Misplaced Pages

Talk:Christianity and User talk:ArielGold: Difference between pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Difference between pages) Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:43, 11 July 2005 editNoitall (talk | contribs)3,112 edits →ABRAHAMIC RELIGION  Revision as of 21:42, 23 January 2008 edit Henrik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,538 edits →Please?: re 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--ADD NEW TOPICS AT BOTTOM PLEASE!-->
{{featured}}
{| style="width: 100%; background-color: #ffffff; border: 3px solid #007FFF; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;"
----
| colspan=3 style="vertical-align:top" |
<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 220px;">'''Archived discussions ]'''</div>
{{User:ArielGold/Talk}}
{{User:ArielGold/title2}}
{{User:ArielGold/Status}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atn}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:ArielGold/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<!--TOC-->
<div style="float:right; padding-left:5px;">
{| style="text-align:center; border:2px solid #8B00FF; background-color:#E0B0FF; width: 160px;font-family: Arial"
|- padding:1px;padding-top:0.5em;font-size: 99%;
|
<div style="border:1px solid #4B0082; background: #fff; border-right:1px solid #4B0082; border-bottom:1px solid #4B0082; text-align: center; padding:1px; float:right; font-size: 95%; width: 97%; line-height: 1.3; margin-right: 1px;">
<center>
__TOC__
</center>
</div>
|}
</div>
<!--End TOC-->
<!--ADD NEW TOPICS AT BOTTOM PLEASE!-->


==Thanks to everyone==
{{todo2}}
I'd like to thank everyone who, over the past couple weeks, sent emails or added a note here wishing me well. I am slowly recovering from a rather nasty bout of pneumonia and bronchitis, and will be back slowly, but I appreciate all the well wishes, and thank you all from the bottom of my heart. ] <small>]]]</small> 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
== Problems in Christianity ==
:Glad to have you back, dearest. :D ]''']''' 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Should there be such a section?
:: Good to see your OK :) <span style="border:1px solid #433">]<font style="color:#433;background:#433">-</font>]</span> 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You're both so quick! Thanks :) And hey, Tom, I owe you a '''giant thanks''' for all the help I see you've done for Daniella while I was ill. Thank you so very much for keeping a watch here, and for taking care of the issues that cropped up while I was out. I'm so thankful to have such wonderful Wiki-friends as you all, and I hope you know how much I appreciate all of you! <small>]]]</small> 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
: I am so, so, '''SO''' glad to see you back here today :) Missed you! - ] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I've only interacted with you a couple of times but missed your great heart here and there and around.Happy you are feeling better.(] (]) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC))
:Welcome back. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{t1|Hugs}} to you, Alison and Moonriddengirl! I am so glad to hear from you both, what a nice welcome back. Thank you! <small>]]]</small> 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Welcome back, Kotter.. (old joke) :D ] (]) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::::YAY! M'lady Ariel doth returneth to us! Hooray! Huzzah! Oh, it's so nice to see you online again!
::::] 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Welcome back, dear Ariel! We missed you so much! I hope you feel better soon! Love, ]] 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ariel, welcome back. Sorry to hear you had pneumonia, I had it 3 years back and I know it completely winds ya! Hope you're feeling better now :) ~ ] 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:Great to see you back! Pneumonia ''and'' bronchitis... you don't do things halfway do you? -- ] ]</sup> 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::Good to be back, even if reduced activity a bit for now. Thank you all, Olive, Fozzie, Dreadstar, Kyoko, Riana, and Flyguy, for the warm wishes, I'm so glad to be able to sit up for a bit, frankly while languishing in bed all day may sound fun, after a few days, it does get old, lol. ~*Hugs for everyone*~ <small>]]]</small> 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey! I'm really glad you're back. Sorry to hear that you were really sick. I once was sick for a couple of months a few years back, ii's not fun! :D ] (]) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I say yes, but it should be a series of links with perhaps an introductory paragraph, not an in-depth discussion. There are a couple of links in the external websites at the bottom. --] 7 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)


== The cross == == Hello! ==


Hello ArielGold, welcome back! I hope your Christmas and New Year were good. Do you like your new shiny rollback button? :) Best wishes. '']'' 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now there is only one graphic in the article, a nice illustration of the ichthys fish, and no mention of the cross in the entire article. I suggest that if there is only to be one illustration in this article, that it be a cross, not the fish. Although I see no reason not to keep the fish as well.
:Acalamari!! Thank you so much, aside from the ], I guess my holidays were without event, lol. What new button? lol. I don't see anything different! What did I miss while I was sick? <small>]]]</small> 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry to hear about your illness, I hope you feel better now. With new buttons, admins now have the ability to grant MediaWiki rollback to other users (see my ). The feature is still under discussion (of course), and it was implemented during your break. You were granted rollback by LaraLove a week ago. You should see the blue "rollback" button in page histories, in contributions logs, and in diffs. '']'' 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Ahhh! Well that is interesting. I do recall reading the proposal for that a while back, so great to see it was implemented. Hopefully it works out well! Thank you so much for the well wishes, Acalamari! <small>]]]</small> 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::::You're welcome. :) '']'' 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
According to tradition, the ichthys fish was pretty much just used as a secret code among the early church. It has not been in wide use, or even widely recognized among Christians, for most of church history. The recent resurgence of the the fish among Western (or at least American) Christians is something of a '90s fad. Somehow this fish meme got started, and it played to the religious right notion that Christians were being persecuted in secular culture, and thus became a popular fixture on bumper-stickers and jewelry, much like the whole ]? thing. The fish hasn't disappeared and isn't likely to anytime soon, but it is already much less prominent than it was in the height of fish-promotion.


Ariel, it's so great to see your smiling face around these parts again! Glad to hear you're ok, and happy to have you back! ] --]] 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By contrast, the cross was established very early in the Catholic church as a Christian symbol, and among virtually all of the three major branches of the church mentioned in the article--Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants,--the cross is recognized as <i>the</i> symbol of the Christian church. While there are many variations of the Christian cross preferred by various groups, a plain cross consisting of a vertical bar and a shorter horizontal bar is universally recognized as a Christian symbol. There are a few groups, mostly on the fringes like the Mormons and Moonies, that do not typically use the cross.
:It is true, I live! ~*Giggle*~ Thanks Mike, great to see you as well! <small>]]]</small> 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::Glad you've recovered from illness. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Welcome back; we've missed you (as I'm sure you've noticed), even though some of us (*cough* me *cough*) have not explicitly demonstrated it. ] Wishing you much joy, peace, and health, your most humble servant, ] 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Woot! It's so lovely to see you back, but you ]! :P Either way, glad you're all better. :) Best, ]<sup>]</sup> 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::So glad to hear you're back among the living. ] (]) 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thank you all :) Keilana, you should be glad I missed that, lol. Thank you for your emails, they cheered me up when I read them! And Squid Guy, always wonderful to hear from you, as well as you, Rocket :) (And a big hug for R, too!) <small>]]]</small> 15:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, in a way, I was grateful you were sick, I was afraid you'd have a heart attack. :P Best, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:Glad to see you back, dear.&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] ]] 17:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


== STS-122 ==
All that to say that I think there should be a graphic of a cross and some mention of the symbol in the text of the article.
] 22:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Just so you know, before you are doing the same thing tonight. I'm gonna upload some pics of the ECO repair and the feedtrough connectors. And so good to see you online again. --] (] • ]) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
: It took less than a month, but I'm firing in the requested picture - comments/suggestions welcome. I've used elements of ...238.201's text for the caption. ] 19:57, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Awesome, I hadn't planned on uploading anything tonight, so that is great that you'll be taking care of that! I'm still crossing my fingers for this mission! <small>]]]</small> 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


== Yay ==
While I would not agree entirely with the "christian right" notion above - maybe in America, but probably not in Europe, where the fish is recognised fairly universally as a Christian symbol, I do agree with the general argument above. Also, I think the shorter explnation on the fish which was in use a while ago was better and more to the point ] 22:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Mmm that is all. :) ] &#124; ] 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
: The ] is certainly a much more widely used symbol of Christianity, both around the world and down through the centuries. It would be worth putting it in either instead of or in addition to the ichthus. ] 01:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:I vigorously second the motion! Get well soon. God Bless, ] ] 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::It is soo good to have you back Ariel, I was so worried... -- <strong>]</strong>] 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Welcome back! Must IRC some time :) ] ] (]) 08:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Welcome back! We missed you! ]]] 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::] I missed all of you too! Thank you so much for the warm wishes! I think I went through a bit of WP withdrawal, lol. I was having dreams about editing. Think this is a bad thing? ~*Giggle*~ <small>]]]</small> 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


== Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey ==
::Agree. ] 22:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi Ariel, I saw you on the adopters' page, and that you were willing to give an opinion on space-related issues. I have just added a lead section to the article on ], which is in a pitiable state. IMHO, of course. I had tried earlier to do something about the Interpretation on the 2001 movie article, but was instantly reverted by two editors for OR and unsourced material. The new paragraphs are more acceptable I hope, but I wonder if you could look at them, and at my justification on the article talk pages. All I really want to say is that Clarke's book really cannot be ignored when seriously interpreting the movie. Thanks! ] (]) 10:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
So the photo's in, although I'm wondering how to make the layout look better. I tried putting the cross on the left and leaving the Ichtys on the right, but the cross then collided with the 'map' of branches. Any better ideas? :) ] 20:00, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Hi Wwheaton, unfortunately, I've neither read the book, nor seen the movie, so I'd probably be unable to offer any kind of input. My areas of interest are in Human Spaceflight, not in fiction, I'm sorry to say. The best I can offer is that the issue of ] is a valid one. While you may have interpretations, without ] to ] the interpretations, they become personal opinions, and aren't encyclopedic. The best thing to do is to find books, or reliable news/media articles that discuss various interpretations, and use those as sources to explain the known interpretations that are out there, ] the sources, and not adding anything that may be considered original research, or adding anything that appears to take a "side" in the article. Keep in mind it is not an encyclopedia's function to analyze or offer opinion, but to simply summarize what already has been reported in other sources. I'm sorry I cannot be of more assistance with regards to the article, but I'm sure that there are others on the talk page who would be more than happy to offer their help with the page. Cheers, <small>]]]</small> 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


== oh hai! ==
:I've shortened the cross caption slightly and moved the icthus picture down one paragraph. Is there any chance of making the cross picture a bit smaller? It'll probably look better that way! --] 22:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


<tt>/me waves @ Ariel</tt> Still digging up from all that spam people sent you? <tt>:I</tt> &mdash;]] 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Agreed, good edit, btw. Making it smaller is simple - just add 999px, where 999 is the desired width. I set it to 150px, which looks sort of okay, but the big gap caused by the contents sucked. I swapped the fish/cross in a preview, but that looked worse, so I stuck with the previous layout. 140px is probably as low as you can go before the text in the caption gets too jumbled up. The super-last-resort alternative of adding more text to fill up that big white gap became extremely tempting, so I added in a bit of material that helps bridge the intro into the next section. The intro was hashed out super-fast, help definitely appreciated. :) ] 20:15, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Misza!!!!!! Oh Hai Thar! Thank you so much for the email! It was wonderful to read, and made my day, honestly. ~*Big hugs*~ <small>]]]</small> 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A belated welcome back from me too. I'm so glad to hear you're doing better. *hugs* ~]]<sup>]</sup> 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:Eliz :D I missed you! I'm glad to be back too! <small>]]]</small> 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll add a completely redundant "Welcome back" to the mix. Expletive, you've even got the lone wolves upbeat. Now that I've started bothering you, though, can I ask for your advice on an issue not related to Misplaced Pages but related to space exploration and weirdness? --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Kizor! Of course you can ask me, I may not know anything about it though, lol. If it is obscure, might want to include a link so I can read up on it :) And thank you for the welcome back! <small>]]]</small> 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


== Sad article needs your magic touch ==
:::Actually the ] is pre-christian, and was used by people and philosophers such as Pythagorus (who believed it to have mystical power). It owes its origin to a mathematical construction: take two circles whose centres are seperated by half the radius, the Icthys is the overlap plus the two "tails" of the circle upto the ] to each circle parallel to the central line of ]. This should be easy to see/ or visualise.


I'm sorry to hear that you've been sick!! I hope you're feeling better!!
:::The mathematical ratio of the length of the icthys to its height as expressed by the pythagoreans was as the ratio of two whole numbers. The particular numbers in question happen ''entirely by coincidence'' ('''cough''') to be the numbers involved in the story of the "feeding of the five thousand". This biblical tale can also be viewed as a simple pythagorean formula for the Icthys symbol.


The article for Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams
:::This was reasonably well known at the time the New Testament was authored, and points to a deeper meaning to the tale for those in the know. See ] for details of these sorts of tales. --] 20:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_adams
:::Actually, the cross is a pre-christian symbol as well. It occurs in many of the (then common) meditteranean Mystery Religions, for example, in the Osiris cult, it is the ] symbol.--] 20:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


lists only a few of his books, and those few aren't formatted correctly; when you have time, and are feeling up to it, do you think you could whip this article into shape?
== 80.49.239.231's edits ==


Thanks!! xo
An anon IP (]) is making a lot of edits to the article (see ). Can someone more knowledgable than me check them out?


PS: There's a sort of listing of Adams' books at the bottom of this page
Thanks, ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 19:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==Emergence of National Churches ==
<br>
Why does the hard fact part of this article keep getting modified (that there was an election, that there was conflict), but no one seems fit to edit the poor grammar and logical flow of the rest of it? Are some simple facts to hard to handle they need multiple revisions, yet good grammar and article quality don't deserve a little attention?


http://en.wikipedia.org/Dogbert's_Clues_for_the_Clueless
:Probably because the misrepresentation of the current text is so great. (I don't know what it has been replaced with, other than the one time I edited it.) As the text now reads, it sounds as though nobody thought that Jesus was divine, but Constantine made them have a vote on it and *POOF*, he became divine. That representation of the facts is very much leaning toward the atheist/skeptical viewpoint.


Should this be included in his article?
::The problem is, there was very much a disagreement about the nature of Christ's divinity. One faction, led by Athanasius, or Saint Athanasius as the Catholic Church now knows him, succeeded in that election. So in fact, yes, this was a seminal moment. And in fact, both parties in the disagreement were self styled Christians- despite the question of Jesus' divinity. Therefore at that juncture Christianity took a defining turn. I don't think it is honest to gloss over that. And I think, if anything, Christianity should be honest.


<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:How's this for an alternative?


== :'( ==
::In the early years of Christianity there was a dispute about the nature of Jesus, whether he was just a man (opinion put forward by ], among others) or whether he was divine (opinion put forward by ], among others). The issue was settled by vote at the ] in ].


] ]|<sup>]</sup> 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:The comment about "paving the way for the divine right of the ]" is POV and offensive, and IMO adds nothing to the article. Catholicism and Orthodoxy remained united for 700 years after that moment. ] 09:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
:] that I hope is reversed. This is not a good thing. ]|<sup>]</sup> 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::] ] 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


== Just to say hello ==
:: It's hardly POV Mpolo. Do a little research. Certainly the Catholic Church has done a lot of things it currently may not be proud of, and there is no point in concealing yet one more facet of that history.


Hi Ariel! Long time, I hope all is good with you. We miss you at ] ] <small><font face="georgia">]]</font></small> 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Could someone explain exactly what the "divine right of the Catholic Church" is? Further, it is very POV that the Church "took a turn" at the Council of Nicaea. The supporters of Athanasius and of Arius each accused the others of changing Christian doctrine by affirming or denying Jesus' divinity. To state that this was a change is to unilaterally uphold the Arian POV. ] 04:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


== Awards ==
:::: In sum; before Nicaea, there were Christians who were Trinitarian and Christians who were not. They disagreed on the divinity question. After the election one side, Arius's side, was eradicated and the disagreeing views, and all written records, were burned, exhiled, etc. This established the subsequent tone for the succeeding centuries, whereby trinitarianism was dominant. It is therefore revisinistic to claim that there was no determination here.


{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
::::: Sorry, but your history seems to be incomplete. Far from being eradicated, Arianism actually dominated much of Christianity during the fourth century. Athanasius was banished from Alexandria at least five different times, perhaps as many as seven times, because of his opposition to Arianism. (He was also tried for murder, but exonerated when the supposed victim appeared at trial to testify on his behalf.) Certainly there were Arians before Nicaea, but it's debatable whether there were Arians prior to the fourth century. Arius himself didn't start teaching his view until I think around 309 or so; it spread quickly partly because he was also skilled at writing catchy tunes that reflected his theology. So it's not at all clear that there was a big ''change'' at the Council of Nicaea, even if it was deterministic in the sense of fending of both Arius and other future innovations in theology. ] 17:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Graphic Designer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You deserve this barnstar because of all the work you've done on my user page (and putting up with all my questions!) ] (]) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
|}
:Awww, thank you so much, Leamarie, thanks also goes to Tom, who took care of the requests while I was out sick, and I appreciate that so much. Maybe we can cut this award in half and give half to Tom, hee hee. <small>]]]</small> 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


== Returning ==
:::::: That's like saying that after 9/11, Osama has been running free- even though we all know the U.S. has been doing what it can to get rid of him. There were two basic things that came from the first council of Nicaea- setting the date for Easter (yawn), and basically excommunication/exhiling/banning Arius and his followers- why? Because their ideas were a greater threat to the goals of Constantine and Athanasius/the Early Catholic Church than any other things out there.
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:As you know, this news brings a big smile to my face. Your endeavors here and participation are exceedingly valuable, and while we all need breaks now and then, I'm glad to see yours was not permanent. I'm so glad you're back! ~*Hugs*~ <small>]]]</small> 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


::Glad to see BOTH of you back! ]<sup>]</sup> 07:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite follow your analogy to Osama bin Laden. Constantine's main objective in calling the council was to promote or attain unity among the Christians. Some historians think he actually favored the Arians before the council, but let the bishops decide and then went with their decision. Athanasius was trying to defend the Christian faith as he understood it from what he believed was a grave error. Incidentally, Athanasius himself was only a deacon at the Council of Nicaea and so didn't have a vote, although he was present as assistant to the Patriarch of Alexandria and I think was allowed to speak there. He had been opposing Arius for some time prior to the council, since both were from Egypt. He was by no means the only vocal opponent of Arius at the council. ] \


:::Indeed! Me too! :) ]] 09:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Getting back to the point, can we agree that the Arians and Orthodox both thought they were espousing the 'original' Christianity, and each accused the other of inventing a new doctrine regarding Jesus Christ? ] 17:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


== Please? ==


<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
Reaffirm? So America reaffirmed that Bush should stay in office? ] 17:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
'''] would like to nominate you to become an administrator.''' Please visit ] to see what this process entails, and then ] to accept or decline the nomination. A page will be or has been created for your nomination at ''']'''. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.</div><br>

I won't create it if you don't want me to, but it's waaay past November. :) ]|<sup>]</sup> 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::"decided that Jesus was always/is God " This is the primary statement of the Council of Nicaea. There was debate about whether God exhisted before Christ, etc. The Council resolved that Jesus is and always had been God. That is in fact the statement of the Council, the result of the Council, and it should be recorded rather than all this pussyfooting around the subject. This statement alone accounts for so much subsequent history it is negligent to omit it. ] 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Absolutely! Bring it on already ... :) - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

::Go for it! ] (]) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem is that, as you have stated it, this can be interpreted as the thesis of a certain book of pseudo-history called ]. This is not the thesis of serious scholars of Church history (or very few scholars of Church history). Arius's teaching was something ''new''. It's not that the Christians were divided from day one on this issue, and the council "decided it". The vast majority were with the "is God" viewpoint, until Arius started spreading his doctrine, starting between 315 and 317. (Arius didn't work in a vacuum, of course. The school of Antioch was tending in that direction even with its founder ], who some scholars see as the true father of Arianism. He saw his conclusions as coming directly out of the Gospel, of course.) But the theory was largely limited to that city until Arius' efforts. At the moment the Council was held, there was considerable discussion, and even a large number of bishops supporting the Arian view, but that division only dates from less than forty years previous to the council. The statement you want to put in could easily be interpreted to mean that "no one thought that Jesus was God, but the Council had a vote and imposed that belief", as Dan Brown would have us believe. This is simply false. ] 18:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:::You're way past due. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Common :) <span style="border:1px solid #433">]<font style="color:#433;background:#433">-</font>]</span> 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Although I have heard of the ] I have never actually read it. However, the writings of Athanasius and others can be found on the Writings of the Church Father's website and clearly demonstrates a very meaningful discourse. Mpolo, you are making straw man arguments (the opposite argument in an extreme case is false, therefore your entire argument is false; for example, there are Democrats who have been members of the KKK, therefore all Democrats are racist) and diminishing the topic. There is a crucial point here that is very pivotal and it has demonstrated itself in the response by various non-Catholic/Orthodox religions from Islam to Mormonism to many flavors of Protestantism regarding this very debate. ] 20:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::I typed out your nomination hours ago and the page is in preview mode...I'm tempted to hit "save" sometime soon. ]|<sup>]</sup> 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::'''Support''' Natural admin. --<font face="Copperplate Gothic">] <sup><font color="#800000">]</font></sup></font> 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::My point is that the ''way'' this is being stated implies a state of affairs that isn't true. Yes, there was a lot of discussion on the issue. However, the discussion stemmed from the last 40-50 years before the council (one could argue that the opinion existed but was never formalized, but that argument remains speculation, since we don't have any documents to back that up). That's why the wording "reaffirmed" is better. We can and should make it clear that there was a division. (Which, by the way, didn't end with the vote of the council, as some of those who have supported your wording in the past might argue.) What we can't do is pretend that there is no sign of unity on the issue before Arius. I'll try to think up an alternative formulation to satisfy both sides here. ] 08:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
::::Let's do it! :D ]''']''' 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::The reaffirm implies that the Trinity / both God and man in past present and future dualism was in place before 40-50 years beforehand; however, that theory was posited by Athanasius in an attempt to solve the conundrum. Do we have any non-biased sources that support this, that have not been tainted by the Church, that support the Trinitarian concept before 250 AD? Even 1 John 5:7/1 John 5:8 has been a forgery conducted to support the Trinitarian concept added later on; we need some unbiased evidence that it was there beforehand- and I don't think the Catholic Church will be the source of such an unbiased document, intrinsically. ] 14:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::I lost my self-control and hit "save"...please accept dear Ariel! ]|<sup>]</sup> 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's time now, Ariel. :-) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
=== Several references to early trinitarianism ===
:I'm sorry, my dear Keilana, and everyone above who offer encouragement, but I'm simply not well enough yet to undertake this, I'm still not on the computer daily, and not strong enough to be able to sit at the computer and answer questions, and keep track of something like this. I'm sorry :( Go ahead and delete it for now, if you would please, I'd rather be at full health during an RfA. I hope you understand. ~*Hugs*~ <small>]]]</small> 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(Back to the left) Here are several references:
:: I'm sure the RFA would run itself without you needing to worry about it! I mean, who could possibly object? :-) But in all seriousness, I hope you'll be back to full health as soon as possible. I've deleted it for now. *sob* Get well! <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
* Didache 7:1 (dates from about AD 70): "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
: Although Didache mentions them separately there is no indication that he is stating that Jesus is God; in fact, quite the opposite; does one say 'pay your bill to AT&T, Bell South, and Ma Bell?' No, it would be illogical to write the same concept three times unless you were trying to make a point. Unless Didache were in fact making that singular point, the statement undermines rather than supports a mainstream concept that Jesus is and always had been God. ] 18:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) : "o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"
: From the Misplaced Pages on ]: Nowadays only the shorter variants of those seven letters are thought to be genuine writings of Ignatius. Their longer variants are thought to be emendations from the fifth century, created to postumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness into certain theological fights of that age, while the other letters bearing his name, and the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom, are thought to be pure forgeries from around the same time. ]
* Justin Martyr (AD 151): "We will prove that we worship him reasonably, for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein"
: Second is hardly identical. ]
* Athenagorus (AD 177): "The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by &#8216;the Son,&#8217; I will tell you briefly: He is the first-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things"
* Theophius (AD 180): "It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all, for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom"
* Ireneus (AD 189): "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit."
: This doesn't state that Jesus is and always had been God. Further, one of Ireneus' books is 'On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis', demonstrating an early mainstream debate on Christ's divinity. ] 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

* Tertullian (AD 216): "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other , the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
: Tertullian was one Partisan in a spiritual debate against Marchion; this is more of the same sort of thing we see around the time of Nicaea; and Tertullian is one side. This hardly counts as evidence that there was a universal Christian understanding of the trinity, instead it supports the idea that the debate went a lot earlier than 50 years before Nicaea, to at least as you point out, 216. See the Tertullian Project at for an example. ]
* More from Tertullian: "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, &#8216;I and my Father are One&#8217; , in respect of unity of Being, not singularity of number"
* Hippolytus (228): "The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God"
: Here we have an example of someone stating that the Spiritual transcends the temporal; there is not explicit statement that Jesus is and always was God. ]
* Origen (225): "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word, the Wisdom, was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist, is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words &#8216;when&#8217; and &#8216;never&#8217; are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity"
: This does not say that Origen states the 'the Son is God' - what it says is that the discussion of these divine concepts transcends time- which it may well; however, one could also argue that the ten commandments transcend time as well. ] 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* More Origen: "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages"
: Again, this is a statement that the spiritual concepts transcend time; they do not state that Jesus is and always was God. ] 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Novatian (235): "For Scripture announces Christ is also God, as it announces God himself is man. It has described Jesus Christ to be man, as it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of Man; nor does it only say, the Son of Man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of Man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God"
: Novatian sounds very odd and one may wonder about how mainstream were his views: see the Catholic Encyclopedia on ] at . ] 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Pope Dionysius (262): "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of , as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were&#8212;I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork . . . . But if the Son came into being , there was a time when these attributes did not exist, and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd"
: Unfortunately as I said Pope Dionysius is part of the Catholic Church, by definition, and had something to gain/ was biased. ]
* More Pope Dionysius: "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his Son, and in the Holy Spirit and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. &#8216;For,&#8217; he says, &#8216;The Father and I are one,&#8217; and &#8216;I am in the Father, and the Father in me&#8217;"
: Gregory is more recent and about the same timeframe as the early Arian movements. ]
* Gregory Thaumaturgus (265): "There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity nor anything caused to be brought about, as if at some former period it was non-existent and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but, without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever"

So where is your evidence that Arius' doctrine predates him and Lucian of Antioch? (Note that I included quotes from Tertullian, a Montanist, Hippolytus, an anti-Pope, and Origen, whom the Catholic Church has never considered a saint, though I think the Orthodox do.) -- ] 15:18, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

: Clearly as many of your example's primary writings centered around debates about the divinity of Jesus Christ, there is no demonstrable evidence that early Christians were uniform in believing in the Jesus is and always was God concept. There was in fact an ongoing debate that far preceded Arius and his teacher. ] 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::This argument is really getting pointless. You have a point of view for which you can present no evidence, and have essentially said that anyone who is Catholic will be rejected out of hand, and at the same time reject anyone who is not Catholic (Novatian was an antipope) out of hand as non-mainstream.

::I have admitted that there was discussion. The witness of a wide range of writers though, is meant to show "consensus". The First Council of Nicaea did not represent a break with tradition, but rather confirmed the belief of the majority of early witnesses. Perhaps "reaffirm" is the wrong word, though, as it might imply that there was no discussion at all before Arius. Let me try a more long-winded, but hopefully more accurate phrasing:

:::The question of Jesus's divinity was central to early Christians. A wide range of early writers, including ] and ] testify to belief that Jesus was God, or that he was second only to God the Father. At the same time, various groups arose that denied this teaching. The situation came to a head with the teaching of ], who brought large numbers of bishops and faithful to his belief that Jesus was a created being. The issue was settled by vote at the ], where the teaching later championed by ] was enshrined as dogma. Arianism continued to exist for several decades after the decision of the council.

::Is that acceptable? We ought to include the name of at least one pre-Arian Christological heresy that denies the divinity of Christ (] was more the relation between Old and New Testaments, not denying the divinity of Christ at all, making him the son of the "good God" of the New Testament.) ] 18:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

:: I'd go far that one. ] 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: My only quibble is that it survived for several decades within the Byzantine Empire as you said, but until at least the fifth or sixth century among some European tribes who had been evangelized by the Arians in the fourth century. If I remember correctly, I think the First Council of Nicaea had only two dissenting votes out of over 300 bishops assembled; if that can be verified, I think it would be worth mentioning. ] 01:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: That's fine if we can add in how clubs were employed at the Council of Nicaea. ] 13:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Very Early non-trinitarian reference ===
From the Gospel of Thomas. circa 50-90, unearthed in 1945:
104 . They showed Jesus a piece of money and said to him: "The people who belong to Caesar ask us for taxes." He said to them: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, and what is mine give me!" (Translation, Doresse, http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas100.html#)
:Apparently a writer that preceded Athanasius' Canon, saw fit to mention Caesar, Jesus, and God as three separate entities. Now that additional bit disappeared from Athanasius' Trinitarian Canon. Interesting, No?
::::::''Please remember to sign!''


:Exactly: NO! – Maybe the learned contributor of the above comment feels injured at my brief response. All the commiseration I can offer is that I am increasingly appalled at the obviously poor Christian religious education in our times, that also makes it possible for someone to deem the above comment correct and relevant in the context of what aims to be a serious encyclopedia. ] 9 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

== Cross ==

I think the insertion that

:''and in some groups it is considered idolatry and not used in worship.''

Is worthy of inclusion somehow. Rather than simply deleting it, we should probably incorporate it. As for an image for Christianity, I think it is appropriate that there be a cross with an explanation in the caption that the cross is the generally recognized icon of Christianity, though some Christian groups don't identify with its use. In other words, we can include the NPOV-requisite disclaimer without getting into particulars of idolatry and worship. ] 18:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The only thing we have to do in my opinion is throw a bone to people who are going to be continually tempted to chip in their two cents because the cross is at the top of the page and they say, "Wait, that's not *my* Christianity!". Sheer entropy control is all I am after. If we can come up with something that will tend to stabilize the page, then we are making progress. I tried a non-specific reference that I thought might work. And I think maybe in this case a very brief, non-specific reference will satisfy people. If we say LDS and JW, then before we know it someone comes along and disagrees. The anon who made that edit will be back, and for two considerations, we need to be sure he is happy. 1) We want him as a Wikipedian. 2) We don't want to continually have to fight him. I don't want to be disagreeable, but could we do something a little more non-specific, but still accurate? ] 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:''restore caption for now -- it seems weird to refer to it as an icon for "Non-Christians"''

The non-Christian POV of the cross is quite important. The cross is the world symbol of Christianity even if I don't choose to use it in my worship and iconography. ] 21:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:IMHO, while the first points are true for some very small number of the world's Christians, noting it in the caption for a cross very much overemphasizes the matter. Can it be put somewhere in the ''text'' of the article? And as far as the second, while it is true, I would argue that it is not an ''essential'' characteristic of the cross, and that that should go into the article ] if it's not there already. Thanks, ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 21:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does a fellow ask himself when he visits that causes him to change the image caption? I think he says a few things:
* "Why did they choose the cross as the main image for this page?" Anybody could ask this, and only a few months ago the icon was a fish. I believe it should be a cross, though perhaps a more generic two black lines instead of somebody's wooden cross.
* "Why don't they say that some people don't use the cross as their personal icon of Christianity? My POV is not being represented here." We apparently have to address this or explain briefly why we are using the cross as '''the''' illustration for the article. (I again think we are right, but apparently we need to justify it.)
* "I am going to explain here that some don't use the cross. After all, it says Edit this Page right there." I think we have to head this off.

Now, I grant that 30 million known official non-users of the cross in LDS and JW are small compared to 2 billion Christians and 4 billion humans. Perhaps we should let this issue go for a while. But if it keeps popping up again, we are eventually going to be forced to throw that POV a bone in good Misplaced Pages fashion. Thinking now was the time to do it, I jumped in to try. But maybe I am premature. ] 22:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the part of that caption that talks about it being established as a Christian symbol in the fourth century based on these earlier references:
* Paul says in I Corinthians that he will boast in nothing but the Cross (as opposed to his academic training, lineage, etc.);
* The ] (first or second century) discusses the symbolism of the cross as found in the Old Testament, including Moses' outstretched arms during the Israelite's battle with the Amalekites. So the author of the epistle already saw it as a symbol of salvation and victory for God's people;
* ] also writes about the cross as a symbol in his ''Epistle to the Trallians'', again no later than the second century.
If these references are deemed insufficient, I'm confident I can find more. I can also look up more precise references and actual quotes of the three alluded to above if anyone wants those. I just don't have them in front of me right now. ] 16:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Analitical materials ==


1) "Christianity" in Misplaced Pages is not only christian's view.
The article, which not contain different views, is non-enciclopedian, but only "confession".
It is not good.

2) This material is not commercial information.

3) This book was written with blessing of God and under His guidance and contan deep knowledge.

4) I think you not read this book yet.

Sorry for my bad english,

Yours faithfully,
Skywalker

:I removed the "Original teaching" link, and wrote "v minority, POV link". I think that this is an accurate statement. To answer your points - 1. The article isn't written from a Christian's point of view - it's pretty neutral I think. 2. I didn't consider this when deleting the link. 3. That's your point of view - I'd seriously disagree with it, but again that isn't why I deleted it. 4. No, I haven't read all of it, but I have read a few of the pages.

:The reason I deleted it is because the book makes unverifiable statements about what its author believes to be true. It does not attempt to reconstruct the orignal teaching of Jesus by any historical, textual criticism or scientific method that I can see. The text itself is probably more ] than Christian, while the website on which it is published is syncreistic. I think that the purpose of the Christianity article should be to present information on the beliefs of mainstream and large minority groups, and on groups who disagree with these beliefs. I think that the current article does that, but I don't think that the addition of the link accurately represents what is believed about Christianity by any significant minority of people. ] a collection of websites - we'd soon be swamped if we included every website which discusses Chrisitanity. I think we can only choose the most appropriate to list, and I'm afraid that in my opinion, this website is not on that list.

:Furthermore, I note that a link to the same book (on a different webiste) is also listed on the ] page - I certainly don't think it needs to be listed twice. I hope that this helps you understand why I deleted your link. If people disagree with me, then I'm sure they'll say and the link will be re-instated. --] 10:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---------------

I think the true christianity is not "crosses" or "fishes"... It is not symbols.
I think the christianity doctrine is not only approved of God (Thrinity, Father, Son) existence...

This is only packing of christianity...
But this box is empty now.

Where is content?
True content of this theaching is LOVE, but people removed it (removed out of maind, hearts and encyclopedias ) :)
I read this word in Biblie, but I can't find word "Love" in this article...
Doctrine without Love is dead, this is only description of christianity "box".

I think the spirit of this doctrine may be discribed here.

Unfortunately, my english language is bad and can't write about it in article.
Could you do it?

----
"listed twice" - You are right, this is my mistake.

Yours faithfully,
Skywalker

== Lack of balance ==

This article is generally good but one-sided. I believe that there should be a section on criticism of Christianity, including some mention of the mass murder and cultural destruction that it has wrought over the past two thousand years. What do others think? ] 17:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Done and done. See ], and ]. The article ] has a section too. Having said all that, a link to the ] would be handy - that's been added too. Wiki's got it. ] 20:12, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

== Christian or Christian? ==

So what is an adherent? An editor just chaned adherent to claimant. While making the case ambiguous (claiming what?), the debate goes, what makes someone Christian? Mostly it comes from the Christian belief that a person can belong to only one religion. I personally belong to four religions. If someone says that they are a Christian does that make them one? I think the question is complicated by the fact that different religions retain membership in different ways. For instance, Jews are Jews only if they are a convert or have Jewish mother. The ambiguousness comes to a head when we add all the Christian denominations. 70% of ] consider themselves born-again Christians, just because they are not babtised and don't attend Church who are you to say they aren't Christians? --] 20:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leave it as adherent. More standard for this type of usage, I say. ] - ] 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:''Claimant'' may not be the best word, but ''adherent'' is a distortion. The Roman Catholic Church, to which most Christians belong, keeps people on the books once they're listed as Catholics and is generally quite obstructive about removing their names when asked to do so. Hundreds of millions of "Catholics" never go to a church or otherwise practise Christianity; many of them are adherents of another religion or atheists. I very much doubt whether there is any basis to the claim that two billion people in the world actually believe in the dogma of any variety of Christianity. ] 20:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::Yeah, you may be right, but I think that the estimates used were from ] which would be more accurate. The problem of maintaining internal lists is also seen in ] and ]. So I magine that these things were considered. --]

The most credible numbers I've seen (overall) are at www.adherents.com. At least there they account for all people and make the numbers add up to 5 billion (or whatever :-) ). ] - ] 21:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I cannot believe that these things were taken into account. Two billion is about 80% of the population of the world outside non-Soviet Asia. Do you honestly believe that that many people are Christians? ] 22:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::I had a look at www.adherents.com. Here's an example of the distortion that I mentioned: the first six presidents of the US were non-Christians, yet three of them are listed as Episcopalians. (Two of the others as Unitarians, the remaining one as being of "no specific denomination".) If this place doesn't compile accurate data on forty-odd individuals whose biographies are widely available, how reliable can it be on such matters as the religious affiliations of all the people in the world? ] 22:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::Well, who are you going to cite as more reliable? I realize it is challenging, but is there a better answer other than original research? Also, it sounds like there is dispute about what the religion of a particular person (president) is. ] - ] 23:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::I don't have any research to cite. Being an atheist, I don't really care much about the relative popularity of various religions that are all wrong anyway. But that doesn't mean that the "research" of www.adherents.com is any good. Hell, it lists juche as a religion&mdash;the tenth largest in the world, no less&mdash;, when it's nothing but a political ideology.

::::I checked their "research" and found that a number of their sources go back to the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', which does use church membership as its starting point. In other words, lots of people are counted as Catholics without even knowing it, merely because at some point their parents had them registered as such with a church. ] 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::Um, that is a fallacy of small sample size. I will demonstraight. The first presidents are a special case as I listed above, people can be more than one religion. Many of the founding fathers of the united states were not christian, but actually ]. This would not have looked so great in a land with many Christians so many still went to church and acted and called themselves Christians. The non-religion presidents were probably deists too. --]

::::Jefferson made no secret of being a non-Christian. "Episcopalian" Washington escorted his wife to church every week but stood outside the sanctuary and waited for her, so repugnant was Christianity to him. Two of the first six US presidents were Unitarians&mdash;an inoffensive way to say "atheists". It's not clear to me that these four, at any rate, called themselves Christians. ] 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::As for the sample size, I agree that the methodologies will be different. But I think that there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the numbers posted at www.adherents.com, as I indicated above. ] 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)



]. ??? Can somebody do a better job than adherents.com? If so, cite them. ] - ] 23:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::Claimant versus Adherent- I prefer Adherent. To define a Christian as one who 'claims' to be a Christian (claimant) would of course, by simple logic, remove the deaf mutes. It would also remove people who do not communicate for the most part to others. However a large part of Christianity has been the Monastic movement, characterised by Silence, and Adherence to certain beliefs and ways (See Rules of St. Benedict). A Christian can be a Christian on a deserted island. ]

== First statement in image caption ==
I think the first statement ''the ] is an ancient Christian ]'' is POV. Jehovah's Witnesses and some historians don't believe that. See also ]. ] 03:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:You are correct that would make it POV. But are you disputing the meaning of ancient? What exactly don't you believe? ] - ] 03:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::See ]. ] 09:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

=== Poll on image and caption ===
What do you propose would be the ideal:
::The ideal primary image for the article? ] - ]
:::I can't think of a good reason why Misplaced Pages can't use a cross as the primary image for this article despite the fact I don't have one in my home. Christianity is iconized in the world with a cross, and that's just the way it is. I don't like the cross that is there right now. It looks too much like a Catholic believer's cross. I think a simple black painted cross like a small t without a tail would be perfect for Misplaced Pages. If I were to disregard tradition and world opinion, I might prefer a picture of a man in a white or red (blood-stained) robe with arms stretched down and out out and apparent nail prints in hands, feet, and wrists with clouds in the background representing the risen Lord of Christianity.] - ] 03:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::The ideal NPOV caption if the image ''must'' be a cross? ] - ]
:::The cross is recognized across the world as a symbol of Christianity. ] - ] 03:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::oops, changed before reading talk, sorry guys. I didn't touch '''ancient''' and the edit was well summarized though. --] 04:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


''Most people think that the cross is an ancient symbol...'' What?!? Earlier on this page, I've quoted from St. Paul in the New Testament, the ], and ] as examples of early Christians using the cross as a symbol in their writings. Are these uses contested? How many more examples does it take? It seems easier to make the argument that Jesus never existed at all, than to make the argument that there weren't any Christians who wrote about the cross and what it symbolized. Someone please enlighten me. ] 04:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I think that the cross is the best symbol to use and that the caption should read something like "The cross is widely recognised as an ancient Christian symbol", etc. In addition to Wesley's quotes, the earliest image I've been able to find is from the grave of Rufinas and Irene (early 3rd century), although there is also the anti-Christian graffiti "Alexamenos worships his God", (late 2nd century) which shows a person with a donkey's head being crucified on a cross. I got this info from The Lion Handbook History of Christianity, but the images can be seen online at . I don't think there can be any serious historical doubt that the cross is a very ancient Christian symbol. --] 09:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus died on cross, but on stake. See ]. Then I think you understand this is POV. --] 09:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::The objections of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the cross as a valid symbol are quite rightly documented both on the ] page and on the pages dealing specifically with Jehovah's Witnesses. However, the vast majority of people, both Christian and non-Christian, associate the cross with Christianity. The Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in the 1870's and only abandoned the use of the cross in 1936 (according to Misplaced Pages). The historical evidence that Wesley and I have cited shows that the cross was used early on as a symbol of Christianity, and so the statement "the cross is an ancient Christian symbol" is therefore factually accurate. I therefore think that removing the cross as the first symbol on the Christianity page is actually more POV than leaving it there. --] 14:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::Any good Christain and non-Christian should know the fish was the first symbol of Christiandom. It was use in "Jesus's Lifetime" occording to biased sources. Also, it was found in a Christian grave circa 74AD. First no, primary yes. {{User:Sunborn/s}}

:: It might be possible for the JW's to insist that Jesus died on a stake, but that later Christians mistakenly thought he died on a cross. They already disagree with other assertions of the early church. So, saying the cross was used early on as a symbol of Christianity doesn't necessarily contradict the JW's, any more than saying that early Christians thought Jesus was God. JW's admit this, just say that they were wrong on this point, as far as I understand. See ] for instance. ] 16:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We need to stop arguing about the cross and make it look better. The ] article is head and shoulders about this one in the aesthetic category. We need a simple two-tone computer-generated cross graphic and a Christianity series box like the Islam one. ] - ] 04:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Jesus as son of God ==

It says- "The vast majority of christians believe that Jesus is the son of God"
All ''True'' christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. ] 21:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

:JW also believe that Jesus is the son of God. If your definition is right, JW are "True" Christians. ] 00:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Then the question is, which Christians don't believe Jesus is the son of God, that causes the artical to say "The vast majority" instead of "All"? ] 16:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I don't know, but I'll bet this: Any Christians who say they don't believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God will probably also agree that nonetheless, "Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." In other words, I don't know of anyone who would come right out and claim that believing Jesus Christ is ''not'' the Son of God is their official Christian stance. ] - ] 19:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::The statement above by Nintendomon74 is an example of the ] fallacy; please see it from more information. ] 04:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::While your comment is true, Jayjg, I made a non-fallacious statement. You may be a true scottsman and not put sugar on your porridge, but my statement refers to religious views. To be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God. ] 16:43, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

::::Given the comments, unless someone can provide evidence that a group calling themselves Christian nonetheless deny that Jesus is the Son of God I think that we can alter the statement to "Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God." --] 12:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Evolution vs. Creation ==
I've deleted this discussion, as it doesn't belong here and has been covered elsewhere. If you really care you can read it (but please don't edit it otherwise you'll remove any more recent changes). --] 08:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Monotheistic vs Trinitarianism ==

Note: The "Monotheism" vs "Trinitarian" statements which were in the lead paragraph are contradictory. I realize that not everyone may see it this way. But these points are explained fully and more appropriately below under "Doctrines"

For the sake of editorial accuracy, here is the second sentence which was deleted:

:"''As a ] ], it encompasses numerous religious traditions that trace their origins to Jesus.''"

A careful reading of it reveals that THIS SENTENCE ADDS NO INFORMATION that is not already in the preceding sentence save the use of the term "trinitarian". And so it appears that the only reason it was added was to offset the word "Monotheistic" in the first sentence. (That word is still in the text, but hidden.)

:Again, it seems more appropriate for these two ideas to be left to later in the article where THEY CURRENTLY ARE DISCUSSED AND DEVELOPED MORE FULLY UNDER THE '''"DOCTRINES"''' SUBHEAD. --] 06:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)-->

::I'm afraid I don't agree. Chrisitianity is a monotheistic, trinitarian religion - and most Christians would agree with that. Yes, it's confusing, but then so is ], so I don't think that's a good reason for deleting the sentences - it is a basic part of the Christian faith, so I think it should be reinstated. How about:
'''Christianity''' is a ], ] ] based on the life and teachings of ] in the ] (see ''Doctrines'' below).
::as a revised version of the first sentence?
::Also, I note you're new here - welcome! I hope that you enjoy editing. But, for future reference, it's best to suggest contentious changes on the talk pages first and then wait until there's some sort of consensus before making the edits. I've reverted your "contradictory language" edit while we discuss it here. Also, some people think it's rude to write in capitals (it's seen to be the equivalent of shouting). --] 11:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::I think the first sentence '''''Christianity''' is a... ]'' is POV. This statement implicitly insist that ''non-trinitarian is not Christianity''. Besides, Bible (New Testament) doesn't refer to trinity. Obviously, trinity depend on tradition. ] 09:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::I modified this to say that most Christians are trinitarian and some groups that identify themselves as Christian do not accept that belief. Is that acceptable to all? ] 12:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

:::::I think your explanation seems to have been different from the first sentence. ] 13:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::It might be least biased to omit the reference to monotheism altogether. In saying this I am of course implying that "monotheistic" is not core to the definition of Christianity. I think that this is in harmony with the debates that have gone on here about "What is a Christian?"
* Christianity is a religion based on the ministry (or life and teachings) of Jesus of Nazareth, who in Christianity is called Christ, or the Jewish Messiah. Christianity began around 34 A.D. as a sect of Judaism. ] - ] 14:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the reference to trinitarianism is unneccessary in this sentence. Identifying the religion as monotheistic helpfully categorizes it among other world religions, but as "trinitarian" has no significant meaning outside of Christianity, it only adds confusion in this introductory context.

:Anon above makes a good point. However, "true" monotheists such as Jews and Muslims may object to calling Christianity an unqualified monotheistic religion. I'm not sure what is appropriate here other than to follow broad conventions. Have we an expert in the house? ] 21:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

:: Yes, many muslims and jews accuse Christian trinitarians of polytheism. Including something about the trinity at least qualifies Christianity's claim to be monotheistic, and from that perspective is NPOV. Mpolo's suggestion seems most balanced, namely that most Christians are trinitarian but some that identify themselves as Christian do not believe in the Trinity, or something to that effect. ] 17:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::However, saying a Christian is a Monotheistic Trinitarian is like saying a Democrat is a Capitalistic Communist. I guess he's Chinese :). Christianity at core precedes Trinitarianism; it excludes those who seek an original state of Christianity, as many are interested in, rather than a particular implementation- just as a Communist might be offended at being called a Capitalist, despite most of today's Communists being Very Capitalistic (the Chinese).

:::: One POV is that Christianity at core precedes Trinitarianism; it's the POV generally held by Christianity's detractors. Another is that Christ revealed that the one God exists in three persons who share a single divine nature or essence, which teaching was eventually expressed as trinitarianism to distinguish it from later similar but incompatible teachings, such as Arianism. ] 04:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::: Wesley, when some Americans were pointing out that American Car Companies in the 70's and 80's were putting out junk cars- was this a criticism of Americanism or American Industry? No, it was a concern for the overall quality of product, and a concern that American Car Companies were ignoring quality and resting on the laurels of success. They accused people who criticized them of unAmericanism, and being detractors of American industry- the fact is, they needed work- and whether it was their enemies in foreign auto manufacturers who pointed out the flaws, or their own people who were 'unAmerican'-it doesn't matter. You are doing the same thing in terms of Christianity- anyone who does not support the dominant trinitarian movement is a detractor of 'Christianity' as a whole- which is completely false. ] 16:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::: No, what I said was that the idea that "Christianity at core precedes Trinitarianism" is a POV ''generally'' held by Christianity's detractors; I had in mind Jews, agnostics, atheists and so on, who try to demonstrate that Christianity is based on a collection of man-made ideas rather than on divine revelation. Some non-Trinitarians claim to be supporters of Christianity, but in this point they are agreeing with, and often basing their conclusions on, the work of people who don't even pretend to be Christians. But now that you mention it, I believe they are detractors of Christianity itself, because Christianity is essentially trinitarian and always has been, even when it was not expressed in the same language eventually adopted at Nicaea. ] 04:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::::There are non-Trinitarian Christians today, as there were almost 2,000 years ago. I'm sure then and now they didn't consider themselves "detractors of Christianity". ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::::: Well, nowadays they mostly call themselves "reinventors" or "rediscoverers" of Christianity rather than "detractors" - see the ] article. They are open detractors of the Christianity of history, since that Christianity is trinitarian. They can never agree on exactly when this "Great Apostasy occurred", or provide any real evidence of the non-trinitarian sort of Christianity they postulate. When they try, they wind up citing the same evidence atheists use to show that Christianity is entirely man-made, which only further undercuts their own beliefs. 2,000 years ago, the gnostics didn't mind saying they were different from what became "mainstream Christianity", and were certainly as open in opposing it as orthodox Christianity was in opposing the gnostics. ] 05:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::(back to left) Let's suppose the following:
*1) A person is deeply Christian, raised Christian, etc
*2) That person's interest in Christ leads them to look at the Archaeological and textual history surrounding Christ in order to have a better understanding- to see through the smoke
*3) In the process, that person learns that numerous passages in 'the Bible' were generated in a biased way, such as is found in 1 John, after the fact, further learns that Jerome was more or less commisioned by a partisan in a theological argument to write the 'Canon' in a particular way, and that translation, the vulgate, became the de facto standard for the King James Version et al
*4) Suppose further that person learns that there was a corrupt election in 325 that set the stage for the next few millenia- deciding that Jesus was divinen and identical to God- in the face of a raging theological argument
*5) Suppose that person runs across the scrolls unearthed in 1945, the gospels of Thomas, authored 50-90, well before gnosticism or Orthodoxy, in which Jesus clearly describes himself in relation and distinction to God and Caesar- not himself/God/Holy Ghost
*6) Despite all that, the person is still driven by a passon for the base meaning and mysticism communicated by Jesus- the way to live life, seek understanding, and probe spirtuality- now is that then less of a Christian- and why? ] 18:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

: I would say that such a person appears to be sincerely seeking Christ, but has not yet found Him. If the full revelation of God to humanity through Christ was expressed in some ancient, unpreserved and only recently discovered manuscripts, then there exists no religious community today who has preserved that tradition, and you are truly left to guess at what, for instance the gospel of Thomas really means and how its truths should be lived out. A religion arrived at this way would be a new one of your own making. You cannot reconstruct with confidence the true meaning and teaching found in these texts without a new, direct divine revelation, such as the Mormons claim to have received from Jesus, Peter and other heavenly figures. Our other hope is that the original "core" faith has been preserved by one of the churches that does have a plausible historical connection with the earliest church, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Armenians, Copts, etc., all in all only a handful. If at least one of them has preserved the revelation given by Christ, then Christianity is to be found there, preserved by God in a church full of sinners.
: If you haven't already, I would highly suggest reading more of the early fathers, such as the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and so on. To bring this back to the original question relating to the article, these early writings, which were widely circulated in the early church along with the books that were ultimately included in the New Testament, reflect a Christianity that does believe Jesus is God, and one that is certainly not inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. Or at least, that is the belief of the Orthodox Church and the other handful of churches who trace their historical origins to this period of history. ] 04:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::Great info, Wesley. I'm loving reading you. Your good friend, ] 06:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

:::So Wesley, what you're saying then is; it's not WWJD (What Would Jesus Do)- It's WWAROJD (What Would Athanasius' Rendition of Jesus Do), or WWPROJD (What Would Polycarp's Rendition of Jesus Do), or WWECSOJD (What Would the Early Catholic Church's Spin on Jesus Do). Further, despite the article stating that there are billions of Christians, only those who have some 'divine revelation' are true Christians- so what do we have left? Maybe we should revise that number down at the beginning and say 'a few thousand people who embrace dogmatically the texts as determined by Constantine, Athanasius, et al.'- the rest are just being pragmatic and are not Christian- because they do not embrace Athanasius' view- they are not Christian. Further- who are you to tell what is divine revelation and not? How about if I say it is divine revelation that all shoppers should go to Wal-Mart. If you believe otherwise, you haven't been touched yet. Great marketing, bad truth. ] 12:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::: Er, no one I know of gives Constantine any credit for determining texts, while nearly all self-described Christians endorse the 27 books of the New Testament first listed together by Athanasius. Most Protestants and newer groups don't claim to have explicit divine revelation, other than a very general being "led by the Holy Spirit into all truth," so (in most cases) I'm not really arguing with what they say about themselves. Just observing that they're generally counting on being able to figure out which parts of the tradition they received are right and which are not, through prayer and their own intellects. If your alternative is to figure out that the Nag Hammadi collection is more authentic and then figure out on your own what it means, I don't know that you're any better off. If you don't believe God exists or any divine revelation exists, then this discussion is pointless to you and there's no point continuing. ] 04:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::Here is a good book for you to read, Wesley- Lies My Teacher Told Me - Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong,by James W. Loewen. You can find it online. It describes how myths are created for political reasons and over time fossilize into belief. ] 13:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::: I understand the concept. I merely observe that if you believe all tradition that's been given to us is man-made myth, you have to have either direct revelation yourself, or give up on learning anything at all beyond what ] science and philosophy can tell you. I personally think there's just as much reason to be suspicious of people today trumpeting the early gnostics as heroes, as there is to suspect more traditional Christians. ] 04:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::: There is a distinction between when observance/science/reality comes into play, and when faith comes into play. Because God created reality, so we believe, all reality should be a reflection of God's will. Therefore, what we see, what we perceive, unless it is false, is a greater understanding. Faith fills in the gaps where we do not or can not know something. For a long time no one could 'see' germs, but when scientists discovered germs and communicated that to the public, now even people who have never looked in a microscope have 'faith' that germs exist. In Christianity we have been getting greater revelation into truths- greater exposure to God's reality. The 'theological scientists' so to speak are seeing more things than were known for thousands of years. This is a good thing, that rather than dispels faith, should make it stronger. The faith we have today that bacteria exists is unwavering; before science it did not exist at all. ] 14:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::: Indeed, all truth is God's truth. Are the 'theological scientists' seeing divine truths in a way that is verifiable by others, seeing actual visions, or are they philosophically speculating? I suspect the last of these three, which if so makes the "scientist" term seem misleading. For those things already revealed by God to the Church, there are no "gaps" to fill in. Our understanding can improve, but should not contradict or undermine the foundation already laid. If it replaces the existing foundation, that's all well and good, but it becomes something different. That's really my only point; if theologians or anything else come up with something "new and improved," they should be honest enough to say up front that it's something new. ] 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::: I think Wesley knows very well that I come from a very different tradition with different ways of speaking of Christ than his. In fact, I am sure he knows I probably see things more the way you two anonymous folks do than the way he does. But he also knows I appreciate and honestly delight in the careful and respectful way he has learned to express himself. Wesley, what would you call the idea that the full revelation of God to humanity through Christ is expressed newly in each sanctified believer, and that any other expression, such as in the printed word or in the sacraments of a church, is a symbolic approximation, perhaps expressed best by "the Kingdom of God is within you". Would that be somewhat gnostic, and would it have a parallel idea (such as perhaps sanctification) in the historic churches? ] 16:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

::::: I wondered if you'd notice this thread, Tom. Naturally I thought of you when I mentioned modern new divine revelation. ;-) I'm not quite sure what to make of your statement. Orthodoxy would see the printed word and the sacraments as quite different things, with the sacraments being much more than symbolic approximations. The word "symbol" comes from two Greek words that mean literally "throw together", and in a sacrament divine grace is thrown together with the material, particularly in the Eucharist but in other rites as well. Don't know what to make of that first part though; can't say it's gnostic, just that it seems "off," perhaps because it doesn't seem to recognize the uniquenes of the Incarnation. For parallels the ] article might have the best pointers. ] 04:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== What is a Christian? ==

A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus died for us on the cross, taking the full wrath of God on himself, and who has trusted in Jesus for his salvation from hell in the life to come. - 207.27.152.6

RESPONSE: This is already defined on the ] page:

:*a follower of the faith of Christianity
:*those who followed Jesus as his disciples

Since the first definition is a circular reference to this page, only the second is helpful. It is specific enough to be meaningful, yet broad enough to not be controversial and start more "Edit Wars," (ie. "My doctrine is more Christian than your doctrine!")

The problem with the previous UNSIGNED definition is that it includes some doctrinal beliefs that not all that profess to be Christians would agree with. There is a definite trend here among many contributors to define things in terms that INCLUDE themselves and EXCLUDES those that they don't agree with. Obviously, this is not NPOV. --] 20:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: There's also the matter of using generally understood meanings versus newly invented meanings. ] 06:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Wesley, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify by being more specific, perhaps giving some examples of what you mean and an explanation? Thanks! --] 16:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::: For instance, a follower of Rev. Moon might agree that "Jesus died for us on the cross..." as stated above, but believe that his mission failed for whatever reason, necessitating another messiah such as Rev. Moon. A muslim might even subscribe to that statement, believing that Jesus died for us, and that trusting in Jesus' moral teachings (which he thinks are consistent with the Koran etc.) will lead him to eternal life. Short simple statements like that can be interpreted a dozen different ways, often in direct contradiction to what was initially intended by the statement or definition. (sorry to take so long to respond, didn't see this question until now.) ] 17:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Deleted phrase ==

I removed this phrase from the section talking about Emperor Constantine and the [[First Council of Nicaea:
'' and paved the way for the divine right of the ]''

First, I'm not sure what the heck it's supposed to mean. I'm familiar with the "divine right of kings", but this is clearly something different. The "Catholic Church" is usually understood to mean the ], which at this point in time was still several hundred years shy of being independent of the rest of Christianity. Is there a better way to phrase this, or should it just be left out? ] 06:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: I think the intent might have been the first meaning listed at the ] page.- ] 17:17, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

:: Meaning it paved the way for the universal or whole church? Sorry to sound dense, but this doesn't make much sense. Could someone spell this out a little more clearly for a simpleton such as myself? Maybe it will lead to something even more helpful and clear for the article. ] 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::That might have been the intent. Still, leave it out, I don't think it's necessary.--] 04:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


== ] vs ] ==

I see that ] has changed all of the BC and AD in the article to BCE and CE. Despite what the supporters of the CE would like to belive, BC and AD '''are''' the accepted labels in use in the world. The CE article even states that "few know<nowiki></nowiki> what the designation means." Be it Christo-centric or not, they are the most common lablels. Fursther, I think that the fact that this is an article on Christianity, I cant come up with a better place to use the Christian labels? I haven't yet reverted them as that I know that it would start an edit war. What do ya'all think that the appropriate labels should be? ] 17:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I agree with Cavebear42. BCE/CE is not well understood (I have never even seen a reference to it in a British English usage guide, for instance), and google searches show its usage to be small in comparison to AD/BC. The terminology AD/BC (I changed it back) is used consistently on this page, in accordance with ]. DannyMuse should take the commonsense option and use terms that everyone can understand. ] 19:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::The manual of style does not state a preference of BC over BCE or AD over CE; where do you think it does? As for the usage, it is common amongst academics, and becoming moreso elsewhere. ] 03:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::You misunderstand me. The Manual of Style requires consistency, and does not sanction a change from consistent use of BC to BCE. (Or, indeed, from BCE to BC.) I changed it back to BC as the original change to BCE was not sanctioned by policy. ] 07:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::This boils down to an issue similar to color vs. colour. We use color in "American" articles and colour in all other contexts. Since B.C. and A.D. have their roots in Christianity, it would be natural to apply them here.--] 04:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

:::I think that this is the best solution. Pretending that the "common era" that just happened to have been chosen in an attempt to date Jesus's birth has nothing to do with Jesus might work on a page about Roman history, but it's almost offensive on a page about Christianity. (I personally think that the academics who want to get rid of AD and BC should invent something else -- "Before Newton" and "After Newton" or some such -- rather than saying, "If we pretend hard enough, everyone will forget about Dionysius Exiguus.") ] 08:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that CE & BCE to become the norm. This world is not Christian and Christians do not have exclusive right to historical terminology no matter what they believe (after all it is a belief not a fact). The BC & AD are terms that falsely try to centralise Christians place and mark on the world. With Agnostics and Atheists the most steadily growing group over the last 150 years world wide and the rest of the worlds other religious views, collectively out numbering the Christians I see it relevent to lay waste to the narrow ideology of the AD & BC terms. sandsmansage

: "...lay waste to the narrow ideology..." ?? You make it sound like the reason for using BCE and CE would be POV pushing, sandsmansage. ] 04:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Oh for crying out loud! sadsmansage sounds more like some atheistic extremist thumping his chest and trying to proclaim this whole issue as some "Flaslely Incorrect Christian Opression" and that athiesm will dominate the world. UGH. I stand with what Mopolo says on the issue; furthermore, this is a page about Christianity itself, making sadsmansage's babblings about false Christian centralization even more absurd. If there's a page about a specific subject--such as Christianity--where a relevant calendar can be used, use it. If we were talking about Islamic or Bhuddist topics, I'd be inclined to have dates in their relevant calendars (with more general translations for everyone else).

:It amuses me that you are so afraid of the influence of Christianity that you feel a need to remove the most readily understood units of dating. Also, if I'm not mistaken ] is the fasting growing religion in the world but you feel no need to transfer to their calender. ] was right, there is no reason to change the article.

:It amuses me that you are so afraid of the influence of Christianity that you feel a need to remove the most readily understood units of dating. Also, if I'm not mistaken ] is the fasting growing religion in the world but you feel no need to transfer to their calender. ] was right, there is no reason to change the article.

== "civilized world"? ==

In the Emergence of National Churches, I read this:

:''By the second millennium, Christianity had spread to most of the civilized world.''

This should be phrased differently. "Civilized world" is a meaningless term - there have been civilizations all over the world. In most uses it is extremely ethnocentric, implying that the writer's civilization is the only really "civilized" one. I'd change it, but I don't know jack about the history of Christianity, only enough to know that there are plenty of civilized places that are not particularly Christian now and never have been. So might someone who knows about this stuff fill in a specific term, like "had spread to most of ]" or "had spread to most of western ]" or whatever the right term is? Thanks! - ] 07:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Hm, I just made a change myself, making it "most of Europe" since I'm ''guessing'' that that's what the author meant by "most of the civilized world", but like I say, I don't know for sure what was meant. Feel free to fix it if that's wrong, but I couldn't let the implication of Christianity==civilized world stand any longer.. ] 22:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Christian-lineage Image - POV ==

While this might seem to be a useful image of common thought concerning Christian faiths, it is not NPOV as it favors Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as being "closer" to the roots of early Christianity (the center), whereas Restorationism and Nestorians are depicted as being "further" from early Christianity, departing from it the earliest and moving the furthest away.

Additionally, whereas in this picture the gray line represents early Christianity, the line color does not change until it reaches Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, leading readers to believe that those are direct derivations, while the rest are not. In other words, were this a more neutral image, the line would change color from gray after the first departure, being Restorationism (though still not a neutral depiction - perhaps a colorlessness would suit it better?). ] 04:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:You are misinterpreting the image. It is a historical representation of the development of Christianity. It isn't a representation of relationships to early Christianity. Placing Catholicism and Orthodoxy at the middle is just for convenience. We can't have lines going every which way. Besides, someone has to be in the middle there.

:As for the colours, they represent the amount of time that tradition was in place. So early Christianity functioned without much change until about the 11th century when Catholicism took prominence. Again, those colours are effective only on their own sub tree. They do not affect the colour of the root path.--] 04:53, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

::So it isn't a timeline, right? And in that sense, the restorationists are plugged in directly (via their dashed line) to Early Christianity. Is that right? ] - ] 07:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
::: It's not exactly a timeline, more like a family tree. I believe that when that dashed line was added, it was for the purpose of representing the restorationists' claim to, well, be restoring early Christianity. ] 01:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the fact that I did misinterpret it evidences that it does leave place for misinterpretation. This attests to its lack of clarity as well.

Additionally, Will2k's statement that it represents "the development of Christianity" assumes that there is development (which could be interpreted as corruption) in the first place. Assuming that it only represents development, how does it represent development except in the displacement of lines from the center &mdash; where Early Christianity is located? Perhaps rather than having this type of representation a timeline with early Christianity absent would be better. That way there is no reference point for comparison other than the denominations themselves.

The statement that someone has to be in the middle is moot as the 11th century schism shows. The line could have just as easily split with the Nestorians or Oriental Orthodoxy.

Also, saying that early Christianity did not change until the 11th century is false. That statement alone shows POV as it shows complete disregard for the Nestorians and for Oriental Orthodoxy by suggesting that they were not early Christians, or (once again) that they removed themselves from Christianity. On that note, ] states that the Assyrian Church of the East does not teach Nestorianism, which ] reiterates.

That the colors represent time is not true in the sense that Roman Catholicism claims its existence from the beginning, (i.e. not different from early Christianity) and therefore the early Christian line should be completely red beginning with Peter, from that point of view. As I see it, there is simply no way to make this depiction NPOV.

If it is a family tree, denoting lineage, then this suggests that one group is derived from another, which - though in some cases this is true - is not. I realize that this does not make it any clearer (believe me, I am boggled), but I think that at the very least it does demonstrate that this is flawed and could have a better representation in its place. Perhaps a timeline showing relationships to all the churches in a spectrum with no early Christianity would be best - yet still not quite the solution I realize. Until one is found, I am content to leave this image here until a better image can be found. ] 05:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: I agree it's not perfect. I wish there were a way to show the continuing fractures (with occasional unions) all the way up to the over 30,000 denominations today, but that's not practical, and might be seen as POV. I think it would be horribly POV to completely omit the early church and pretend that all "branches" are the same age. Some Protestants would love that I'm sure, especially the ones that just struck out and started new denominations this century. As it is, the picture's current level of detail seems to be a bit of a compromise between those extremes. I'm not sure why you want to say that later groups aren't derived from earlier ones. That only makes sense with groups like the Mormons that believe a direct divine visitation took place, but most denominations don't make that kind of claim about their origins. ] 06:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I have liked the image from the first time I saw it. I think it gives a good overview of the major branches, and it's fun to look at. ] 14:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

:I agree that the colours are mildly problematic, but it'd be tricky to improve on without a good deal of loss of clarity. The 'derived from' relations seem sound though, aside from the one case of "Protestantism" being seemingly derived from "Anglicanism" (true for Methodists and some others, not true for Lutherans and Calvinists). Broadly speaking, I like it. ] 01:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Thanks ==
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who created this high quality article. It's very NPOV and talks about Christianity from historical and philospophical persepective, unlike sorry Misplaced Pages entries about ] and ] that spread hate and intolerance.
==Opposing views==
is the "Opposing views" links relevant here , Opposing to what ? --] 22:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


"The original apostles are believed to have written some of the New Testament's Gospels and Epistles." Couldn't one say the opposite here and still be just as correct since authorship of most or at least many are in serious doubt?

: Yes, one probably could. Even better would be to summarize who believes they did write some, and who believes this is in serious doubt. Broad generalizations would probably suffice, as long as the generalizations aren't meant to be prejudicial. ] 22:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Quotes about Christianity ==

Do we really need this section here?

Maybe the quotes should go in the individual wikipedia articles "Rowan Atkinson"'s for example.

Rowan Atkinson's is a comedian and hardly a philosopher or theologian.

What is a freethinker?

--] 17:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Removed that section. I think a link to wikiquote would probably be alright, though. ]] 21:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Christian population of the world and each country==

I posted this on my talk page ]. It was easy to create this since I already had the program/data file from ] article. I would like to see some comments/correction and if such an article should be on main namespace ] 20:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Somewhat misleading sentence ==

"Although Christianity is the largest religion in the world and there are massive missionary efforts under way, as a whole it is declining in terms of the overall population." This sentence suggests that the total number of Christians is declining. But that isn't so, as noted immediately afterwards (1.12% rate of growth). I think what you should write, to be more clear, is that Christianity's proportion of the total world population is slightly shrinking.

== Christianity and persecution ==

"In the second half of the 20th century a battle in Northern Ireland continues between Roman Catholics and Protestants over the forced British occupation of Ireland."

Wrong tense, on two accounts; characterisation as a "religious battle" is over-simplified; "forced occupation" is a tautology, wildly "Greener than Sinn Fein" POV in rhetorical terms, and confusing out of context. (Vaguely implying the "occupation" started around 1950, not c. 1200 (or 1600, or 1700 take your pick).) ] 06:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Mormonism ==

There is a bit of reverting going on in the mormonism section - and i have been part of this. So before it escalates I suggest that we have a short chat what we exactly want to achieve in this section.

1) why is this section here in the first place? Directly after Judaism? Or rather why only Mormonism - which is after all largely an American religion, rather than something of significance e.g. where I am - If I would look where I am Jehovah's witnesses or Muslims would have a far better claim on being mentioned here, both being also "post-christian" and "improved" forms, return to "the true meaning" of the gospel etc etc. What makes Mormons special in this respect? This is not meant to be disrespectful.

2)While Mormons feel obviously strong about themselves being trhe truest forms of Christianity, fact is not one of the large denominations accepts Mormons as fellow Christians - Membership in World Council of Churches, Evangelical Alliance, Catholic-Whatever dialogues, regional Christian councils - whatever -are all fora which jump to mind for a largish denomination to be involved in - at least one or another. So to write "some Christians" do not accept Mormons as proper Christians is far too weak and really does no justice whatsoever to the matter.

There are more questions, but this should be the start of a dialogue so I give some space to others ... ] 15:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: heya -- just to clarify my position, i'm not a mormon or in any other denomination, but consider myself a "mere christian." with regard to why it's there, i agree with you -- i think a single link to the article on topic would be perfect. but somebody else wanted it here and there was a bit of a revert war about a month ago with a lot of namecalling etc ... so i stepped in to write the version which you altered to "strengthen" the non-mormon position. i think the best approach here is to be analytical as possible -- instead of saying "they think they're the best" and "they think they're a cult," we try to define the issues as succinctly as possible. in what ways are mormons christian? in what ways are they different from other denominations? either that or just link out to the page on the topic. i just want to make sure this doesn't turn into another cliche war about who's christian and who's not:). ] 15:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think, this is much better, thanks, Ungtss for contributing. ] 17:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:thank you too:) -- excellent stab at addressing the issue ... i tried to broaden it a bit ... what do you think? ] 18:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:: Mormon Tom thinks you are a meister, U. Excellent work. You might link to ]. ] 04:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

== The Baha'i Faith ==

The statement which I corrected said that the Baha'i Faith is trying to correct the perceived corruption in the church. This is untrue. I didn't know how to change the paragraph to say that so I added a couple sentences. If you want to just remove the Baha'i Faith from the paragraph altogether, that is fine as well. Baha'is believe in the divine nature of both Jesus and the Bible, they believe the Bible is God's holy text. The main difference in what Baha'is differ in belief from Christians is that religion is progressive and thus Baha'u'llah has updated or changed many of the laws from the Bible. -- ] 21:53, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


== Miracles et al ==

I do believe it is important to leave the sentence on miracles in the first paragraph. These are a central feature of Christian faith - not the basis, but a central feature nevertheless. Even today - both in the Roman Catholic church (what else is ] etc about?) and in charismatic/pentecostal churches. To call these "supernatural nonsense" is gross POV ] 08:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


"Others grew into major world faiths (such as Islam and Mormonism)" -- Mormonism is not
a "major world faith." Islam is, Christianity is, etc. LDS has about 12 million or so
adherenets, while Islam has around 1.3 billion. To put the two in the same sentence and
label them major world faiths is almost laughable.

== Orthodox /Correct beliefs ==

I reverted the last change by Aaargh, as the "Correct beliefs..." does not imply ''in the context'' that such beliefs are correct as such (as in "Misplaced Pages affirmed", but that such groups hold it for important to have "correct beliefs". I hope this is clear enough ]

:The context is vague. The word is hardline. "Correct beliefs (as held by the group)" is clearer (my change) but verbose. I can see where ] is coming from - and you ] ] 19:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a good and very clear change. ] 19:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: I am changing this back to 'traditionally established forms of belief'. This is less POV than the term 'correct' beliefs, and is also inline with most dictionary definitions of the term 'orthodoxy'. The word 'correct' here is misleading and inappropriate.
:here are the definitions for 'orthodox' from answers.com:
::1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
::2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
::3. Orthodox
:::1. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
:::2. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
::4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.

:The word 'correct' is POV. Sorry, but in the interest of neutrality this should be changed, and the term 'traditionally established forms of belief' is both neutral and accurate. Reverted back ] 11:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stress this again - "correct" is not meant as "Misplaced Pages correct" but as Dizzley wrote "Correct as held by the group". This is hugely important, often a significant reason for schisms etc and not at all only related to "traditionally established", quite often exactly the opposite. So while you are trying to be NPOV - a laudable undertaking - you are actually restricting and limiting the article to one particular aspect. I am not calling it a POV, but it is limiting. "Roman Catholic" and "Greek Orthodox" might defend "traditionally established beliefs" and have both a very high view of "tradition" other churches and denominations attempot exactly the opposite - a search for truth in teaching and practice, independent from precedent and tradition. To be perfectly clear I am not out to do editwarring, but I am searching for the right and clearest expression clarifying the matter and I am more than happy if this is not the one I initially suggested ] 11:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I know that you were happy with the last edit, but I was not yet - sorry... . So I re-wrote it incorporating mine, Dizzley's and your changes. I hope this is now clear and NPOV enough. ] 12:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:No Problem Refdoc. I just wanted to compliment you on the changes you've just made, and to say I'm happy we sorted it out without resorting to an edit war. Although it's only a small change, I think the article is better for it. ] 12:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"over the past two millennia, Christianity has been grouped into three main branches: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism."

That's, obviously for anyone, not true: the split of the first two branches happened less than a millenium ago, not to mention the third?

It'd be hard to claim there was only one "trunk" for these to branch off of in the first place though

: Those are the three largest "branches," if you group all Protestants together as a single group. There were other divisions earlier, most notably the Nestorians and the Copts ("monophysites"), but numerically they were much smaller. Still other divisions were even smaller, and in some cases have all but disappeared. Naming three main branches is a bit of a simplification, but it's also not that far off the mark just to give people a general idea. ] 05:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Template:Christianity ==

:''Please see ] ] ]''
I think a Christianity template on this page would be worthwhile like the great work on for the Islam template, however we desperately need help creating it. I have been debating with ] over how it should be done and am advocating we discuss what should be on the template on the template's talk page and creating the layout (which could very well be similar to <nowiki>{{Islam}}</nowiki> around it. He has merely changed words and attempted for direct equivalence between Islam and Christianity and even equated ] to ] which shows a clear lack of understanding of the concepts. Therefore it is my plea that some of the main editors of this article pool together to create a working template based on the concepts of Christianity and not the translation of Islamic ideas into supposed Christian equivalents. We should of course what for bias, however, we cannot go the route of the template as it is now shown (plus, green is used for the Islam template for a reason...) Please comment, please help. ] 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== keep this article focused on the subject please==

Someone has been inserting a bunch of subtle marketing plugs for Islam throughout the text which actually belong on the Islam page and some weird degrading emphasis on death by crucifiction in the intro which I corrected. I appreciate your attention to this Jayjg but I believe my points are valid.
I cleaned this up .Thanks--] 01:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The intro is too short, and the small sections comparing the religion to others are not "plugs". As well, your organization is wrong; for example, it is not a "belief" of Christians that the work Messiah has the Greek origin etc. Please propose your changes here first. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::The intro should be short , a few important key facts is enough. The prior version was bloated and not easily digestible by the typical Misplaced Pages reader. The rest of the article should be properly organized in their relevant sections.--] 03:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Exactly what part of policy says the "intro should be short"? I've seen a number of Featured Article Candidates rejected because the intro wasn't long enough. The rest of the article seems fine, but you can propose any specific changes in Talk: if you want. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: I propose the intro below which is simple and clear to replace the bloated , and hard to understand current version:
Christianity is an Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament. It is the world's largest religion.--] 17:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you should try out that simple change first, and propose other changes in Talk:. You've attempted to change much more than that. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Achutng make good points. Simplicity and fact servs the readers much better.--] 18:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Achtung hasn't made any points, just edits and proposals. Please don't use sockpuppets to bolster your case, Achtung. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::The points I made are:
Someone has been inserting a bunch of subtle marketing plugs for Islam throughout the text which actually belong on the Islam page and some weird degrading emphasis on death by crucifiction in the intro which I corrected. Jayjg, these points seem quite reasonable, if you read those sections , it is quite obvious, as to the covert intent behind those. Likewise, the Islam page would not be the place to insert Christianity marketing plugs. The readers are better served with clean and well presented articles as opposed to propaganda. That is why I made those edits.--] 12:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Firstly the weird emphasis on crucifixion is because that is a ''huge'' part of Christianity. For the vast majority of Christian denominations if Jesus had not died and risen from the dead there would be no religion. Also the references to Islam are not "plugs" in any sense of the word. It is first mentioned in contrast to Christianity being the number one religion in size in the world, which clearly make Christianity look better. Since the made the comparison for population they then made the comparison for growth which is also reasonable... if you would like to question the facts you can and look at ] too where there is much debate about population statistics but the content itself is only to give the reader perspective in terms of other religious communities. I do agree with you on removing ''and in countries such as ], have also received an influx of followers of ].'' and ''often'' because the first is irrelevant and I believe 95+% believe that it follows Judaism because... Jesus said he had come to fulfill... so.... however, it is better to discuss these things before changing. ] 13:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Achtung, please propose changes here so they can be discussed, before entering them. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== OK here are the proposed changes: ==


1) Make the change gren mentions ie remove this statement:

:"Some traditionally Catholic countries have largely become agnostic, ''and in countries such as France, have also received an influx of followers of Islam."''

2) The following statement is not consistent with growth numbers quoted elsewhere in Misplaced Pages

:''"By contrast, Islam is growing at 1.76% per year. "''

The islam page claims '''1.4 %''' growth, which is it?? I propose that both pages reflect 1.4 % growth since that number is conspicuously documented in the various Misplaced Pages Islam related articles.

3) Islam is not a branch of Christianity nor an offshoot as the seriously non-NPOV and inacurate insertion in the following section claims :
'''The branches and boundaries of Christianity'''
:"The doctrines and practices of Christianity have been subject to a great deal of debate since the founding of Christianity. Over the years, many groups have traced their lineage to Jesus and claimed to be "True Christianity," despite enormous differences in doctrine and practice with the surviving mainstream Christian group. Some of the first examples of this were Marcionism, Arianism and Pelagianism within the first few centuries after Christ. ''This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".''
--] 00:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:1.4% makes sense. As for the Islam section, I don't see what it wrong with it. All of the movements listed have some relationship with Christianity, yet are not considered Christian by most modern Christians. Islam has clearly built on Christian belief, claims to be the successor to Christianity (or more accurately the original religion of Abraham, Jesus, etc.). In addition, it considers Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah. The section seems to make perfect sense. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You state ''Islam has clearly built on Christian belief, claims to be the successor to Christianity (or more accurately the original religion of Abraham, Jesus, etc.). In addition, it considers Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah.''
Firstly your statement would imply that Islam believes it is a branch of Christianity and secondly if you want to stand by the claim that islam believes itself to be the original religion of Abraham then feel free to insert this claim in the Islam article.

This following statement is simply Islamic marketing: ''This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".'' Should we do the same in the Islam article , should we insert in the Islam article text that Christians believe that there is not path to God but through Jesus? --] 02:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:This is a section about the boundaries of Christianity. A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, is certainly at the boundary of Christianity. If you want to insert the 1.4% that is fine, but please get consensus for the rest. If you revert again you will be in violation of the ] and will no doubt get blocked. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


:: Did we not get consensus on point #1 see Gren 's comment above? I will change the 1.4 % for now , but what is your view on point # 1? No offense, but your comment about blocking me is uncalled for as I have made every reasonable effort to provide reasons for my changes as evidenced by the continuing discussion threads above, furthermore you are abusing your admin privileges by making such comments since you are a party to the reverts yourself.--] 03:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::You reverted all sections to your version, not just those two points; please do not make disingenuous arguments. I don't think the influx of Muslims is relevant, though the part about France becoming agnostic is. As for the comment, I did not state I would block you, but rather warned you about Misplaced Pages's blocking policy so that you were aware of it. Warning you of policy is not an "abuse" of "admin privileges". ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think, Achtung, you are quite off the mark when you think the sentence of Islam is "Islamic marketing". It simply summarises in one sentence the Islamic position towards Jesus. The matter was actually a while back discussed in detail. ] 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===The sentence below should be removed ===
''This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish true God's religion following the corruption of the early church".''

Not only does it does not fit within the context of the section '''The branches and boundaries of Christianity''', it makes some rather arrogant allusions implying that Christianity is not "true God's religion" and is corrupt. The point has been made that some Muslims believe this, which they are entitled to do but if that is the case then it belongs in the Islam article, not here.

As Noam Chomsky so fondly keeps reminding us hypocrisy is the unwillingness to apply the same standard to oneself that one applies to others. Some of the people who have objected to my corrections oddly enough mirror my editorial position when its their own pet Misplaced Pages articles that are in question. You know who you are--] 23:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Achtung, you ''really'' need to brush up your English. The sentence is absolutely clear in that this "true God's religion" is Muhammad's claim and not what Misplaced Pages "thinks". Incidentally it was me who has put the sentence there, I am an evangelical Christian and have little or no time for Muhammad's claims, though I find them curious enough to document them. And yes the sentence fits perfectly well in here as Islam ''does'' claim to be the true form of what the "Prophet Jesus" (and previous "prophets") brought, while current CHristianity is a corrupt form. This claim is not ''qualitative'' different to that of e.g. the J.W.s or the Mormons, in particular with regard to the corruptness of the main stream church and one's own utter and complete correctness. Just the same as those latter two Islam's claim is answered by being counted as "not one of us" among Christians. The interesting thing from this article's point of view is to establish a) that Christianity ''has'' doctrinal limits and boundaries, despite its often diffuse organisation (and doctrinal) form and b) these boundaries are often subjetc of intense debate. Islam has clearly crossed this boundary though Mohammad ''did'' try to establish himself as a prophet in the line of other Judeo-Christian prophets, while Mormons and JWs manage to keep still somewhat a foot in the door. ] 23:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: Yes, I see what you are saying, and this is obviously your belief on the matter but if you want to "document" Mohammad's claims then the perfect place is the Islam page where you will find many similar claims about Islam . The statement as it stands really does not fit in the context of the paragraph that it is in. This, it would seem to me, should be obvious to evangelical Christians of all people and to anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam and Christianity. --] 05:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::As I said above, it is in a section about the boundaries of Christianity. The article certainly doesn't document all of Muhammed/Islam's many beliefs, but it does document the small number that are highly relevant to this section of the article. A religion which adopted many Christian beliefs, including that Jesus was a prophet and messiah, and which claims it is the true religion of Jesus and successor to Christianity (or as it would prefer, predecessor to Christianity, and Judaism, for that matter), is certainly at the boundary of Christianity. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::: I agree with Jayig's and Refdoc's assessment. Further, I have heard a Christian bishop describe Islam as a modern form of Arianism, similar in that both give great honor to Jesus while also denying that Jesus is God. It is certainly at or near the boundaries. ] 04:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Persons / Bodies ==

Unless accompanioed by some discussion here I would think the change from divine ''persons'' to ''bodies'' is vandalism and not a valid edit. I am not aware of ''any'' Christian group/church/sect who believes in a three bodied God, but there is an ongoing "misunderstanding" by Islamic apologists who accuse Christians of polytheism ] 16:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I've fixed it. "Persons" is correct. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I was going to revert to "persons" but I instead I chose "entities" because it less depicted God as human... despite the fact that part of the definition of person is one of the three God heads. I think it's important to not confuse the idea and make people think it's relating to humanity of all parts of the trinity (even if it is the reader's lack of knowledge that leads them to such a conclusion). Also, changing it to bodies I don't think was vandalism... just bad judgment. ] 16:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true form Christian theology POV - people are created in God's image. Our personhood is an image of God's. There is no reason to say the wrong thing only to make it "easier " to understand. Better add an explanation - which there is in the link to ]. And yes, while an "honest mistake" is a possibility wrt bodies, I doubt it. ] 19:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Persons" is the term overwhelmingly used by Christians to describe the three 'parts' of the Trinity. 'Entities' certainly doesn't cut it, because an ''entity'' can be inanimate and non-sentient. ''Bodies'' is wrong (although understandable if 'body' was meant in the sense of ''corporate body'' rather than ''physical body''). But ''body'' carries massively the wrong meaning. ] 14:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It angers me very much when many people accuse Christians of worshipping three gods. I think there is a way to explain the Trinity a lot better to people who are not familiar with the Christian faith. I was watching a program for Hal Lindsey on TBN, he used an example of a human being to describe the Trinity. For example if anybody were to describe a person by saying; that is his arm, that is his leg, that is his head, those are his eyes and ears. This does'nt mean that this person and all of those body parts are different single organisms, they're a part of the same body. The same goes for the Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three spiritual elements of God combined into one.--] 22:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


:Well, to believe in multiple omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent beings doesn't make too much sense... so therefore if you claim anything has those characteristics (which Christianity does) they must be one. ] 23:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rolled back Stevertigo's change of "persons" to "personifications," which really doesn't make sense. "Persons" is the right word because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons; they relate to each other interpersonally, though that's not the best way to say it. "Person" is the English word that trinitarian Christianity has used consistently. Oh and gren, there is a single "Godhead," not three "God heads." Have the people proposing alternatives read the ] article recently? ] 04:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a bit silly when we try here on Misplaced Pages to outperform several ]s and hundreds of years of attempts to get the definition just right by eminent Christian ]s. ''One God in three Persons'' appears to be the universally accepted formulation and should really simply be accepted even if this is hard to grasp a concept. There are whole religions set up to thrive on ]s - e.g. ]-Buddhism, so do please leave us our own ], will you? ] 08:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Completely agree with Wesley and Refdoc. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Nonsense in this page ==
I don't get it , why are you perpetuating such obvious nonsense as Islam is branch of Christianity? The article is about Christianity , keep it on Christianity. If I wrote an article on Pizza I would not expect mini ads throughout the text about hamburgers, I would expect it to be about Pizza. --] 03:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Could'nt agree more! The topic should only be about Christianity, not about Islam or any other non-Christian belief. That small statement about Islam and Muhammad must be removed or at least relocated to an article that's about Islam. By the way, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants (who are the main branches of Christianity) don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe differently from the true Christian belief. So why do we have to include Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as Christian denominations?--] 04:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the "true christian belief?" But, as far as my edit, Mormonism with its 11-12 million adherents hardly constitutes a "major world religion", especially when compared with Islam, with over 1.3 billion. ] 04:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The ''true Christian belief'' is believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he was tortured and crucified for our sins. The Mormons believe that their founder Joseph Smith was a prophet, which goes against Christian teacings, because the Holy Bible teaches us that the Lord Jesus Christ was the last to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament, and nobody comes after Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus, they deny the Trinity which is very important to the Christian faith, in addition they deny that after Jesus was crucified, Jesus was not risen from the dead, they say that Jesus just died a regular death.--] 05:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''Exactly'' Gramaic. Only at the same time those people call themselves the ''true'' Christians, just as many other cults/heresies/schisms etc before them '''and''' as Islam does to to some degree. ''This'' is th whole point of the section. I am really not sure how often this needs to be said. And to my mind there is is absolutely no endorsement of any of these. But the debate who is a ''true'' Christian, including doctrinary statements by churches to delineate the "border" are a long ongoing history and continues until today. So there is more then enough reason to mention the JWs, Islam and Marcionism in one paragraph, to show the continueity of heresy. Formulate things better if youmust, but do not delete information. Thanks! ] 08:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That said, my point was the removal of the very opinionated staement that the Mormon church is a major world religion. Major world religons include Islam, Christianity, Judaism (for reasons other than size), Buddhism, etc. Might as throw up any Christian sect and call it a major religion if it has as many or more adherents than the Church of LDS, or for that matter, why stop at just Islam, break it up into major world religion sects... sunni, shite... that'd be comprable to Mormon. I have no problem with the paragraph, just the propagada that's included.

And, as far as Islam goes, it's no more a "Christian off-shoot" than it is an off-shoot of Judaism, Sabiism, Hanifism or Zoroastrianism.

:It's primarily an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity, and claims to be the "true" version of both. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Mormonism is not a Christian sect. So how could we be throwing Mormons out of Christianity, when they're not even Christians to begin with. As I said in the paragraph above, Mormons refer to their founder Joseph Smith as a prophet, which goes against Christian teachings. They may repect and follow Jesus in their own way, but that does'nt make them Christian. It's just like saying that Muslims are Christians because they believe Jesus to be a great prophet. Mormons and JWs are not Christians, their beliefs and religious practices go against the teachings of the Holy Bible.--] 20:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::They consider themselves to be Christian; so do many others. Please review ]. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would agree changing the bit about major world religion Mormonism is not one, I think there is ample consensus. This doe snot alter though the fact that Mormonism is a big(ish) religion/cult/denomination which claims to be the "better" Christians, while most other Christians will think exactly the opposite - exactly the kind of example we are looking here for. ] 20:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I agree about the major world religion as well. Mormonism is a fairly young sect which is highly concentrated in the United States. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Someone able to suggest a good way to fix the paragraph? I think deletion of the second sentence is the easiest, but the third sentence sort of relies on the second sentence to provide the "divisions" that are its subject. Maybe <i>"Some of these new teachings (such as Marcionism) were quickly suppressed as heresies. Others grew into their own denominations. All of these divisions were accompanied by a great deal of debate, claims of heresy by both sides, and at times, violence. Opinions differ widely as to what defines Christianity, how much variation is permitted within Christianity, and thus, which groups qualify as "Christian." As a result, the boundaries of exactly what comprises "Christianity" remain a subject of great dispute today.</i>"] 02:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No I absolutely do not agree with this suggestion, Cory, the examples are there to put a context to it. No one knows what Marcionism is, but everyone knows Islam and Mormons. I am not sure why on earth this has to be deleted? ] 08:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoever did the latest change, its a step in the right direction. ] 18:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Organizations ==

Since this article is about Christianity, I was thinking that maybe we could include Christian organizations in the article. For example, if we were to make a list of Christian organizations we would include something like the ] and many others. What does everyone think?--] 08:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about the teachings and history of Christianity, but not about American protestant organisations. There is abundant space in other articles for the organisations you want to add. Alternatively you can establishg an article on Christian organisations, or even better- a category - Christian organisatins which tie them altogether. ] 08:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Crusades? ==

I noticed that the Crusades are not mentioned in the prosecution section, when it is one of the most notable instances of prosecution by Christians in history. It seems like a rather strange omission, but I'm not sure where to stick it in. ] 13:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The reason that the Crusades are not mentioned in this article, is because there is a separate article that talks about the historical events that took place during the ]s.--] 18:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:A point often overlooked is that the "Christian" crusaders were actually barbarians with a thin coat of Christianity painted over a foundation of paganism. ] 05:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades are not in the persecution section because the Crusaders were not persecutors, they were religious and humble Christians who left their home in Europe to fight and reclaim the Holy Land from the invading Muslims. So, all these accusations that the Crusaders were persecutors, invaders and murderers are just false claims. The real persecutors were (and still are) the Muslims.--] 21:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The motives of the Crusaders were undoubtedly pure in many cases (even if the notion of "holy war" is a mystery to many of us), and certainly history has been filled with Muslims persecuting Christians, but that still does not excuse the many sins committed by the Church during that era, against Muslims, Jews, and even other Christians. It certainly bears mention in the article as part of Christendom's darker past, for which we must repent. ] 23:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Be very careful when you generalize anonymous poster. Indeed the Christians fought off invaders but there is undisputed evidence that they did just as many atrocities as the Muslims. Anyway, to close out the question, there should at least be a link to the Crusades article as it was an important part of Christian history--] 01:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

== Request for references ==

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the ] policy. Part of that is to make sure articles ]. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Misplaced Pages. The ] has more information. Thank you, and please when a few references have been added to the article. - ] 18:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

:I added some references as per your request. The first is a general history by Justo Gonzales which, I believe, handles all Christian traditions fairly with a real attempt at balance. It is also very readable. The second reference I added was a trilogy of theology books which, again, attempts to honor the ''whole'' Christian tradition while not favoring any one piece of it (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.). My view is that on this page we ought to step carefully and be even more NPOV than usual, so as not to favor any tradition within the Tradition. Hope these work for you (and others). At any rate, it's a start. ] 11:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Great, thanks. The more the better, but that's a great start. - ] 13:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

== the big Christianity infobox ==

Truly, it is an unholy shade of grey. I'd like it white, but I'm sure that change would be reverted instantly. ] 04:14, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

:It was the attempt of one not very competent with html to mimic the Jesus box's color scheme. If you want to add more white or fix it or do lots of things do them... if your changes are disliked then someone will probably complain. Sorry that it's unholy though :( ] 08:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::If you want to support using white instead of the ugly gray in infoboxes please join in the discussion at ] as their are two wikipedians that are trying to force us all to use this gray and the "toccolors" class for all infoboxes and imageboxes. Thx - now back to our regularly scheduled program {{User:Trödel/sig}} 03:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

== The Number of Adherents ==

I was just curious as to how the number jumped to 2.2 billion, when on the Islam page you had links to both the CIA Factbook and US Dept of State showing Christianity (Catholocism and Protestantism) at 1.5 Billion and Islam at 1.48 Billion. If no one responds in a few days, I will change the numbers here and post the sources. ]
:I recall some edits being made a week or so ago and it was changed from 2.1 billion to 2.2 billion. I imagine these figures could be from , in particular this section . I have no idea what the accuracy of these figures are, so I'm just adding this as a comment. --] 06:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Deleted References to Birth Rate ==
I deleted the references to rationlizing that Islam is growing faster than Christianity, due to those countries having a higher birth rate. I do so because one 1) It is bigoted 2) There is no factual evidence to support it. 3) There is not enough evidence to determine what the conversion rate is and 4) In many of those countrys where Islam is supposed to have a higher birth rate, the acutal death rates are equal or even higher than the birth rates.
--]

:I believe the one who stresses that Islam having the reputation that it's the "fastest growing religion in the world" being false information, is the Evangelical minister of the Grace Community Church, Dr. ]. He says, the one who says that Islam is the "fastest growing religion in the world" is just giving false information.--] 19:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::I think we should altogether remove the comparison between population growth and the growth of the Christian population, or at least explain it better if we choose to include the information. Even if Christianity is in decline relative to the total population growth, the text implies that it is because people are converting away from Christianity. This may be so, but if it is, then it should indicate this by comparing the growth of Christianity with the birth and death rates of the Christian population, not the total world population. The reference to Islam is entirely superfluous, does not give enough information to make a meaningful comparison, and does not belong on this page. --(don't yet have user ID)

==Can we archive this page now?==
It's pretty cumbersome for my little modem to handle. :) --] 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It is illogical to say that because you are born in a certain place your religion will be predictable. If you are born in a hospital that does not make you a doctor. Furthermore, even if your logic made any sense, you have failed to consider the entire latin population.

==A whole paragraph on the Mormons!?!?==

I removed the following paragraph:

''"One of the major groups of these churches is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which preaches that the authority and truth that Jesus Christ established during his life were lost after many of his apostles were killed after his death and resurrection. Members of the Church believe that a Restoration of the truth and this authority was necessary and that such a Restoration began when Joseph Smith, Jr., who later founded the church in 1820, saw God and Jesus Christ in a vision. Smith reports that the heavenly beings called him by name and introduced themselves, telling him that he was to join none of the churches then in existance. He was later visited by other heavenly messengers, who gave him the Priesthood, believed not to be a person or group of people but the authority to act in the name of God. He also translated an ancient book of scripture written by religious leaders and followers of Jesus Christ who lived in the Ancient Americas, now known as The Book of Mormon. Members believe the book is a companion book of scripture to the Bible and that both testify of the life, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."''

LDS is not a MAJOR group within Christianity. A major group has hundreds of millions of followers. At 12 million, the qualify for "large" at most. Either way, if they get a paragraph this size, then we'd need the same or larger for the Catholics, the Orthodox/Eastern Christian, etc. according to the following.

Major Denominational Families of Christianity
(This table does not include all Christians. These numbers are estimates, and are here primarily to assist in ranking branches by size, not to provide a definitive count of membership.)
Branch Number of Adherents
Catholic 1,050,000,000
Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000
African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000
Pentecostal 105,000,000
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000
Anglican 73,000,000
Baptist 70,000,000
Methodist 70,000,000
Lutheran 64,000,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000
Adventist 12,000,000
Latter Day Saints 12,500,000
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity

== Is new 'excommunication' section accurate for all of Christianity? ==

My sense is that this description is not quite as universally acknowleded as it suggests. Does this term even merit a section on its own? ] 14:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with ]. It seems to me that this section speaks only of ] (I'm guessing) and perhaps ]. It certainly doesn't speak for ]. I'd be happy to remove it if there are no objections in the next few days. ] 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Looks perfectly correct for Protestant practice to me. It may not be common any longer but I suspect most denominations still have it. ] 19:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::Mine doesn't. ] 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed, just edited to specificy the degree to which applies for each of the major denominations. --] 19:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:But is ] ''so essential'' to Christianity that it bears mention in a relatively brief overview article? For sure, there should be a link to it, but it seems to me that it's a relatively minor point. Of course, I've never been excommunicated. ] 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps you have a different word for the procedure - expelled, anathema, disfellowshiped, shunned but the concept is fairly central. ] 19:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

:The excommunication section looks good to me. Excommunication is not a Catholic act, not an Orthodox act and not even a Protestant act. Excommunication is a Christian act; that is practiced by all Christian branches.--] 22:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for not having the correct formats, etc - me noob. In my defense, please note I am only entering this in the 'talk' page. =P RE: "Excommunication is not a Catholic act, etc, etc." The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they are usually wrong. ;-) Excommunication is not practiced by all Christian faiths. Baptists, for example, do not practice excommunication. Baptists cannot be excommunicated because they were never "communicated" to begin with. Excommunication is the denial of the sacraments of the church, and therefore the denial of access to divine grace (see definition & citation, below). Baptists do not have sacraments, so it is impossible to withhold them. Some Baptist ministers will revoke church membership for individuals they feel are flagrantly offensive in their behavior (lewdness, public drunkenness, etc). However, this is only done in the most extreme of cases (hence the furor over a certain preacher in Waynesville, N.C. who was recently in the news), and it does not prohibit the individual from just going to another Baptist church down the block. Excommunication, however, implies the entire church organization rejects the supplicant from taking holy communion - for example, a Roman Catholic who is excommunicated at Saint Mary's can't just trot down the street to Saint Peter's and act like nothing's wrong. Being excommunicated is a serious and final step, it is never taken lightly, and the message is passed up and down the church hierarchy - he is *out* until he repents or dies (and goes straight to hell for being in the state of excommunication at death). DEFINITION AND CITATION: Excommunication (n) 1: the state of being excommunicated 2: the act of banishing a member of the Church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church; cutting a person off from a religious society Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University. -- Xaa

== Why no mention of satan in the article? ==

A description of satan and the names Christ called him is important in understanding the Christian religion more completely. What is this thing satan that Jesus called the "prince of the world" ?
:The Prince of Darkness is crafty; he has obviously kept the editors of this page from drawing attention to him and his reign on Earth. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

== It appears that Christianity and Judaism came from ]... ==

Well, according to that article anyway. I have just removed:
:Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-] parts of the ] derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the ] which happened shortly after 600 BC. Judaism does not appear to become strictly monotheistic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment is not unambiguously monotheistic. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" seems implictly to accept the existance of other gods.
I am sure that anyone here who believes this should be free to incorporate such stunning conclusions into the relevant article on Judaism and Christianity (though this seems to be the driving force behind the Roots section in the ] article).
Be aware that one contributor doesn't seem to think that this is POV. Anyone here should feel free to balance the text, as I'm positive that this is not what Jewish scholars would say. - ] 03:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Intro==
I have made some tweaks on the intro.
--] 03:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I've largely reverted the changes (and then slightly rewritten it), as ] says "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I think that the previous version (and hopefully the current version) does this better, though it could probably still do with some work. I do agree with you that the link to the disambiguation page is probably unnecessary though. --] 21:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: I beg to differ the Lead section article specifically states :"Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. " You intro is cluttery and awkward and discourages the reader from actually reading it. Reverted.--] 02:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:The problem with your version is that it does not "stand on its own as a concise version of the article". As I said, the previous version still needs some work, but at least it attempt to do this! It disussed what Christians believed and the main branches of the faith. It probably got a bit too detailed, and didn't discuss some of the other sections in the main body of the article, but it was a start. Do you agree that the intro needs to be more detailed than it currently is? If so, perhaps we can work together to produce a decent version (which neither of the versions currently are in my opinion). --] 09:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Actually it does indeed stand on its own as a concise version of the article and furthermore it "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow".Concise does not mean a summary of details , it means expressing much in a few words which is what the simple intro does. No one would bother to get through the intro you suggest which is loaded with complexities and is confusing. The simple intro that I inserted is clear and encourages the reader to read on where they can get further information.--] 12:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid that you appear to have misunderstood what the lead section of a Misplaced Pages article should be. ] finishes with the statement "For the planned paper Misplaced Pages 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone." Obviously this does not apply to your version of the intro, but does apply to the old version (even with its faults). Also, if you have a look at ] you will see that they generally have introductions that are closer in size and style to the old version. Furthermore, one of the frequent objections on ] is that the lead section is not long or detailed enough. --] 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Look, ] is a user editable article , so its standard as a wikipolicy is questionable. Furthermore you and I are interpreting it differently. This last quote you present is a doozy, obviously written in a style which makes a case for not following its example.
::Your version is not clear enough for an intro and it also too confusing because it tries to summarize too many things which would escape the layman's grasp. The intro should be simple and clear for the readers.--] 04:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd welcome other people's comments on this... --] 07:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:My comment: I believe this to be a style question, not a Wiki policy question. Lots of pages have long intros and I think they are just fine. That said, I think the article is pretty good as is. Keeping the beginning short and sweet looks pretty good and keeps it pretty clear.
--] 12:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

==Focus of "External links"==
Is seems to me that the list of external sites at the end of this article should be more focused. For instance, the subsection "Christian sites" includes links that more properly belong under ]. Since this article is about the history, origins, and basic beliefs of Christianity, it seems to me that that same focus should apply to the links. (Sure, there is overlap here with apologetics, but most of the links should apply directly to the subject at hand.) I would also like to see more variety in denominations (Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem to be under-represented). is an obvious addition that would fit within a more focused, more ecumenical scheme. What do you think? --] 13:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. ] 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed too ] 29 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)
::I pruned the links. Now it really needs better representation from protestantism, but how can we achieve that without adding a multiplicity of denominations and churches? --] June 29, 2005 14:32 (UTC)
:::Good pruning. Perhaps you could include only the largest denominations? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 29 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
::::I lean away from including any specific Protestant denominations, lest the list get out of control. (We Protestants are at the disadvantage that there is no central hub like in Catholicism or even Mormonism.) Instead, I added some links that represent coalitions and groups of Christendom, including Protestantism, and broad resources like the CCEL and Schaff-Herzog Encyc. Perhaps a few links for more moderate and liberal groups would be apropos. --] June 30, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
:::I added links to the Nat'l Council of Churches and Churches Uniting in Christ, which are two generally more moderate-to-liberal ] groups; that ought to satisfy that group (to which I officially belong). ] 30 June 2005 16:30 (UTC)

==O really.==
''But neutral and secular scholars and historians ... '' The conceits to which agnosticism can raise itself, continually astonish me. ]] 5 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
:I agree; the "early church" section (at least) needs some editing toward perfection (and NPOV status). The funny thing is that scholars - Christian and otherwise - ''do'' think that there were several voices or perspective in early Christianity; but to use language like "even more divided than present day Christianity" and (as ] cited) "...neutral and secular scholars and historians have stated..." is not only somewhat inaccurate, it also make POV a section that doesn't have to be so! Funny, funny stuff! ] 5 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

:Made the edits. ] 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

==Pointless, POV paragraph under "Early Church"==
I have removed this twice:
:''Most present day Christians are Pauline Christians. They view the early Christian history an an undivided single Church. There are many Christian denominations in the world today with different views of Church history. For the Roman Catholic view see Roman Catholic Church. For Orthodox view see Eastern Orthodox Christianity. For the general protestant view see Protestantism. For a neutral and secular view of early Christian history, see early Christian history as seen by religious liberals & historians.''

I don't think we need to point folks to the other denominational pages, since we do elsewhere in the article. I also question the accuracy of the second sentence (the anonymous user who keeps posting this paragraph hasn't cited any sources). It's simple POV stuff, and I have removed it twice. Anyone else have an opinion? ] 5 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Removed POV paragraph for a third (and, for me, final) time, and also sent a polite message to the anonymous user asking him/her to review POV policies. No response from user. I'll leave the matter in the hands of the community. ] 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

: This "Pauline Christianity" idea seems to be gaining in popularity, even if not in credibility. It is certainly not a perspective shared by many Christians; it is not "neutral", but rather, as it says, a perspective promoted by "religious liberals", agnostics, and secularists. To claim that one of these is "neutral" - something that everyone would agree to as a merely fact-based account - is a cute joke (which regrettably, I don't think all people who say it consider a joke). I think that you are attempting to do the appropriate thing, according the editing guidelines of Misplaced Pages (IMHO). ]] 5 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

:I agree with this removal as well. The paragraph is POV, and unencyclopedic. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 5 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

:: Yes, it's POV. Sounds like the barrage of edits ] managed to swamp the religion articles with a few months ago before being banned. Of course the atheist view isn't automatically the most "neutral." There are still related problems with the ] and related articles. ] 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

=="The vast majority of Christian religions ..."==
This paragraph just sort of strikes me as odd. Would there be objection to replacing this kind of idiosyncratic description of the beliefs of "the vast majority of Christians" with brief verbatim citations from one or more of the summations of Trinitarian faith - say, the ]? ]] 5 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

:I agree the paragraph sounds a bit stilted. Feel free to try a rewrite. Referring to the Nicene Creed would be rather better than referring to the Council of Nicea. - ]

::I agree with you both; go for it. ] 5 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

::: I'm having monster lag and timeouts; I'll try later if someone doesn't beat me to this task. ]] 5 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

:::: That summary given was not that of the Nicene Creed but the form as agreed at the Council of Constantinople (381). It was therefore the latter text concerning the Second Person that I provided, accompanied by the appropriate qualification. The contributor who edited the mention of Constantinople 381 out may have done so because he regards this as nit-picking after so many centuries; but then this claims to be an encyclopedia, and I have therefore restored its mention. ] 9 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

== Questionable history ==
This entire paragraph seems to be full of problems bordering on slander. Here's the paragraph, followed by a partial list of clear problems.

: ''While some contemporary Christians maintain that the early Christian community was a single entity, many scholars and historians have argued that this was probably not the case. The scholars and historians claim that within a generation after the Jesus' death, several notable versions of Christianity emerged. These are the ], the ]/] Christians and ]. Jewish Christians were those Jews and ] converts who observed the ] (including ], animal sacrifices, dietary restrictions and the concept of purity, ], ]) pejoratively called ]. Jesus also seem to have followed these jewish customs. Jewish Christians were centred in Jerusalem, and viewed Jesus not as a divine being, but as a prophet, and were strictly monotheistic, not trinitarians. They were first led by Simon Peter and later James, possibly brother of Jesus. Hellenistic Christians were those who were more influenced by the Greek-speaking world and believed that the central message of Christianity could be re-presented in ways more appropriate for ]. They were led by Paul (who didn't see Jesus during his lifetime and persecuted early Christians, but later was converted and began to preach some original philosophies) and the group adhered to his teachings of atoning sacrifice, a God-man, ] of man and its continuation, Jesus as the one and only universal saviour of man, the nullification of the mosaic laws, and the breaking of the mosaic covenant with the Jews and re-establishment of this covenant with the certain Christian sect led by Paul. In the epistles of Paul there are refutations to Jewish Christian beliefs. Though during his lifetime Peter was a Jewish Christian, some time after his death, he began to be claimed by the Pauline Christians for their own group. The New Testament was mainly the product of the works of early Pauline Christian writers and the books contained within them a wide spectrum of beliefs (see J. Dunn 1977 ''Unity and Diversity in the New Testament''). There are also more than 900 apocryphal works, which were ommitted from the canonical scriptures on charges of lacking apostalic authorship. They relate many different versions of early Christian history from many different perspectives. The Jewish Christian movement ended when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem some time after Jesus' death. The Gnostic forms of Christianity survived until much later, but also disappeared after some time due to persecution. The Pauline branch of Christianity is the Christianity that survives till today. There are many modern writers who have written about early Christian history. Until recently the general church teaching that early Christianity was one church was accepted generally. Islam, at about AD 600, first stated that early Christianity had schism and the original message of Jesus did not survive. But present day authors, seem to accept this idea that early Jewish Christianity was in fact the original monotheistic Christianity that did not survive and was replaced by Pauline Christianity.''

* ''While some contemporary Christians maintain that the early Christian community was a single entity, many scholars and historians have argued that this was probably not the case. The scholars and historians claim that... '' On the contrary, most Christians still believe that there was one "early church" or "New Testament church" not just "some." And the remainder of the paragraph pretends that the vast majority of all scholars and historians alike believe the rest of the claims made, without one supporting citation.
* The next sentence about Paul appears to accept some things from Acts but not others based on speculation; are there any reliable documents regarding the source or originality of Paul's ideas outside of the New Testament? Anything more specific than "900 apocryphal works"?
* Paul's epistles do refute so-called "Jewish Christian" beliefs, but they also claim that he preached the same gospel that James and Peter preached. What other documents support the one side (refutation of Jewish Christian beliefs) but deny that Paul was fully reconciled with the "Jewish Christians" in Jerusalem? Or is this more choosing to believe some parts but not others?
* Apostolic authorship was far from being the only test of canonicity. Some were omitted because they were more personal or more narrowly focused and not for the general building up of the church; some were widely read and approved but simply came too late; others were rejected because they truly were not apostolic, either literally or in the spirit of apostolic teaching. That sentence vastly oversimplifies the process of canonization.
* The destruction of Jerusalem could in no way account for the disappearance of "Jewish Christianity", as both Jews and "Jewish Christians" had significant populations in a number of other major cities, including Antioch and Alexandria.
* Why cite Mohammad's angelic visions as a trustworthy historical source over and above the many early Christian writings that have survived?

At the very least, this paragraph needs to be properly qualified or attributed as the one-sided perspective it is, if not deleted outright. ] 6 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

:I think ] and I were attacking the problem at the same time; at any rate, it's been edited and made more NPOV. ] 6 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

:: Thanks. It looks much improved, and appears to have a greater focus on historical events as they unfolded. ] 6 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

==Islam a branch of Christianity?==

This is a very strange section to me. I have heard of no scholar who has claimed that Islam developed from Christianity or that it developed from a Christian sect. I am going to remove this reference but if someone has an argument for it then please post it here.] 7 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

::I shortened the section to one-sentence saying that some claim that Islam developed from Christianity.] 7 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

::I suggest that we get rid of the section. In Christianity, Jesus is the central figure. However in Islam, Jesus is not the central figure, it's Muhammad. Saying that Islam is a branch of Christianity is a false statement.--] 7 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

:::I agree, but I think the original writer of that paragraph was trying to say that Islam developed out of Christianity, although the way he phrased it he made it sound as if it was similar to the Great Schism (which it definitely was not). I think my shortening of the section is fine for now because it doesn't say that Islam is a branch of Christianity.] 7 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

:::Writing down such an assertion in Saudi Arabia and many other countries would be likely to result in severe punishment as being offensive and worse. --] July 7, 2005 04:45 (UTC)

I say you just remove the section. It lacks veracity and scholarly support. ] 7 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

I did shorten the section. If you feel that it should be removed, then just do it yourself ].] 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

::* Muslims (myself included) emphatically reject this claim. It is a central point of Islamic theology that God selected a series of messengers (prophets), and that this sequence includes figures like Noah, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.

::* The notion that Christianity gave rise to Islam, and inspired it to come into existence, directly contradicts the Islamic belief that the faith extends back to Adam.

::* I'm not suggesting that everyone should accept this belief about the sequence of prophets, of course, but I am saying that contradicting it, on this page, is a little like saying, on ] that "Christians believe in corrupted scriptures, but this is a contentious claim." Clearly POV in my view. ] 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

It has been removed. ] July 7, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

: While I haven't looked at exactly what was removed, isn't it well known that Islam grew out of, or is based on, Judaism and Christianity? At least some branches of Christianity trace their beginnings to Adam as well, but that doesn't mean Christianity developed independently of Judaism. ] 8 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

::*] has it right. You can't say it "grew out of" or "is based on" just because some other religion came first. You also can't make that claim because of Islam's express -- in fact it was founded upon -- rejection of ''all'' Christian beliefs (as expressed in the Necene crede), rejection of the Bible's New Testament, embracing of Mohammed, creation some 600 years after beginning of Christianity, and adoption of an entirely new text (speaking from the historical perspective) in the Koran. --] July 8, 2005 04:05 (UTC)


::Thanks for the revision on the article page, Jim. If I may, re: Noitall's point above.... the point is not that we reject all "Christian beliefs", but rather that we believe events like the formulation of the Nicene creed to have been (technically speaking, and with all respect to present company) deviations from the path. We ''agree'' with many (most!) things attributed to the mouth of Jesus (see ]), but do not accept the surviving Christian scriptures as divine, because Qur'an holds that they are textually unsound. I believe that modern scholarship confirms this Qur'anic teaching, ] but of course this is a controversial matter. My point is that, if Christians and Muslims examine the most important "Christian beliefs" (i.e., the stuff in red in the old-fashioned red-letter Bibles), we will find we agree on far more than we disagree on. Peace, ]

:*No one should take my disagreement on such a "belief" as disagreement here in Wikiland. Thank you for the explanation. --] July 8, 2005 13:03 (UTC)

== compromising previous work (July 7 revert) ==

Several changes were made early July 7 which I reverted. These changes "compromised the previous work." Some were relatively harmless but duplicated information and botched the formatting. Other changes replaced the word "persons" with "beings" in describing the Trinity -- which is plainly incorrect and needed reversion. ] July 7, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

==Excommunication, etc.==
Again, I ask...is this section necessary? Can't we just edit it down to a sentence or two and a link? And is there a way we can combine the "doctrine" and "beliefs" sections? ] 7 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

The "beliefs" section is getting out of hand...no reason for a Protestant vs. Catholic fight. I'd like to edit it and reduce it for clarity and brevity, any ideas, input, or objections? ] 9 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

== ]'s Bad Edits ==
Admittedly, not all of our edits are perfect (and we should admit it when someone improves upon our editing). But ]'s are particularly bad, and he/she is unwilling to listen to reason and provide any justification for his/her edits contrary to Wiki policy. Also, ] has been reported for a 3RR violation, see ]. Here are a few of the reasons these edits are bad:

:1. Christians generally do not consider themselves part of an ] as was extensively discussed on related talk pages.

:2. The part, "as ] in the ] (or ])" is more complex than can be put in this summary and is not the core of Christianity. It is inappropriate for the summary.

:3. There is no "although" in "Although ] are ]". It fundamentally misunderstands Christianity.

:4. The trinity discussion is inappropriate for this summary section, in reality, the whole Nicene Crede is the belief boiled to its essence, not just this.

:5. Bunch of junk writing using "thousands" and "numerous", which is just poor editing.

:6. Switching the relatively new Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy and deleting info - just more bad edits.

Please, someone revert ]'s edits. Thank you.

--] July 8, 2005 07:33 (UTC)

== branches of Christianity ==

I can live with categorizing Anglican as "protestant," but it should be noted that Anglicanism, as a whole, considers itself a "middle way" between Protestantism as such and and Roman Catholicism, and many Anglicans would reject the label of "Protestant" entirely. This should be noted (and will be). However, the Assyrian Church of the East is completely distinct, being neither Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.--] 8 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

: Having been baptized Episcopalian, and in that communion until I was a teen, I understand your perspective and appreciate it. You might try explaining the special case of Anglicanism under "The emergence of national churches" (just a recommendation, take it or leave it)? ]]

: As for the Assyrian church, they are not alone by any means at all, in being gathered under an unfriendly banner this way. All of "Oriental Orthodoxy" is put in the same boat with Chalcedonian Christianity. There are 'schismatic' Catholics, too. Restorationists don't view themselves as Protestants, and similarly some Baptists, Methodists and Quakers do not see themselves as being defined by a protest against anything; they reject the name. However, a glance at ] will give you just a hint of the problem involved in trying to break out all of the exceptions. It cannot be done conveniently; and by attempting to do so, while you win precision, you lose comprehension. The chart of historical relationships also suffers from this defect, but a little more tolerably so because it recognizes that there are at least 2 major divisions, and one important sub-division, that the three branch overview ignores. ]] 8 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

I can live with the following. Hope y'all can too:

A more comprehensive overview would categorize ] and the ] as branches distinct from the ] Christianity of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and ] as a tradition separate from Protestantism, with which it is often placed. Additionally, Anglicanism overall regards itself as being at least as much akin to Roman Catholicism and the two branches of Orthodoxy as to Protestantism. --] 8 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

: Sounds swell. :-) ]] 8 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

== "He was condemned for blasphemy and crucified by the Romans around the year 30". ==

At best this statement is an incompetent conflation of the events related in the Gospel accounts. I previously corrected it; but another contributor took objection and changed it back.
I have now restored my previous correction; and unless someone has a more accurate way of expressing the situation as represented in the Gospel accounts, I expect my version to stay. May I remind the learned contributors to this article of the rivers of blood that have been spilled of millions of people personally uninvolved in the events - including by my parents' generation, hence in living memory - owing to the misinterpretation of the accounts of the trial of Jesus.
] 9 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

== Christiany is based on life and death of Jesus Christ ==

After Jesus' death and resurrection (as described in the ]) Jesus kept teaching and asked his disciples to spread his word. Christianity is based on his death as well since ] represents the partaking of his sacrifice (death in the cross). Belief on him as the ] is justified by his death (as prophesied by ] resurrection (not human nature but divine). JC's death startes the spread of the Church. --] 10:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== Re: portrayals of definite articles ==


There is no need to highlight some particular point of the New Testament's portrayal/account as being more doubtful than others. ]] 17:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== Re: portrayals of definite articles ==


There is no need to highlight some particular point of the New Testament's portrayal/account as being more doubtful than others. To say "account of ... resurrection" is not any less NPOV than "portrayal of a resurrection". Accounts can be false - as some think this one is. Portrayals of (a) crucifixion can be doubted (as some do). It adds clutter to the article to try to make particular doubts stand out, as more important than others. ]] 17:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

*There's quite a difference even between "account of the ... resurrection" and account of ... a resurrection". Article should not take POV that resurrection was an accepted event in history. I think the solution might lie in taking crucifixion & resurrection out of that sentence & putting it in one of its own. --] 18:14, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, Jim. The difference is that, you want to highlight how especially doubtful you or some other people are, that the resurrection ever took place. This is unnecessary - the sentence does not assert that the event took place. It asserts that the New Testament portrays it as having taken place. You are focusing on the resurrection, but the other elements of the account are equally subject to doubt. There is no reason to highlight a favorite item as being more doubtable than the others. ]] 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

*I am far more content with "portrayal" than "account" - that's why I made that change. Other events are also doubtful - but NOT equally as doubtful. The sentence is far too cumbersome though.
*Would a play portray "the assassination of Hitler" or "an assassination of Hitler"? The sentence needs to be broken up. --] 19:16, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

:: ], to say that the resurrection is more doubtful than the circumstances of his birth, the specific features of his teaching, the manner of his trial and crucifixion, or even his mere existance, is nothing more than your opinion and POV. ]] \
:: I have broken up the opening sentence, to make it less cumbersome; and carefully worded it to escape the standard disagreement between Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox. ]] 19:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

:: The revert by ] sits well with me. Hopefully it's satisfactory to others. ]] 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

----
:I removed 'alleged' from this sentence (regarding the New Testament) "on the basis of this alleged testimony". I did this because it's wrong; the New Testament is a testimony (i.e. an account) of Jesus. It may be a true or a false tesimony, but it is still a testimony. ] 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::The alleged belongs; the New Testament is alleged to be the testimony of the disciples. Your current version asserts that the New Testament is their testimony. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it says it's '''a''' testimony. It's like when someone stands up in court and says "that guy did it". That's his testimony. You may not believe him, but its still his testimony. We have the New Testament and that's what it says. It would be reasonable if the sentence read "on the alleged testimony of the apostles.

In fact it would be better to ignore the clause completely and start the sentence with "Christians believe...". ] 20:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I also discover that the introduction makes no mention that Christians believe Jesus to be God. We had this conversation only a month or so ago, and it absolutely deserves to be there. Was there a reason it was taken out? ] 20:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

: I have to agree with Jayjg; not because I agree with that perspective, mind you. The NT documents a testimony. There is disagreement over whether the document is authentic. It is an alleged testimony. Even if it is believed that it is a testimony of the disciples, that testimony may be disbelieved - but what is in question first of all, is whether the New Testament really is their testimony. ]] 21:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== Lead Section ==

What does
:and the earliest preserved teachings of the Christian church supposed to have been founded by his disciples
add to this section? Are there other preserved teachings than those found in the NT that Xty is based on?--] 21:21, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

: Its function is to leave room for several unbelieving perspectives:
# that the Orthodox/Catholic church is NOT the same entity as that church founded by the disciples of Jesus Christ.
# that the Orthodox/Catholic church is the LATE originator of such doctrines as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and even the allegation that the New Testament is an original account (not an invention of late writers, passing themselves off as the disciples).
# that the earliest teachings of the church are LOST, and all that we have left is what the Orthodox/Catholic church has preserved (not destroyed), not really the earliest that existed at one time.

: If it's agreed that these perspectives have no credibility, and don't belong in an encyclopedia, then I most heartily approve of the deletion of that part of the sentence which makes room for them. ]] 21:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

: Because of lag and timeouts I can't tell whether edits are successful or not, even by checking the history. So, multiple identical edits sometimes show up. I am sorry about that. ]] 22:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

:], this sentence has raised objections from you, with which I can sympathize:
::''Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and also the Christ, the Messiah anticipated by the Hebrew Scriptures.''
: The purpose of this sentence is to explain why Christianity is called "christianity", not to boil down the beliefs of Christians to a single doctrine. If you can think of a better, brief way to say this, I would support that. ]] 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

'''Christianity''' is a ] religion developed from ] by the early followers of ], based upon their beliefs about Jesus' life, teachings, death by ], and ] as presented in the ]. Notable in shaping Christian beliefs were ], the Roman Emperor ], ], ... --] 22:23, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

: This does not seem to me to be an improvement, at all. It is a narrow interpretation, and promotes a particular conclusion. ]] 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Which part of the first sentence is narrowing or particular?--] 23:31, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

==ABRAHAMIC RELIGION==
:I don't know how many times the same subject can be rehashed on talk pages, all (as far as I can tell) with non-Christians. Previously, it was with all Muslim editors. Look, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I could not imagine going on other religious pages and questioning the general BELIEFS and interpretations of their religion. This is the CHRISTIAN PAGE. There are many problems with this term, the most important of which is that '''we are a CHRISTIAN religion, ''not'' an ABRAHAMIC religion'''. To the extent that Christians believe in Christ, which seems to be a valid generality, they do not consider themselves an Abrahamic religion. '''There is nothing whatsoever in the Nicene creed that even mentions Abraham or any way of thinking about Abraham'''. That is why my preferrence is to address the topic below, not in the summary. But if it is in the summary, then it must be addressed accurately. --] 23:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea who uses the term or why. Unless you can find some plausible source for your contention that it is non-Christians who use it etc., please stick to the facts we actually know, that the term is sometimes used. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

::*Excuse me ], if you try to understand a religion that you obviously know nothing about, and read and think about the arguments stated on this talk page, then you will realize that a 1700 year old source (the Nicene Crede) is a pretty good generalization of Christianity. Some believe somewhat differently, others believe nothing, but this is a pretty good source. In fact, in Wiki, it does not get much more valid than that. --] 23:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

On the latest absurdity, it '''''is entirely relevant what Christians generally believe, especially on the Christian page'''''. The arguments are getting pretty ridiculous now. --] 23:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:42, 23 January 2008

Main Talk Userboxes Awards Archives Images Email
Welcome!
   
Leave a new message! I will reply and drop a note on your talk page unless I know you'll check back here.
Please be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who you are!
Quick Misplaced Pages Links:

Misplaced Pages:Tutorial Misplaced Pages:Help desk Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Misplaced Pages:Civility
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view List of frequently misused English words Smiley list

Ariel♥Gold - Registered Wikipedian since 2005
“ "Birds sing after a storm; why shouldn't people feel as free to delight in whatever sunlight remains to them? ”
Ariel is: Offline

Thanks to everyone

I'd like to thank everyone who, over the past couple weeks, sent emails or added a note here wishing me well. I am slowly recovering from a rather nasty bout of pneumonia and bronchitis, and will be back slowly, but I appreciate all the well wishes, and thank you all from the bottom of my heart. Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have you back, dearest. :D GlassCobra 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to see your OK :) Tiddly-Tom 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You're both so quick! Thanks :) And hey, Tom, I owe you a giant thanks for all the help I see you've done for Daniella while I was ill. Thank you so very much for keeping a watch here, and for taking care of the issues that cropped up while I was out. I'm so thankful to have such wonderful Wiki-friends as you all, and I hope you know how much I appreciate all of you! Ariel♥Gold 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am so, so, SO glad to see you back here today :) Missed you! - Alison 19:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've only interacted with you a couple of times but missed your great heart here and there and around.Happy you are feeling better.(olive (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC))
Welcome back. --Moonriddengirl 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
{{Hugs}} to you, Alison and Moonriddengirl! I am so glad to hear from you both, what a nice welcome back. Thank you! Ariel♥Gold 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, Kotter.. (old joke) :D SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
YAY! M'lady Ariel doth returneth to us! Hooray! Huzzah! Oh, it's so nice to see you online again!
Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice, Banisher of Sinebot. 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, dear Ariel! We missed you so much! I hope you feel better soon! Love, Kyoko 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ariel, welcome back. Sorry to hear you had pneumonia, I had it 3 years back and I know it completely winds ya! Hope you're feeling better now :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you back! Pneumonia and bronchitis... you don't do things halfway do you? -- Flyguy649 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to be back, even if reduced activity a bit for now. Thank you all, Olive, Fozzie, Dreadstar, Kyoko, Riana, and Flyguy, for the warm wishes, I'm so glad to be able to sit up for a bit, frankly while languishing in bed all day may sound fun, after a few days, it does get old, lol. ~*Hugs for everyone*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm really glad you're back. Sorry to hear that you were really sick. I once was sick for a couple of months a few years back, ii's not fun! :D Leamarie411x2 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello ArielGold, welcome back! I hope your Christmas and New Year were good. Do you like your new shiny rollback button? :) Best wishes. Acalamari 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Acalamari!! Thank you so much, aside from the pneumonia, I guess my holidays were without event, lol. What new button? lol. I don't see anything different! What did I miss while I was sick? Ariel♥Gold 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your illness, I hope you feel better now. With new buttons, admins now have the ability to grant MediaWiki rollback to other users (see my user rights log). The feature is still under discussion (of course), and it was implemented during your break. You were granted rollback by LaraLove a week ago. You should see the blue "rollback" button in page histories, in contributions logs, and in diffs. Acalamari 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh! Well that is interesting. I do recall reading the proposal for that a while back, so great to see it was implemented. Hopefully it works out well! Thank you so much for the well wishes, Acalamari! Ariel♥Gold 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

She's ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!

Ariel, it's so great to see your smiling face around these parts again! Glad to hear you're ok, and happy to have you back! --MikeVitale 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true, I live! ~*Giggle*~ Thanks Mike, great to see you as well! Ariel♥Gold 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you've recovered from illness. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back; we've missed you (as I'm sure you've noticed), even though some of us (*cough* me *cough*) have not explicitly demonstrated it. Wishing you much joy, peace, and health, your most humble servant, Agüeybaná 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Woot! It's so lovely to see you back, but you missed all the drama! :P Either way, glad you're all better. :) Best, Keilana 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So glad to hear you're back among the living. Rocketmaniac (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all :) Keilana, you should be glad I missed that, lol. Thank you for your emails, they cheered me up when I read them! And Squid Guy, always wonderful to hear from you, as well as you, Rocket :) (And a big hug for R, too!) Ariel♥Gold 15:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in a way, I was grateful you were sick, I was afraid you'd have a heart attack. :P Best, Keilana 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you back, dear. — Timotab 17:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

STS-122

Just so you know, before you are doing the same thing tonight. I'm gonna upload some pics of the ECO repair and the feedtrough connectors. And so good to see you online again. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, I hadn't planned on uploading anything tonight, so that is great that you'll be taking care of that! I'm still crossing my fingers for this mission! Ariel♥Gold 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay

Mmm that is all. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I vigorously second the motion! Get well soon. God Bless, Shir-El too 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It is soo good to have you back Ariel, I was so worried... -- Anonymous Dissident 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! Must IRC some time :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! We missed you! Jmlk17 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I missed all of you too! Thank you so much for the warm wishes! I think I went through a bit of WP withdrawal, lol. I was having dreams about editing. Think this is a bad thing? ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Hi Ariel, I saw you on the adopters' page, and that you were willing to give an opinion on space-related issues. I have just added a lead section to the article on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is in a pitiable state. IMHO, of course. I had tried earlier to do something about the Interpretation on the 2001 movie article, but was instantly reverted by two editors for OR and unsourced material. The new paragraphs are more acceptable I hope, but I wonder if you could look at them, and at my justification on the article talk pages. All I really want to say is that Clarke's book really cannot be ignored when seriously interpreting the movie. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wwheaton, unfortunately, I've neither read the book, nor seen the movie, so I'd probably be unable to offer any kind of input. My areas of interest are in Human Spaceflight, not in fiction, I'm sorry to say. The best I can offer is that the issue of original research is a valid one. While you may have interpretations, without reliable sources to verify the interpretations, they become personal opinions, and aren't encyclopedic. The best thing to do is to find books, or reliable news/media articles that discuss various interpretations, and use those as sources to explain the known interpretations that are out there, citing the sources, and not adding anything that may be considered original research, or adding anything that appears to take a "side" in the article. Keep in mind it is not an encyclopedia's function to analyze or offer opinion, but to simply summarize what already has been reported in other sources. I'm sorry I cannot be of more assistance with regards to the article, but I'm sure that there are others on the talk page who would be more than happy to offer their help with the page. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

oh hai!

/me waves @ Ariel Still digging up from all that spam people sent you? :I —Миша13 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza!!!!!! Oh Hai Thar! Thank you so much for the email! It was wonderful to read, and made my day, honestly. ~*Big hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A belated welcome back from me too. I'm so glad to hear you're doing better. *hugs* ~Eliz81 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Eliz :D I missed you! I'm glad to be back too! Ariel♥Gold 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add a completely redundant "Welcome back" to the mix. Expletive, you've even got the lone wolves upbeat. Now that I've started bothering you, though, can I ask for your advice on an issue not related to Misplaced Pages but related to space exploration and weirdness? --Kizor 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kizor! Of course you can ask me, I may not know anything about it though, lol. If it is obscure, might want to include a link so I can read up on it :) And thank you for the welcome back! Ariel♥Gold 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sad article needs your magic touch

I'm sorry to hear that you've been sick!! I hope you're feeling better!!

The article for Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_adams

lists only a few of his books, and those few aren't formatted correctly; when you have time, and are feeling up to it, do you think you could whip this article into shape?

Thanks!! xo

PS: There's a sort of listing of Adams' books at the bottom of this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/Dogbert's_Clues_for_the_Clueless

Should this be included in his article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.171.185 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:'(

I thought you should see this. Keilana| 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More sad news that I hope is reversed. This is not a good thing. Keilana| 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
More sad news. miranda 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hello

Hi Ariel! Long time, I hope all is good with you. We miss you at WP:KIS ℒibrarian2 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Awards

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
You deserve this barnstar because of all the work you've done on my user page (and putting up with all my questions!) Leamarie411x2 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Awww, thank you so much, Leamarie, thanks also goes to Tom, who took care of the requests while I was out sick, and I appreciate that so much. Maybe we can cut this award in half and give half to Tom, hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know, this news brings a big smile to my face. Your endeavors here and participation are exceedingly valuable, and while we all need breaks now and then, I'm glad to see yours was not permanent. I'm so glad you're back! ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see BOTH of you back! Montanabw 07:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! Me too! :) SQL 09:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please?

Keilana would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact ArielGold to accept or decline the nomination. A page will be or has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ArielGold . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I won't create it if you don't want me to, but it's waaay past November. :) Keilana| 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Bring it on already ... :) - Alison 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Go for it! SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You're way past due. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Common :) Tiddly-Tom 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I typed out your nomination hours ago and the page is in preview mode...I'm tempted to hit "save" sometime soon. Keilana| 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Natural admin. --Gp75motorsports 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's do it! :D GlassCobra 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I lost my self-control and hit "save"...please accept dear Ariel! Keilana| 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's time now, Ariel. :-) henrik•talk 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my dear Keilana, and everyone above who offer encouragement, but I'm simply not well enough yet to undertake this, I'm still not on the computer daily, and not strong enough to be able to sit at the computer and answer questions, and keep track of something like this. I'm sorry :( Go ahead and delete it for now, if you would please, I'd rather be at full health during an RfA. I hope you understand. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the RFA would run itself without you needing to worry about it! I mean, who could possibly object? :-) But in all seriousness, I hope you'll be back to full health as soon as possible. I've deleted it for now. *sob* Get well! henrik•talk 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)