Talk:The New Church/True christianity

Untitled

So, which Christian POV is this? Swedenborgian? Or more general nontrinitarian? Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly controversial to call this "true christianity" and as per NPOV... I'm not sure Karlusss 22:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User: KillerChihuahua brought this to my attention. I'll quote him: "Looks POV-fork to me. It may be salvageable as a doctrine article, but as it is currently it is entirely unsourced OR."

BTW, how's my sig? I just got a complaint about having a sig that's different than my user name, so I added "AKA Archola" to avoid confusion. I don't want it to get too long, though.... Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I wrote the article. I understand what you're saying. I know there are lots of points of view of what true christianity is. I thought that since Swedenborg wrote a book called True Christian Religion and developed the concept in it that perhaps this should be represented, but maybe it could just go under the book title True Christian Religion and explain that it is a book written by Swedenborg. The summary of doctrine could be included there. We can move it to that name and leave the true christianity article up for grabs again if that needs to happen. Jasonschnarr 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like a well rounded article explaining the differnt views of the concept, however, it is an important concept that many people have that there is a true christianity and this in contrast with the more traditional christian doctrine. It is assumed that every church thinks they are the "true" one, but the concept of true christianity in contrast with common christianity has been more significantly influenced by Swedenborg's works than anyone else, so I think this point of view should be represented in some way. Jasonschnarr 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A book would probably have an article titled "True Christian Religion (book)", would probably have some fancy pants book template, and then you could expound on the viewpoint of the book all you want, discuss its effect on concepts or whatever :). Homestarmy 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was a book article I assume it would be ok with regards to pov. It's probably the best way to go. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is a concept apart from the book which could be represented in this section. It may seem offensive, but there is a concept that there is a true christianity other than the one that currently stands. Jasonschnarr 23:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a response on your talk page re:articles on Christian theology, but if it's more about a book please see WP:CITE on how to cite sources. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if its official Swedenborgian doctrine, maybe its in that article already. If it isn't and if the Swedenborgian article is short, think about inserting it there before making a fork. Homestarmy 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Homestarmy's talking about Swedenborgianism. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And there is indeed one tiny mention of this book I see under the beliefs section, looks like that's the proper place to discuss this doctrine. Homestarmy 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll add the proper merge tags. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge of this article to Swedenborgianism. Wesley 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems unanimous, but everyone is else is voting at Talk:Swedenborgianism. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article to "The New Church", and you can get rid of it now if you'd like. Thanks. Jasonschnarr 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup, attribution, fact-checking

I cleaned up the article a bit, added some wikilinks, and fact-checked several points (e.g., Calvin burned Servetus — actually the city council did, Calvin was only the prosecutor, and requested death by sword not fire). I also made it clear that the "True Christianity" of this article is asserted by a particular group. » MonkeeSage « 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"the New Church belief that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches are in a fallen state." Okay, so what about Eastern Christianity, ie the Orthodox Churches? Does Swedenborgianism consider them to be apostates, or not? Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all of Christianity after the Early Christian Church / Apostolic Church. Any Christian group based on the the major councils and creeds is seen as part of the downhill trend. The two essential flaws are seen to be the doctrine of three persons. Come on, is God one person or three. Let's think logically here and perhaps use the principle of Ockam's razor. But also, how are we supposed to see the invisible God if He does not reveal Himself to us, hence the idea of the One God being born on earth in the human form. The other flaw is seen as the idea of atonement "paying for our sins." Is believing really going to magically fix everything, or do we really need to follow the path of salvation He has laid out. We need to follow the path. This is the general attitude a New Church person has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonschnarr (talk • contribs)

Okay then. Just don't forget the four tilde thing (ie, sign your posts). Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Appealing to the Razor against the doctrine of the Trinity assumes that the facts of the Bible can be explained in a different (simpler) way; but Trinitarians deny that assumption. Anyhow, I had a question about the New Church belief regarding "Hell" — from the wording in the article it doesn't look like they mean a place, but a condition which humanity has created for itself. Is that right? If so, I suggest we add quotes around "Hell" to distinguish it from the meaning used by most Christians (i.e., a place of eternal torment where the unsaved go after death and judgment). » MonkeeSage « 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is seen as both a condition which humanity has created for itself, as well as a place. I don't like the quotes seeing that this makes one question whether "Hell" is seen as a real place and it is. It is not seen as a place of torment and punishment (by God) though, since it is believed that a loving God wouldn't make anyone suffer if they didn't want to. It is seen more as a self imposed prison, which involves self imposed suffering, but not eternally, since they eventually learn that acting out causes pain and so they revert to fantasy and spend a lot of time alone.

I know they deny that assumption, but I still don't understand why. How is believing that three guys are all the same, but all different more simple than believing the one guy is the only one. I mean when they say persons they do mean people, right, different people. This is the most absurd notion I have ever heard of that One Being could be three people. Being and Person mean the same thing to me. Why is it seen as logical to believe this and not logical to believe that The One Infinite God became a Human Being, whose name was Jesus Christ, and He was One Person? Can anyone explain to me how reason can agree with three infinite people all ruling together? Isn't one infinite enough? Jasonschnarr 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to get into a full discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, but to briefly answer your questions; yes, considered in the abstract, Unitarianism is simpler than Trinitarianism, but that doesn't mean much if it is too simple to explain the facts of the Bible, as the Razor only works for two theories that can equally explain the same facts ("don't multiply reasons beyond what is necessary"), and Trinitarians deny that Unitarianism can do that; and Trinitarians don't believe that "being" and "person" are reducible to each other, as rocks have "being" but are not "persons". » MonkeeSage « 22:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)