aspects of a topic. When they aren't like that, they often cover a topic so obscure that its often only barely notable enough for Wikipedia, so that it can virtually never become larger. I really don't think Summary Style intends for broad-topic articles to just be a bunch of stubs that relate to each other, while I wouldn't use A.J.A's particular word choice to describe such an article, I don't think an article comprised of a bunch of mere stubs makes a very good article at all. Homestarmy 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we're necessarily far off from each other. By "in essence a series of stubs", I mean it should be generally a collection of "concise and understandable" summaries of those major topics. Remember that proper stubs, at their best, are supposed to be concise summaries. I do know that in practice, they rarely (if ever) live up to that standard, so it was probably a bad choice of words on my part.Vassyana 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AJA you will have to help me understand what you are objecting to. I was changing the order of the information as it was (and including a bit more in the case of an introductory paragraph about God). My aim was infact to give this section about beleifs a more natural progresion of ideas. Yet you object because it would "move the article in the direction of ... no overall coherence."? I don't understand. If your mian concern is to object to the potential removal of the Nicean Creed text, I see that as an issue better discussed under the separate heading for that debate. --Just nigel 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection presently declined. The forum for an unprotection request is WP:RFP. Anyway, the page has only recently been protected, and there appears to be no consensus yet on either the issue that caused the protection or about the newly proposed edits. I recommend that all here continue consensus-building on the talk page before requesting unprotection at WP:RFP. Sandstein 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in practice

The following text is taken from the "Consensus in practice" section of WP:Consensus

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.

--Richard 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicene Creed - Overview

I just wanted to get the ball rolling and try to see clearly where everybody stands. I would politely ask that people leave essays and replies for another section for the sake of clarity. We could use a reference to know where people stand so we can try to form consensus on this issue. I would like to see everyone involved in editing this page, and particularly the edit dispute, make a short statement regarding the inclusion of the Nicene Creed and their position on that. Should the full text of the Nicene Creed be included in the article? Vassyana 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Nicene Creed should be discussed in the article, due to its central position in Christian history and identity. I believe the full text should not be included in the article, as this is an overview article and fine details such as full text quotations are best left to their main article. Vassyana 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment expressed above but I think there has been enough discussion. Further, I think a structured approach would be more productive. Let's do a straw poll. If your favorite option is not listed, feel free to add it. Please do not put discussion under any of the options. Either vote Support or Oppose. If you feel discussion is necessary, put it in the "Discussion" section.

--Richard 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: Should the Nicene Creed be included verbatim in this article?

Option 1: Yes

1. Support Homestarmy 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support --Just nigel 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support ElinorD 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support SparrowsWing _(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 2: No, but provide a link in the WikiBox

1. Support --Richard 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Vassyana 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Giovanni33 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Could live with Just nigel 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support It is too long. Aminz 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Fishhead64 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Andrew c 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Gert2 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Sophia 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Justin Eiler 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• There is a full and very good article on the Nicene Creed, including the many variations. I fail to see why the whole thing needs to be reproduced here, and what privileges it over other ecumenical creeds - the Apostles' is also used by the unievrsal church, without the added lack of consensus over the filioque. Fishhead64 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not voting: however the voting goes, the text Gio, Sophia, et al favor is blatently biased and I have no intention of letting it stand as they wrote it. The 98% all Trinitarians agree on is gone. The only thing left is the Filioque controversy, as if that were the only thing remotely notable. Which, to them, it is, because they hate Christians Christianity. I know I'm supposed to pretend I don't know this or it doesn't affect their editing, but everyone here knows better. Just look at who's voting to remove it. E.g., Aminz, of all people, claiming it should go because it's too long. To anyone who's seen the history of his edits that's obvious bad faith. Storm Rider the Mormon: no comment needed. The people voting to remove it is all the case it needs to be kept in. A.J.A. 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While voting here is optional, assuming good faith, and abiding by consensus are not. I don't like how you are putting those you don't agree with as having ulterior negative motives such as "hating Christians" or insinuating that merely because Strom is a Mormon means he doesn't have the best interest of this article at heart either. Not eveyone has to agree with you but you must still assume good faith. And, btw, it is not "gone," it's clearly linked with an emphasis for those who want to read all about it.Giovanni33 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, Gio telling others that "abiding by consensus" is not optional. How ironic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the irony. I always abide by consensus, when consensus is clear. This is not optional, nor it should be.Giovanni33 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit warring caused the protection of this article. Don't try to hide. Even Sophia, while on with you on the issue, disagrees with you on this. The only consensus you have respected is the fictional consensus you invented and used as the basis of your edit warring. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That comment is in bad faith. First, WP:AGF says, in bold print: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Second, a vote to remove the Creed doesn't enshrine your biased text forever as the One True Consensus; but apparently you think you'll deprive me of the option of fixing it. Because you don't want it fixed. Your motives aren't all that ulterior. A.J.A. 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And right after that bold point it explains it to refer to as examples: constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. It says one can be critical but that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. What evidence do you have that those want it remove "hate Christians," as you are claiming. I don't think anyone one either side is motivated by such malicious motives, nor do I think you have any reasonable basis in evidence for claiming it. Therefore, it stands as bad faith.Giovanni33 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You say I can only conclude you are acting in bad faith if you commit: "constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry (CHECK!), and lying". Then, without proving any of those things, you accuse me of bad faith. Uh huh. A.J.A. 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, you misunderstand. You can't not get off of your bad faith claims by saying you have evidence for making them, when in fact you have no evidence for any of the above, which are examples of the kinds of evidences you need to make those kinds of bad faith assumptions and NOT violate policy. You fail to do that. Your claim is that those who are voting for the removal do so because they "Hate Christians." This is bad faith and its NOT excused by a reading of the policy for you have no reasonable basis in the evidence to make such a preposterous claim. P.S. There was nothing malicious with my past "puppet," which was really my wife, editing from the same IP, but keeping her ID secret.Giovanni33 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I thought you were a atheist, but since Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Giovanni33 has seven entries I guess you must be a Mormon fundamentalist.

So you seem to be against any conclusion that a person is acting in bad faith except those three (sockpuppetry, etc)... then add a fourth (concluding another editor is acting in bad faith). Or at least as best I can figure it out, seeing as your comment is barely coherent. At any rate, it says "include", not "are limitted to". Reading is fundamental. A.J.A. 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the Creed as the discussions were still live and requested the article be protected with the Creed in it to stop the edit war. I have come to this discussion quite prepared to abide by whatever the majority of editors feel makes the best, most representative and readable article. I have an opinion which I have explained but I do not assume I am right. If there are worries about undue weight if the full creed is removed then let's discuss. I am shocked that any editor could interpret my contributions as motivated by hate. I am also shocked at the vitriol aimed at editors with differing views - and then justified by WP:AGF? Hate does more harm to the person harboring such thoughts than it ever could to object of those feelings. I'd ponder on that if I were you A.J.A. Sophia 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And you should be applauded for it, Sophia. I don't think you hate Christianity, though of course your POV plays into your stance on this issue (no problem about that). The same goes for Storm. However I have my doubts about two other editors, but I will not go into specifics because I don't want to condone or support the outburst above. However, I probably share some of his concerns regarding the eventual wording. We will see later. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote, but I will say that I think the talk page is becoming distressingly venomous, and I do mean the word distressingly. As an editor, not as an admin, could I make the following suggestions (to those I consider friends, I'll even call them requests):

1. No speculation on the motives of other editors in preferring a particular version. (And no speculation also means no provocative remarks about how "we'll refrain from speculating, but . . ."!)
2. No reference, direct or indirect, to any past misbehaviour of any editor unless there is evidence that such misbehaviour is continuing.
3. No reference to the moral or intellectual superiority of Christianity over atheism or of atheism over Christianity.
4. No reference to arguments or disputes from other article talk pages which have nothing to do with this talk page.

If we could all stick to those guidelines — and I'm afraid there have been violations from both sides — I think it would really help.

The comments I see here do not, strictly speaking, fall into the category of behaviour that an administrator could block for, but I personally feel that what I've seen here in the last day is more damaging to the project than accidentally making a fourth revert because you lost count. Musical Linguist 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend, for stopping me yesterday night. You of all people know best what enraged me.

As for the rest, I want to apologize for my part of the disruption and for adding fuel to the fire.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It seems to me that many people are abstaining from this straw poll. Also, while a majority of respondants (ratio 5:3) oppose the inclusion of the full text, a plain majority does not make consensus. I don't think anyone disputes the central place of the Nicene Creed in Christian history and identity. Lacking a consensus on removal, I feel the text of the creed should remain. Mind you, I strongly oppose its full-text inclusion. I am just one voice and if there is a lack of consensus to remove the quotation it should remain. However, we should try to build consensus. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the way Vassyana's position is worded even though I do not feel strongly about this issue. What Vassyana wrote suggests a general principle that, lacking a consensus, the status quo should win. This suggests that anything that is inserted will be kept unless there is a consensus to remove it. Why not assert the opposite principle? i.e. that anything that is inserted can be deleted unless there is a consensus to keep it.

I don't see why a minority should block the way of the majority. However, if the minority feel strongly and a significant proportion of the majority do not feel as strongly, it is reasonable for those people to switch their vote in order to create a new consensus. The sticking point would be a situation in which enough people switch their vote to create a new majority in favor of including the text but not enough to form a consensus. In other words, what if five people switch their vote and you wind up with a 11-6 majority in favor of keeping the text? Now, you still don't have a consensus to keep the text. On what basis would you argue that this new majority should overrule the new minority when the original majority was not allowed to overrule the original minority?

In this situation, I would prefer that the minority recognize the majority opinion and ask themselves "Is this really worth holding up progress by keeping the article protected?"".

--Richard 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your view on this. I think it touches on a topic often debated on Wikipedia (inclusion vs. exclusion). I think your point is quite valid, but I do disagree to some extant. In this case, no one is disputing the relevence or validity of the information. I believe I would view the situation differantly if there was significant dispute over how this affects WP:NPOV or fits under WP:RS, for example. I'm also basing this on the inclusionist treatment of no-consensus in various areas of WP, such as AfDs. This is of course, just my own view. Vassyana 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Concensus is not unanimity, but rather an agreement whereby all can accept. In this instance it is where all can accept that the Nicene Creed is not included in its entirety; they may not prefer it, but can live with it. I have not really heard anyone say that they could not accept having the Creed deleted (while putting in various links). Is there anyone that is resolutely against deleting the Creed?

This is such a sacred part of Christainity for most Christians, I think many find it difficult to support deleting it. In some ways it may seem disrespectful or not in keeping with the behavior of a true Christian. I appreciate the wllingness of all involved to discuss this issue. My thanks to all. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Of those who supported the full text, who would find the WikiBox link solution acceptable or tolerable? Of those who opposed the full text, who would find keeping the full text acceptable or tolerable? Please keep comments short. Please do not use this space to advocate an inflexible position. I am simply seeing who might be flexible so we can reach consensus and move past this impasse. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Voted to include

1. The wiki-box solution would be tolerable to me, if the gist of the creed is fully covered. In how far we can cover issues pertaining to the text (filioque) we have to see later. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2. I could also accept the wiki-box solution, but would like to see the important points of the Creed covered in the article. ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Given the historic importance and current centrality of the creed, I think a link would be the second-best choice. I could live with it if the key points of the creed are presented, but it's hard to see how we might do that as completely and succinctly as the creed itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Voted to exclude

1. The inclusion of the full-text would be tolerable to me. I think it should be left for its main article, but its inclusion is not destructive to this article. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2. No one has adequately explained why the full text needs to be there. It's already in Nicene Creed. Perhaps if someone were to provide a compelling reason, I might find its full inclusion tolerable. Fishhead64 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
3. I am OK with having the full text included although I think the article would be improved by not having it. --Richard 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
4. As always, I'm prepared to abide by consensus, and think the majority view on this should prevail. If the majority view is to include the text, then I would of course not edit war over it but accept that outcome. Otherwise I'm happy with the wiki-box solution and the gist of the creed being fully covered, including issues pertaining to the text (filioque).Giovanni33 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
5. If the majority say leave it then fine but I honestly think some editors have lost sight of the fact that this is an overview article and should be about giving an NPOV summary whilst organising access to all the other articles containing the detail of the religion. This does not mean the article has to "suck" and should in fact make it more readable and attractive. What we must resist is attempts by any editor to railroad changes (or lack of them) purely on some dogmatic personal grounds. Sophia 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
6. I just re-read the section of the article in question, and put some serious thought into this issue. The section of the article is about creeds. Some editors have said that including the full text is useful because it is one of the most concise ways to summarize key Christian theology. However, that is not the purpose of the section in question. The section is on creeds. Reading the full text of the creed may help me understand Christianity more, but it doesn't help me understand the idea and use of "Creeds" within christianity. While having an example of a creed may be helpful, the text of the Nicene Creed, I believe, takes up too much space, and we already have some quoted elements of other creeds. I summary of the idea of "creeds" with links to the articles on the most important creeds, and even wikisource links can all be helpful here, but because of the number of spinout articles already covering this topic, and the accessibility of the full text, I cannot support including the fulltext. (of course, it goes without saying, I would respect any consensus reached in this matter.)-Andrew c 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
7. My only problem was the length of the creed. If we can put the points horizontally (with beautifully designed separators of course) rather than vertically, that would be great. In any case, I don’t really care much about it.--Aminz 07:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
8. I think including the whole text would be tolerable, I suppose, but needless. It's already in its own article, so what's the point? If we want this to be a featured article, it should be as short as possible but still including all necessary information. If the creed is linked to, it's close enough for me to inclusion. Gert2 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Christianity - scope question

I have posted a proposal for three articles related to the History of Christianity over at Talk:History of Christianity. The proposed article titles are:

• History of the Christian church
• History of Christian theology
• History of Christian rites and practice

The rationale behind these three proposed articles is explained in the section titled "Private penitence seems out of place here". Your opinion is solicited. Please respond on that Talk Page.

--Richard 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)