Talk:Christianity/Archive 27

Gospel position on Salvation
This is how I want the paragraph on Salvation to read:


 * Many Christians, particularly Protestants, consider salvation through Jesus to be an unearned gift from God through his divine grace, though many other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and Orthodox, see good works as important or even as necessary . Christian denominations have arrived at several explanations as to exactly how salvation is obtained, often including a personal acceptance of Jesus as savior. According to the Gospels, Jesus himself stressed repeatedly as a central teaching that God will deny Salvation to any who refuse to show mercy to their fellow humans. (See Matt 18:35. Matt 6:14. Matt. 5:23. Matt. 25:45 and numerous other verses.)

This is fully appropriate, because this is exactly what the Lord taught specifically on the subject of Salvation. Do I need to quote the sections that contain these verses to make this plain? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to cite secondary sources that validate these claims, instead of citing the gospel accounts directly, otherwise its original research. JPotter 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is problematic here. Because all the teachings cited are in the form of parables it is not possible to be absolutely definitive about their interpretation (if it were there would be no disagreement within Christendom). I don't think the rest of it needs much reference; there shouldn't be much disagreement. DJ Clayworth 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with this text per se -- regarding salvation, these verses support the Catholic dogma of "faith and works," if that's what you trying to convey. LotR 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with DJ Clayworth. It shouldn't be hard to source this, just find a citation that matches the interpretation of the last sentence and it should be fine. JPotter 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me touch on a few of the points: In all, your edits are not neutral or properly referenced. They are inserted to convey one point of view on salvation. The previous version mentioned each view in a neutral way with no advocacy in any form. — Aiden 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The belief in divine grace and a belief in the necessity of works are not mutually exclusive. One can believe For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast and that God will will render to each one according to his deeds simultaneously. No Christian denies that salvation ultimately comes through the gift of Jesus' sacrifice. Thus, your version is misleading as it implies that the two are mutually exclusive. If that were the case, one group of Christians would consider Jesus' sacrifice completely unnecessary.
 * The sentence you keep adding which states that "Jesus himself stressed repeatedly as a central teaching that God will deny Salvation to any who refuse to show mercy to their fellow humans" is nothing more than your interpretation. Each verse you listed as a reference can be interpreted in numerous ways. For example, Matthew 18:35 states, "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses." in reference to the punishment of the servant from the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Does this imply eternal damnation or does it imply some other form of punishment? That is entirely up to interpretation. Did the master of the parable give eternal condemnation to the servant? No. Matthew 6:14 states, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." Again, this says nothing of salvation. Matthew 5:23-24: Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." What insight does this give of salvation? Matthew 25:45: "Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’" Again, no mention of salvation other than via interpretation.


 * I may be off base, but why wouldn't the paragraph begin with stating the majority view and then moving to the Protestant viewpoint? I believe the article has strived to address the majority viewpoint first and then move to minority views.


 * Aiden, thank you for your words above. I think you have spoken wisely.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the above wording does justice to the positions held by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as they agree with Protestants on the "unearned gift" bit - the differences lie somewhere else, namely in the issue whether works are necessary or whether it is "faith alone". My proposal would be:
 * "Most Christians consider salvation through Jesus to be an unearned gift from God through his divine grace . Protestants in particular emphasize this by stating that salvation is by faith alone, whereas many other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and Orthodox, see good works as important or even as necessary . Christian denominations have arrived at several explanations as to exactly how salvation is obtained, often including a personal acceptance of Jesus as savior. According to the Gospels, Jesus himself stressed repeatedly as a central teaching that God will deny Salvation to any who refuse to show mercy to their fellow humans. (See Matt 18:35. Matt 6:14. Matt. 5:23. Matt. 25:45 and numerous other verses.)
 * Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you dispute the "most Christians" part. Well, what do you consider a group encompassing Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Lutherans, Anglicans, various stripes of Reformed - all these consider salvation to be God's unearned gift. IMHO that warrants "most". Str1977 (smile back) 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I most vehemently dispute that all of the above groups you just named have signed on to your "unearned gift" theology. Stop pushing other peoples' doctrines around to be at variance with the Gospel.   Many Christians may believe what you believe, but to say "most" is purely pushing your own POV to make it seem bigger than it is.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Based upon the whole of Scripture, all orthodox Christian denominations agree that Faith is a necessary aspect of salvation. The relevant verses are too numerable to list here. I won't deny that there may be nominal "Christians" who have a mistaken notion that "I'm basically a good person, thus I'm going to heaven even though I don't have faith in God," but such a viewpoint could not come from a serious study of Scripture (nor from elementary logic). LotR 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't misconstrue the argument. No one AFAIK is arguing that Faith is unnecessary.  The argument between Protestants and RC / Orthodox is whether works are also necessary, or is it enough to simply call on the name of the Lord (ie, 'Lord, Lord')..?  You can find one answer in Matt 7:21.  How do you interpret the meaning of this one, wrt Salvation?


 * "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.


 * --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I see — I misunderstood then. But now I don't understand why you would object to Str1977's proposed rendering of this. LotR 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * because "Most" Christians or denominantions, on the basis of Mt 7:21, do NOT consider it an "unearned gift". But maybe you can say "many" believe the unearned gift bit. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (via edit conflict) Codex, I'm not sure what aspect of LotR's wording you disagree with. Would you agree to something to the effect of "most Christians belong to denominations that ascribe to the doctrine that salvation through Jesus is an unearned gift from God through his divine grace." Or is it that you disagree about the commonality of the doctrine? Just from a quick seach, the good old Catholic Encyclopedia states: " [Salvation] begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God." Now, that doesn't specifically connect that grace to Jesus Christ, but that encyclopedia defines "actual grace" as "a supernatural help of God for salutary acts granted in consideration of the merits of Christ." I think at least "Catholic" doctrine would agree with LotR's formulation, or some close variation. As a United Methodist (one of the largest Protestant denominations in the US), I can affirm that our articles of religion falls very much in line the the above formulation (I don't have my Book of Discipline handy, or I'd quote it). Obviously, this does not cover all the groups mentioned, but it does grab a big chunk. Could you please clarify where you disagree? –RHolton ≡ – 17:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Codex, who is in flagrant violation of WP:3RR, continues to revert any attempt to remove his POV commentary from the Salvation section. As several editors have pointed out, the last sentence of the paragraph exists to convey a POV, that Jesus favored one view of salvation over another, and is thus a violation of WP:NPOV. It is also an unsourced intepretation of the verses and is thus a violation of WP:NOR as well. None-the-less, Codex continues to revert any removal of the sentence. — Aiden 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because "Neutrality" doesn't mean removing a pov you don't agree with. It means if you present one significant pov, you have to include the other and not take sides.  I fully understand that certain denominations have chosen to reject the verses I have bolded in the section below.  Reject them if you will, but it's taking it to a whole other level when you won't even allow these verses you have rejected to be mentioned in public.  I will continue posting htese verses that you reject on the talk page for as long as the actual Gospel is unwelcome on the article page.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Providing an interpretation of scripture with the caption "Jesus himself stressed repeatedly as a central teaching that God will deny Salvation to any who refuse to show mercy to their fellow humans" is assuredly a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm not going to get sucked into your theological debate about who is right and who is wrong, so please stop trying. — Aiden 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No "interpretation" is required at all. The Gospels are a source that spek for themselves, and they can be quoted directly with no added comment if you prefer. Just don't exclude the source only because you or someone else rejects it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Allright, Codex, please don't shout.
 * You are mistaking my wording with the Protstant doctrine of sola fide. Catholic and Orthodox Christians certainly don't subscribe to that, but I don't think they would subscribe to Pelagianism either. If the wording "unearned gift" is suboptimal we can work at that.
 * You are certainly wrong in assuming that I hold a view contrary to the gospel - I fully agree with the references you give ... don't forget, I'm a Catholic myself.
 * The point of the whole edit was to distinguish 1) the underlying, gospel-derived position (held by most Christians), 2) the Protestant take, 3) the Catholic/Orthodox approach. I myself of course think that 3 and 1 are one and the same, but that is a matter of POV. It is Protestant controversialist that accuse the Catholic and Orthodox position of making salvation "earned" but that is already a distortion of the actual position. Str1977 (smile back) 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aiden's version. Str1977 (smile back) 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK by me. One minor point: The word "most" is used twice; not sure if this is intentional, but it doesn't read right. LotR 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first "most" is certainly right. As I explained, it encompasses Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist Christians - the second "most" only Catholics and Orthodox - now, Catholics make up roughly 1 Billion Christians but I don't think that's enough for most, given that it is approximately half of Christendom. So I'd prefer "many" in the second spot - it is more vague and the extent is immediately made plain by the mentioning of Catholic and Orthodox. Str1977 (smile back) 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to 'other' as in 'other than Protestant' in the second sentence. If you'd like to change it to 'many' that would be fine as well. — Aiden 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex,
 * I consider it a major step forward that you retained the "most Christians" in your last edit, thereby retaining what large denominations see as a central teaching.
 * I also think that your addition is valid, though the wording is still a bit complicated. But we can improve on that.
 * Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 06:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gospel quotes

 * I am wondering if any of you has even read the Gospel quotes I provided in their full context. They are not all parables, they are straightforward teaching that you are turning your back on and not even allowing this word of Christ to even be mentioned in an article anywhere.

Matt 18:35

"So also will my Heavenly Father do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Your explaining away this one is worthy of Talmudic study. What then will the Heavenly Father to if you do not forgive your brother from your heart? You have some other interpretation? Or do you personally reject this verse, so you won't allow it to be mentioned?

Matt 6:14

What I really meant to write was Matt 6:15, but lets quote both together for context. Note how it is fully consistent with the teaching in the above verse, Matt 18:35

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

This is no parable, but now you are saying that these words are Original Research? Now I've heard everything. Quote them directly if you feel they are liable to be misinterpreted. Or are these quotes we'd rather keep out for some reason?

Matt 5:23-4

So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go, first be reconciled to your brother.

You ask, what insight does this give of salvation?

So is the teaching now that if you ignore this and refuse to be reconciled with your brother, you are still saved anyway?

Matt 25:45

Then he will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not unto me.'

You wrote: "no mention of salvation other than via interpretation"

Did you check the very next verse:

46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

I think this speaks for how that interpretation arose.

Note that only one of these four quotes is from a parable.

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you are providing your interpretation of these verses, something another editor has pointed out is a violation of WP:NOR, in order to convey your point of view. And the first verse is from a parable, the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. — Aiden 19:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually a doctrinal teaching that directly follows a parable, because he speaks of his "Heavenly Father"... But anyway, this isn't my interpretation, it's what the verses say. They can be quoted directly if you prefer.  They speak for themselves.  You are only preventing their valid inclusion because you reject their implications.  Do you have some other interpretation of the significance of these verses, or why do you just brush them off?  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not "brushing off" the verses. I may agree with your interpretation for all you know. But that's neither here nor there; Wikipedia policy does not allow original research or conveying interpretations as fact. — Aiden 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am doing neither. The quotes speak for themselves.  I did not invent these concepts, so its hardly original to me, but thanks for the compliment... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The section is on salvation. There are differences within Christianity as to how salvation is attained. The most fundamental difference I know of is the notorious "faith versus works" issue of old. These Biblical quotes support the Catholic position. Clearly, however, orthodox Christian teaching holds that Faith in Christ is necessary (e.g., John 3:16), and this point seems to be side-stepped in the text as it stands now. LotR 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no, the Orthodox position on John 3:16 "whoseover believeth in him" is that "believeth in him" also implies following his commands (ie = works) and not just lip service. Orthodox position is on the "works" side of that one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note I did not capitalize "orthodox" -- I wasn't referring to Eastern Christianity, but rather "orthodox Christianity." Anyhow, you have just reiterated the Roman Catholic position yet again, which is Faith and Works. LotR 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a Talk page is to dicuss the article, not the subject, so I encourage everyone to refrain from entering Codex's theological debate. You have yet to prove how your additions are not unsourced original research or neutral. They do not belong in the article. The section is not meant to advocate one position over another. — Aiden 20:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. LotR 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand
I saw the link for Sikhism on the Main Page and decided to read it. Needless to say I was quite impressed with how informative it was. I most of all like how it presents the fundamental views of the religion (in terms of how one should live) according to the teachings of Nanat, not simply how Sikhs view Nanat. Coming back to this article, it seems we dwell too much on Christian views of Jesus/God and not enough on the instructions Jesus left for Christians to follow--the teachings that make up the very essence of Christianity. Now, I of course think our sections on God/Jesus, Trinity, Holy Spirit, Salvation, etc. should remain and even revamped, but I think we can draw a lot from how the Sikhism article presents the religion. — Aiden 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be due to a fundamental difference. The essence of Christianity is largely about the person of Jesus, in the view of most of its adherents; it is much more about that than about 'rules for living'. I don't know much about Sikhism but if it emphasises 'rules for living' as the main teachings then I could easily understand that the two articles would be very different. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Central teaching/mercy towards others
Codex, I don't disbelieve in the doctrinals stance regarding mercy which you consistently seek to focus upon. My problem is why focus upon this specific teaching? We have some 36,000 Christian denominations (I read that somewhere, but can't remember the reference) and I suspect that one of the main reasons for their being is a desire to focus on a specific teaching or principle.

I think after reading Aiden's edit above, I would have to strongly support his comment. We should attempt to focus on the teachings of Jesus. My reservation I fear that this effort could easily evolve into disputes on interpretation, value judgements as to what is most important, etc. I think these waters can be navigated as long as we stick to "church" teachings and not personal preferences and judgements. Storm Rider (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have slightly altered the wording, hoping for the addition of a citation. One can hardly dispute the wording of the Gospel, but I am not aware of any Christian church which has actually made this an explicit tenet of faith i.e. something you have to believe, as distinct from something which is simply an accepted part of Christian behaviour (such as praying for other people). Christ also taught lots of other things (such as not fasting ostentatiously) which are accepted by Christian churches, but not taught as a tenet of faith. Myopic Bookworm 13:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Censoring of some major viewpoints is going on here. This is a big problem.
According to some churches, Jesus' teachings in the Gospels stressed repeatedly as a central teaching that God will deny salvation to any who refuse to show mercy to their fellow humans (e.g., Matt. 18:35, Matt. 6:15, Matt. 5:23, Matt. 25:45).

Unfortunately, User:Thumbelina just deleted this again.

You can delete any reference to these verses from Wikipedia, but these verses aren't going to go away. You get the feeling these censors would cut the whole message of Mercy being essential right out of the Gospel if they could. But then there would not be much left in the Gospel, because this is indeed the central theme of Jesus message - that mercy is what God wants. (How many different times did he say "I WANT MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE?") This will have to be disputed, until the views of  the Orthodox Church are not summarily cut out by those parties that pretend Jesus never once talked about Mercy being essential. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the accusations and take note of Assume good faith. Your 'contributions' are probably being reverted because you have yet to provide a reference for your claims other than a few verses which are open to interpretation and several editors have noted do not even explicitly mention salvation, not to mention they exist solely to advocate one POV over another by showing how Jesus 'favored' it. I would also to encourage you to avoid violating WP:3RR in the future. — Aiden 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are my references: Matt. 18:35, Matt. 6:15, Matt. 5:23, Matt. 25:45


 * I, for one, do not have any problem with the inclusion of these Scriptural citations, nor the Revision as of 15:05, 17 August 2006. LotR 16:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is truly saddening that these sources, and the message they clearly state in black and white, have become "persona non grata" on this article. Your church may reject their message, but mine does not. Do I have to come up with sources proving that my Church accepts these verses and their message? It seems that these verses are unwelcome to modern man who wants to be as merciless as he wants, but still claim salvation anyway. That is turning the import of these verses on its head. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I challenge you to explain what these verses mean to you, if you insist that they are not relevant to Salvation. Have you ever even read the Gospel?  I highly recommend you do so, because you do not seem familiar with it.  Pay especial attention to everything CHrist says on the subject of "Mercy".  Like I said, you can blank it out of wikipedia, but it's too late to blank it out of the Gospel.   There a re too many copies! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to Assume Good Faith. But until the position of the Orthodox Churches, which have many millions of adherents around the world, on these verses, is allowed to be mentioned, it's going to be a little difficult to do so. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't going to just go away, because you can manage to suppress the Orthodox view of these verses from wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help if you can show that any one group of churches have a special emphasis on this idea, maybe include something like references to church's saying "We have a super special doctrine on concentrating on forgiving people" and since the adjective "many" is used, show some instance of church's which do not place any special emphasis on it. Also, i've been meaning to ask, how does the first verse back up the premise here? Cus I don't get how it does. Homestarmy 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for voicing a problem I have repeatedly encountered in attempting to contribute to this article. You also did so much more succinctly and objectively (I think) than I have. There are some editors here who are quite capible, but use their knowledge to squelch contributions from viewpoints with which they disagree for either doctrinal or personal reasons. Well-founded additions are often removed instead of being recieved with respect or constructively edited, they just get the axe. Change has been entirely too slow here because of people with static ideas about what Christianity is allowed to be, rather than dynamic ideas about what Christianity can be. Sadly, this is an exact reflection of the Christian movement through history. Diversity is considered destructive because power structures are fearful of any change which might result in a reduction in their power. The mistaken assumption is often made that nuánce breeds weakness instead of strength via the fostering of discussion. Freedom to believe is sacrificed on the altar of internal coherence. We make Arius and Pelagius heretics instead of thanking them for fostering productive debate. Thanks, hopefully your observation will not be ignored. MerricMaker 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, it seems certain contributors have set themselves up with the authority of some kind of Pope or something and determine for all the other Churches what their doctrines are "supposed" to be. The verses speak for themselves, and require no other source.  I guess now I have to find a source proving that all these verses are held canonical by the Orthodox Church. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no issue with this or that church holding a certain doctrine. All I'm looking for is a statement by even one of those churches saying that they do in fact hold that doctrine -- a source proving that that interpretation, not the verses, are held canonical by the Orthodox Church. This isn't any sort of papal authority; it's the same standard applied to any other Wikipedia article. Icewolf34 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What the verses mean to Aiden or any other editor is irrelevant. Find a source which makes the link between those verses and your interpretation, then cite that source. Should be easy enough to do, given those churches and millions of adherents you're referring to. Your own interpretation, or mine for that matter, frankly has no place here. (See NOR).


 * (I happen to agree with you, and would be delighted to see the section back once referenced, but that's neither here nor anywhere else). Good luck! Icewolf34 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I'm on no crusade to 'suppress the Orthodox view'. I find that flattering but laughable. And as I said before, I may agree with Codex's view on salvation, but that is not the issue. The issue is providing Bible verses which are open to intepretation as a primary reference to support the viewpoint that Jesus advocated one Christian denomination over another. My problem with the addition of this paragraph rests solely within the realm of Wikipedia policy, not theology. — Aiden 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Bible verses that are open to interpretation"? Again, they speak for themselves.  Would you be able to point to anyone in the whole Universe who claims these verses have nothing to do with Salvation? Then the burden is on you, to prove that they are "open to interpretation" or that there actually is more than one interpretation in existence.  So far you have failed to show that there even is any other interpretation.  For the Orthodox Church at least, the interpretation of these verses is clear: They mean what they say.  So now you are asking me to dig up a document where the Orthodox Church verifies that the verses mean what they say.  This should not be too hard.  But do you seriously require it to be cited this way sir?  Or is this Gospel Message just not to appear anywhere on wikipedia no matter what, because it conflicts with other agendas, even if I do cite that the Orthodox Church accepts it and has always accepted it? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And neither am I. My concern in this all has always been to avoid a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. I am a Catholic and can only vouch for my church and the wording before I stepped in reflected a certain POV present in Protestant apologetics, claiming that Catholics and the Orthodox do view salvation as to be "earned" and not a "free gift from God" ... or at least, the wording was leaning in that direction. This is why I interfered, changed "many" to "most" and separated the "unnearned gift" passage from the more specific Protestant view. If I misrepresented the Orthodox view I am sorry (though I am not aware that I did) but I certainly voiced the Catholic view truthfully - and Protestants and Catholics together make up "most" Christians.
 * As for the added paragraph my views are exactly that which Aiden voiced above.
 * Finally, I want to reply to Merric Maker: I am sorry to say that but the only thing I have seen here from you is accusing other people of being narrow-minded, not understanding the "dynamics of what Christianity can be", inserting claims that Christianity could do with out a real resurrection, or supporting clear attempts of POV-pusing by a third party. Please desist from that and WP:AGF at least - even if you don't agree with me or others. Disagreements here are no big deal ... the question is how to deal with them. Str1977 (smile back) 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Str1977, I can't speak for Roman Catholics, but "unearned gift" is a total misrepresentation of the Orthodox understanding. If Protestants accuse us of calling it an "earned gift" then I and many Orthodox would admit to this - on the basis of the verses I have mentioned that show that salvation is earned, and contingent on our behavior.  Life is a hard test, not a diploma mill.  We believe some will fail the test (the test is to show mercy)   As far as Bible verses go, I don't know of one verse anywhere in any Bible book whatsoever that supports the "unearned gift" doctrine of many Protestants.  It must come from some other source than the Bible. So to me it looks like you have taken an unbiblical doctrine of "unearned gift" that some Protestants have come up with and using it to paint "most Christians" with that brush. I still feel "Many Christians" would be infinitely more neutral and less pov-pushing of an unorthodox view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not mean to belabor a theological debate here, but my understanding is that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism agree on nearly all tenets of the Faith -- the only acceptions that come to my mind is "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Catholic version of Creed) and the acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome to be supreme pontiff. And it is also my understanding that according to Catholic and Orthodox dogmas, salvation is indeed an unearned gift from God, through Christ. Period. Because of Man's sinful nature, there is nothing anyone can do to "deserve" salvation on his/her own merits. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10) The point of disagreement with Protestant theology is the question of what constitutes saving Faith. Orthodoxy and Catholicism both, to my knowledge, assert that true Faith must include works (James 2:14-19). The passages from Matthew are merely one component of the outward "works" prescribed by Jesus (that we must show mercy to others). LotR 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Case in point, the "official" Roman Catholic position can be taken from the Catechism:
 * 1996 "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life."
 * LotR 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the edits in question can go in, as long as they are attributed to a secondary source which reflects the interpretation, not the primary gospel account. Otherwise, it's original research. Wikipedia policy is crysal clear on this. JPotter 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean the Gospel itself is "Original Research" and unacceptable as a source? Please explain more. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what they might be referring to is the fact that as a text the Bible is so broad that you could really interpret it any way you like. What they seem to want is for you to find the exegete who interprets the passage as you have outlined and cite them. MerricMaker 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heard it argued many times that "you could interpret it any way you like". But I never believed that, I always took it as propaganda on the part of those who are motivated to water down the Bible until it become meaningless.  You say it is a "fact".   Yes there are minor differences over what some verses mean.  But I don't know of any dispute or controversy over what Matt. 18:35, Matt. 6:15, Matt. 5:23, Matt. 25:45 mean. (just for starters, I could list many, many more since it is after all a central message)  Saying "I can't figure out what this means, therefore it means nothing" is a cop out.  These verses mean exactly the same thing in Greek, Latin, or English, or any other language they an be translate into. Matt. 18:35, Matt. 6:15, Matt. 5:23, Matt. 25:45. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Gospels are the primary sources and using them as a source amounts to original research. All you have to do is find a verifiable source that matches what the edit you are attempting to make say, and cite it instead of the primary account. For example, say, "So and so biblical scholar says that in Matt. 18:35, Matt. 6:15, Matt. 5:23, Matt. 25:45, Jesus repeatedly stresses hat God will deny salvation to any who refuse to show mercy to their fellow humans JPotter 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Using the Gospels as a primary source amounts to original research". Would you mind pointing me to this wikipedia policy? Or did you make it up on your own authority?  I have read the OR and CITE pages and must have missed that rule. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Better yet, find some stuff said by the actual church's themselves, since their the one's who fit under the category of "many christians". Homestarmy 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, in all the time you've spent debating the validity of your additions (and reverting any removal of them), you could have easily provided a secondary source which corroborates your claims that certain denominations believe that salvation is earned or deserved, especially if they exist in the number you've claimed. — Aiden 03:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, I think we all agree that the New Testament is a primary source. Here are the specific passages in wikipedia policy that requires citing sources when dealing with primary sources, such as the New Testament:


 * the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources


 * Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. 


 *  It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position


 * You see, without citing a source, particularly when creating analytical and interpretive commentary about Biblical verses which throughout history have been interpreted differently by different people and groups, we have know idea if your analysis is novel or not. Since its been reverted so many times, I'd say that it doesn't fall into the exception to the rule which says that if something is common knowledge or speaks for itself, it doesn't need citing. I wholeheartedly agree with Aiden's sentiments that the time and effort we've spent here could have been used to simply find a source that corroborates the edit. Personally I feel it shouldn't be too hard, but the way you are wording it now is offering analysis of primary literature and has been disputed by other editors. Cheers. We're all just trying to write an encyclopedia here. JPotter 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious, Codex. I request that you refrain editing this page for a short period and reflect upon your actions and attempt to understand what everyone else is saying. It would be merciful.

You refuse to listen or even hear the same advice repeated by a number of people.

You might also consider the fact that the topic is Christianity. I am a Latter-day Saint. As far as Grace and Works go, the Orthodox and the Catholics have a similar if not identical understanding to that of the LDS church. However, if I just started listing scriptures for everything else I believe and say it is self-evident about the truth in which I believe, how long do you think it would take for this entire article to go up in flames? Why are you so resistent to just finding a secondary source?

Mercy was not the first principle of the Gospel taught by Christ, but it is one of His teachings. You have chosen to focus upon it at the expense of all other teachings about salvation. It is not what you are saying that is disagreeable, but how you insist upon saying it. It is not the norm and does not follow WIKI policy. I dislike contention among anyone, but it is worse when it so often occurrs between those who believe. Storm Rider (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not 'chosen to focus upon' this teaching at the expense of anything. I have only asked that it be included with the other teaching, and not excluded. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Storm Rider, presumably Your Majesty's most gracius and merciful ban against my posting to "this article" does not preclude me from posting my thoughts here on the talk page... So, because of this charity you have shown me, I intend to hammer the point that everyone is missing, and that the article is missing, quite a lot every day, with copious quotes, for as long as it takes. There is certainly quite a lot of material to work with in the Gospel and even in the Old Testament, on the NECESSITY of Mercy for Salvation.  I said there were many, many more quotes beside these four, indeed this is the central theme that runs throughout every verse the entire Gospel, and editors of the article Christianity are not only missing it, but refusing to allow the answer given in the Gospel to the age old question "what must I do to get saved" to appear and ensuring that no one here reads the correct answer according to the Gospel.  This disgusts me because it reminds me precisely of another verse:
 * "because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." - Matt. 23:14
 * The Gospel never says that including Mercy is Optional. On the contrary, the text says pointblank numerous times that Mercy is REQUIRED for Salvation.  I don't know on the basis of what verse the answer "Nothing, nothing at all" comes up, it must be a favorite of the merciless, but I would call it Original Research - it's just not in there. I would think this theological point about Mercy being essential that is clearly brought up by the text was significant enough not to be excluded here, whether one believes in Christianity or not.  But since the pack of editors in here refuses to get it, and one has now just officially uninvited me to contribute, I dust my feet on this article.  I will stand proudly by every word I have spoken here, and will not be answering to any one of you.  I will not post to the article again.  I will however post daily to this page - as I say, there are a mass of sources, both Biblical and ecclesatic, for the answer being "Mercy" - yes, it's that important - until the day that this article shows some conscience and does not cut out the main message.  Thanks, Storm Rider - and may God bless you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex,
 * I don't see that Storm banned you from the article ... he rather suggested that you take a breather. No one single editor can ban another. You break the rules you get banned - you play by the rules, you don't.
 * As for your last post it seems that this is becoming more and more a one woman crusade. Let me try to explain the issues again:
 * No one doubt that the quotes can be found in the gospels and I don't think any major denomination rejects them ... at least not openly. And that is where the problem of OR comes into play. You use these quotes on behalf of Orthodoxy but I guess even a die-hard TULIP Calvinist could cite the same words - we both agree that it contradicts his theology but he will find a way (wrong in our opinion) to wiggle around the more obvious interpretation. And this is why simply quoting Scripture isn't enough.
 * As for focusing upon mercy at the expense of anything else, you have indeed done this, saying that "mercy is the test" - that is completely different from your now saying that "mercy is not optional" ... of course it's not optional and no Christian in his right mind would say so (even the aforementioned Calvinist).
 * Finally you are not "uninvited" to this article ... you are invited to contribute to it in a proper way. And note that the talk page is an appendix to an article, covering editing issues. It is not meant as a soap box (as a certain now banned editor considered them to be) and it is not a place for a crusade.
 * Cheers anyway, Str1977 (smile back) 12:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can people dust their feet on articles? :/ Homestarmy 12:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe an easier way to put this is: which churches believe this doctrine? Do they have websites, or magazines? I'm very willing to help you source this claim, I just need to know where to start. (Though it is frustrating that we can't seem to communicate that the Bible is in fact a primary source, eg. subject to interpretation.) For that matter, even some of the "ecclesatic" texts that you've mentioned would be helpful. Honestly, all I've asked for is a sermon, a church's printed doctrine, or anything besides the Bible itself (which, remember, has been used to support anything from the YMCA to the Crusades to the use of child soldiers in Africa). The mere fact that we're having this conversation indicates that there is in fact dispute re: the meaning of the verses you cited.


 * Anyways, I tried doing some Google searches on your behalf, but I didn't find anything satisfactory. Maybe someone can read through www.gracegems.org/25/christian_mercy.htm - 65 and tell me if it's suitable. Icewolf34 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing changes to the article, what could possibly be included in it, and discussing and debating the sources. That is exactly what I am using it for, and will continue to use it for.  I am going to come up with lots and lots of supporting sources every day until the information can appear in the article.  You may accuse me - and I have now been accused twice - of focusing on mercy to the exclusion of all other requirements.  But, I don't want the article to do this.  Everything the article says now can stay in there as far as I am concerned.  I just want the view expressed in the Gospel to also have a place and not be excluded.  I am not for excluding anything, I want a relevant view in the Gospel to be included with the others.  Which view I adopt personally is my own business.  I said this article needs to show some conscience and not cut out the main message.  And that leads me to my first of several supporting sources: (to be continued)
 * "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.  You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel." - Matt. 23:23
 * ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, if you're looking for a Bible fight, I gotta warn ya, some of us can give as well as we get :). (Also, what does tithing have to do with this?)Homestarmy 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not looking for a fight, I am providing my sources as I find them. That is my first source. In this verse, Jesus is condemning the scribes, etc. Why? Because they are trying to exclude justice, mercy and faith. Do you disagree? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you're just trolling, Codex. For every verse your provide in support of your claims that the NT states salvation rests on mercy, I (and others) can provide other more explicit verses which mention only faith as needed for salvation (and any good will, mercy, or morality being the fruit thereof), such as Romans 10:9-10: "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." The point? All beliefs are relative. What you think the Bible says about salvation may be intepretted in many different ways by different people. Thus, a secondary source is required to explain your interpretation, otherwise it is just original research. If you would like us to mention that the Orthodox believe mercy for fellow man earns salvation, provide us with a Church document or some other verifiable means of corroborating your claim. If you do so, I will readd your sentence myself. — Aiden 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. So one view (of those who cry out O Lord O Lord and think that's enough Matt. 7:21) is included, but the view attributed to Christ has to be kept out for alleged "lack of sources". Why not just include both views on equal terms if both can be found in Scripture?  And I haven't even started on the Ecclesaiastical sources yet but they stretch all the way from the Early Fathers to modern times.  I am not trolling, I am quite serious about the deficiency in the content of this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the point of contention is not solely your intepretation of the verses, it is the lack of any source saying "this is what x denomination believes." Provide us with a statement of faith from your denomination concerning its belief on salvation and it would be added that very minute. — Aiden 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that this could all be simplified up in that verse somewhere that says "If I regard sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear", so I would assume that if you don't repent of all your sins, (which would include not forgiving somebody I suppose) then you aren't getting saved. But Codex, what we want is that you say in your version that "Many Christians believe", which is very ambiguous, and leaves the question, is there a "many" who do not, and where are the sources for both of these sides affirming or not affirming the idea that you're really supposed to forgive people? Because if there are no sources for one side even existing, then whaddya know, we can say "Christians believe" instead of "many Christians", which is much nicer in my opinion. Homestarmy 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I don't even know what you are talking about. What verse is that? I can't even follow the sentence about "what we want".  There are plenty of sources for my position but the thing is if I sourced it to one individual, say 'Pastor John Doe' it would be a disservice because it isn't one Pastor, priest or Bishop, it is so commonplace I could list a page full of sources other than the Gospel itself which is a primary source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, I looked it up, it's Psalm 66:18. And im saying is that the version of the paragraph you put in says "many christians believe" Which tells us absolutly nothing about who they are or what trends this might follow, and leaves the reader wondering if only many believe, who are the people who don't believe, and why? You don't need to quote individual people, if as you say it's such an important part of orthodox Christianity, find some link from an orthodox church or two, being specific is the goal. Homestarmy 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I personally do not disagree with your position or the words you are saying (although you have become shrill about it); however, you are not receptive to any counsel, guidance, or direction from anyone else. Understand that these people are all those who strive to follow Jesus Christ. They do not seek to cast rocks before you way, but rather to encourage the best writing possible for this article. I did not "ban" you and you know that I did not. To accuse me falsely is beneath you and does emphasize that a breather would be helpful.

I am sure that several of us are researching the issue to be of aid to your cause. However, I, nor apparently anyone else, have yet to find something that achieves your objective. Do not be hard hearted about this, but take the counsel offered and seek for a source. I will search with you. Storm Rider (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry- I have found some good stuff and will continue to post it here until we can work out how to represent the Orthodox and Eastern Christian view on Salvation, and not misrepresent it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is censorship here! The debate over Christianity being mythology was archived after only three days! Three days! And of course some of the editors describe themselves as Christians on their personal pages. Not once in the entire article on Christianity is the word myth used, the folks here call that a "point of view." No sir, its a fact. Myths can be true or false, but Christianity clearly falls into that category. Wikipedia's definition of a myth seems to be something nobody believes anymore. Michaelh2001 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a sign of POV pushing that POV pushers consider their POV as a simple plain fact so plainly observable that any widespread opposition can only be the result of malice and censorship. Str1977 (smile back) 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

More sources for requirement of mercy for Christians
I Clement:

13:2 for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you. (Lightfoot)

13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you. (Hoole)

A doctrine of the 1st century. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Would this Orthodox website I just found work as a source for Orthodox thought? If not I will keep looking for the kind of thing I think you want. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On reflection of the issue across the spectrum, I would be willing to tone down the insertion to read:


 * "According to the Orthodox Church, showing mercy and love are essential to salvation." with the appropriate cites. Would the other editors object to this much? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add as an additional source St. John Chrysostom's commentary on the parable that ends with Matthew 18:35 (which was cited earlier in this discussion):
 * See then how much thou gainest, bearing meekly the spiteful acts of thine enemies. First and greatest, deliverance from sins; secondly, fortitude and patience; thirdly, mildness and benevolence; for he that knoweth not how to be angry with them that grieve him, much more will he be ready to serve them that love him. Fourthly, to be free from anger continually, to which nothing can be equal. For of him that is free from anger, it is quite clear that he is delivered also from the despondency hence arising, and will not spend his life on vain labors and sorrows. For he that knows not how to hate, neither doth he know how to grieve, but will enjoy pleasure, and ten thousand blessings. So that we punish ourselves by hating others, even as on the other hand we benefit ourselves by loving them.


 * Besides all these things, thou wilt be an object of veneration even to thy very enemies, though they be devils; or rather, thou wilt not so much as have an enemy whilst thou art of such a disposition.


 * But what is greater than all, and first, thou gainest the favor of God. Shouldest thou have sinned, thou wilt obtain pardon; shouldest thou have done what is right, thou wilt obtain a greater confidence. Let us accomplish therefore the hating no one, that God also may love us, that, though we be in debt for ten thousand talents, He may have compassion and pity us.

I think the tension between "mercy is necessary for salvation" and "salvation is a free gift from God" can be resolved by another section of St. John Chrysostom's commentary on the same passage:
 * And He gave us also a baptism of the remission of sins, and a deliverance from vengeance, and an inheritance of a kingdom, and He promised numberless good things on our doing what is right, and stretched forth His hand, and shed abroad His Spirit into our hearts.


 * What then? After so many and such great blessings, what ought to be our disposition; should we indeed, even if each day we died for Him who so loves us, make due recompense, or rather should we repay the smallest portion of the debt? By no means, for moreover even this again is turned to our advantage.

This suggests that salvation is freely given... but if we then fail to show show mercy and forgiveness to our neighbor, it is possible to squander the gift that was given, being as bad off or perhaps worse off had we not been freely forgiven in the first place. Codex Sinaiticus, Storm Rider, does this seem like a fair statement of the Orthodox and Catholic position? Wesley 17:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Well done! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * John Chrysostom's words sing of peace and the joy the gospel of Christ brings to those willing to submit to His will. They shame me for anger felt and worse acted upon in my life.  Is not His forgiveness so freely given the same response that should be mirrored in our personal lives?  Yes, Codex, without our being that mirror we are left in the position of not being forgiven.  To forgive others through knowing mercy from Him is as much a commandment for His disciples; it is an extension of His love and charity that never fails us.  Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.  We might be pressed to highlight the greatest of His teachings and those that are required for salvation.  Let us move forward.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I mentioned it up above, but it bears repeating here -- the Roman Catholic position, which I believe is identical to the Eastern Orthodox position, can be taken from the Catechism:


 * 1996 "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life."


 * Note that it is indeed an unearned gift -- we can do nothing to merit it. Yet, this grace requires us to "respond to his call to become children of God" (our response is manifested in our good works). LotR 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lot, you seem to be under the impression that most Orthodox teachings are simply a carbon copy of Roman Catholic ones, and anything found in a Roman catechism automatically speaks for Orthodox. It is not as simple as that.  The Pope does not set doctrines for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and there are enough Orthodox sources on Salvation to speak for themselves that we don't have to adopt the practice of saying "This doctrine (unearned gift, or fill in the blank) is Roman Catholic, therefore it is also Orthodox."  That would be a severe fallacy.  And Oriental Orthodox doctrine is a whole different ball game entirely yet again.  The statement on the Orthodox / Eastern positions obviously should take the specific Orthodox / Eastern positions into account.  Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose I was (am) under that impression, although I wouldn't phrase it that way (one being a carbon copy of the other, implying the other being original, which is simply not the case). As far as I know, both Churches agree on nearly all articles of faith. Sure, there are notable differences in discipline, liturgy, etc., but I don't know of any differences in doctrine aside from the Filioque clause. I agree, however, that it would be good to provide explicit Orthodox documention to back up your point. LotR 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Filioque clause was only the instigating pretext for the schism IIRC, but there appear to be lots of other differences in emphasis and expression of Christ's commands and teachings... For just one example, some of St. Augustine's philosophies seem to be held in higher regard in the West... But if you want more sources that mercy and love are requirements for the Orthodox congregation, stay tuned - I'm sure I and / or Wesley can come up with plenty more! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * These sources look much better. Good work! Icewolf34 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Epistile of Clement" thing is apocraphyl and the article for it doesn't make it seem like it's very, well, reliable at all, you'll have to be careful how you cite it if you do. Homestarmy 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While not included with 'canonical', it is regardless considered a genuine epistle of Pope Clement by the Churches in question. Some scholars may disagree, but, we're back to the somebody wrote it, if not Clement, then someone else" game.  And whoever wrote it did not claim to be Clement or sign it with any name, but whoever wrote it, the epistle is a first century viewpoint that is still accepted in the Orthodox Churches.  (And if you dispute that it is a first century viewpoint, well then it is a second century viewpoint... it's still there, and the Orthodox Church still uses it as a souce, like they use the writings of any Early Father... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I and II Clement are also in the so called "wide canon" of the oriental Orthodox Church... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Codex Sinaiticus says, I and II Clement do reflect the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. Even the article here concedes that they were widely distributed and read in various churches by the fourth century. No, most churches did not and do not include it in the New Testament, but they were considered "good books", perhaps roughly analogous to a popular teaching book in a modern Protestant book store. (If they were in the NT, we couldn't cite them in this instance now could we?) Wesley 12:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying, be careful how you cite this work, and there does still need to be something from an actual Orthodox church saying "This is part of our canon" or whatever. Homestarmy 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I Clement is considered to be one of the Patristic writings within Catholicism. While they are not part of the canon of Scripture, they are nonetheless held in high esteem and do constitute a reliable source. LotR 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex Sinaiticus provided this link, which is a 2001 quote from Father Thomas Hopko, former Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary and a highly recognized Orthodox author and speaker. He affirms the connection between love and mercy and the final judgment, and asserts that this is based on how various church fathers have interpreted the Gospel of Matthew, among them John Chrysostom. He writes, Church fathers, like SS Augustine, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Simeon the New Theologian, point out that Jesus gave this teaching, upon which our final judgment will be based, not simply because the Lord wants us to consider our actions toward others as if they were actions toward himself. Christ gave this teaching because he has himself literally become hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, wounded, imprisoned, and even crucified and dead, identifying fully with every human being, so that in him all people might be saved. Hopefully that will suffice. If not, I can probably find a couple of lines from the prayers of preparation for Eucharist that may better drive the point home, if taken from an Orthodox prayer book. Wesley \


 * Lotr, if the Roman Catholic catechism teaches that grace, though freely given, may be scorned by us when we refuse to forgive or show mercy to our neighbor and thus lost, then it is in agreement with the Orthodox Church (and I think with most Wesleyan Arminian protestants). I think it probably is, but I'd hate to speak for it. The notion that salvation is so freely given that it can never be lost or rejected is more akin to the eternal security teaching of many Calvinists. Wesley 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wesley, I think that is exactly what the (Roman) Catholic Church teaches, despite the open theological debates between Thomists and Molinists. Str1977 (smile back) 09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, AFAIK this is the Roman Catholic teaching, although the word "scorned" is not typically used, and the refusal to forgive/show mercy is but one of a plethora of sins that could be considered "mortal." From the Cathechism:
 * 2262 "In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill," and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath."
 * LotR 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Business
Before I went off-wiki I'd prepared a revision of part of the article. Those sections still appear unsatisfactory to me, but I don't want to be accused of bringing back ancient artifacts, and the edit war du jour involves one of the parts I revised, so I'm just mentioning it again for now.

User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Beliefs

A.J.A. 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. I really like what you've done. I'll have to read through all of it when I get more time, but I especially like the section on Jesus. I think a lot of what you have should be merged into the article. — Aiden 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Debate about Christianity being mythology
Can someone explain to me why Christianity is not described as mythology on Wikipedia? 1) many things posted on the Christianity page seem to violate Wikipedia's policies on being verifiable. 2) Many things posted on the Christianity page are described as "history" when in fact they are merely the belief in myths. 3) How can stories based on mysticism; for example, a rod being turned into a snake, be described as fact? Michaelh2001 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I may have missed it, but I see no reference in this article to a rod or to a snake. I suspect that this issue is more a reflection of your POV than reality of the article.
 * Christainity is appropriately termed a religion. I noticed your recent edits in the article proper, which were reverted attempted to only describe Christianity as a mythology.  Again, this is a focus of a personal POV.  Describing it as a religion falls fully within the policies of verifiability.
 * Further, within the article it clearly states what is believed by Christians and what is historical fact. In addition, when historical fact is questioned it is stated.
 * As the article is currently written, it meets the general and most important standards of WIKI. One of the most difficult things for all of us as editors is to put aside deeply held opinions and/or beliefs and write/edit from as objective position as possible.  I understand your desire to label all religious thought as mythology, but that does not mean that all religious articles should be soley described from that POV; it is only one of many.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, could you then please explain to me why Zeus and Apollo are described on Wikipedia as coming from mythology? In the article on Apollo, there is a reference to "Etruscan mythology". Should that not read "Etruscan religion"? Please explain to me how belief in Zeus is belief in mythology and belief in Christianity is not. Michaelh2001 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what you want from an encyclopaedia article. Christianity is not classified as a myth, but as a religion, because its present and historical form is that of religious practice, which the article describes.  To use more simple terms, if 2 billion people do not think it is a myth, then the article would be inappropriately describing the event of Christianity to label it as such.  Lostcaesar 10:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a modern day belief in or followers of Zeus or the other gods of that era. I think, could be wrong, it is a dead religion.  I did not disagree with you calling Christianity, from a solely secular viewpoint, a mythology.  I disagreed with your replacement of the term religion with mythology.  It is unnecessary; religion is an adequate term.  Further, for those who consider all religion to be mythology, I am not sure we achieve anything unless we are striving to ensure that no one else looks upon it as anything else but mythology.  That POV is offensive to those who believe.
 * The issue is that WIKI does not endorse a solely secular viewpoint; rather it strives to be neutral. To achieve that neutrality it allows all viewpoints.  Also, this issue has been addressed several times in the past.  I would encourage you to review the archives to gain a better understanding of the evolution of this page and the treatment of the term mythology specifically.  I hope this helps.  Storm Rider (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Christianity per se is not a Mythology.
 * Mythology is the systemized collection of myths.
 * Myths are only a certain aspect of the field of religion and the three monotheistic religions are quite poor in that field. E.g. the creation account in Genesis is pretty straightforward without any chaos monsters slain to build the world out of it. The only myth, strictly speaking, in the Bible I can think of would be the account of the fall, involving the tree of knowledge and the snake.
 * And even for that, all religions encompasses more than mythology - the Greek religion also included a multitude of cultic centres and customs - but what has the survived is the myths involving Zeus or Apollo.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 12:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At this moment in time, there are ~2 billion believers in Christianity. Add another billion if you include the Abrahamic religion of Islam. The number of true believers in Zeus/Apollo/Athena/etc. is so vanishingly small that I cannot imagine that a reliable estimate even exists. LotR 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, LotR, but I don't think size has anything to do with it. Str1977 (smile back) 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythology is not confined to the field of Mount Olympus. There is Buddhist Mythology, Hindu Mythology, Etruscan Mythology and (yes) Christian Mythology. The Bible is not a book of pure history or of rules and regulations, it also contains mythology specific to Christianity. In addition, we find stories which are older than the any one portion of the Bible. There are bits and pieces in there with Babylonian and Assyrian origins. Those pieces are considered mythology if read outside of the Bible, they are also myth if read in the Bible, it's just that many people don't know that or take a "don't confuse me with the facts" viewpoint. Some theologians interpret the whole of the Christian tradition as founded upon myth, we must not dismiss the insight that this provides us. MerricMaker 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The mythic portion of the bible is very very very small - you are confusing myths with lengendary accounts. And please, MerricMaker, don't use that other people are plainly ignorant argument (again). Str1977 (smile back) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, what I'm talking about is that one might interpret the whole of scripture as well as Christianity itself as being founded on myth. I'm referring to the fact that the faith is built on belief and opinion rather than fact, and that this could easily be considered mythological in its foundations. Also, if I was going to suggest that others were ignorant, I would actually use the word ignorant. I was just contributing to the discussion, please stop assuming the worst because of how you choose to read what I say. MerricMaker 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is, the only truly non-ignorant perspective to have on religion is to have a belief and opinions that beliefs and opinions concerning religions are all ignorant? Homestarmy 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, what I am suggesting is that a healthy amount of objectivity about faith (both one's own and that of others) is required when engaged in religious discussion. Further, by saying that, I don't mean to suggest that someone who reads this is deficient in that regard. There is a marked tendency among some when it comes to religious matters to only speak to one's own experience and marginalize the experience of others. That is what monolithic views of anything tend to do. When I contribute, I do so from a tradition, but by doing so, I do not intend to violate the views of any other tradition, merely to say that there is an alternate view of things which has a useful contribution to the overall discussion. MerricMaker 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, if I may be so bold, is it not possible that these "alternate views" people espouse are simply interested in calling Christianity a myth because of it's most popular meaning, (And I use Wikipedia's take on Myth here) rather than the technical one? And, furthermore, considering the technical definition is not the common one, would it not be necessary to define this technical definition outside of the common one, rendering describing Christianity as "mythical" incorrect, since you seem to be concerned about the Bible rather than Christianity itself? Because, you know, Christianity is the religion, the Bible is the book that it is (supposed to) derive itself from, there's a bit of difference. Homestarmy 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference how many people believe a thing. It is still mythology. If there were 2 Christians and 2 billion believers in Zeus the same would be true. Someone said that the creation account in Genesis is pretty straight-forward. Actually it is. It is clearly a myth handed down through the ages. Setting aside for the moment the creation of the rest of the universe, lets look at the creation of humans as described in the book. The god of this mythology created a man. He then took a rib from the man and made the first woman. We are to believe that all of humanity sprang from these two, Adam and Eve. We would not be viable as a species if we all came from two specimens. (I'll keep this simple and not delve into the issue of who the other people are, who appear without explanation) Mythology requires that one set aside rational, scientific reason and "just believe". There are many examples of clear mythology in the bible. Jonah and the whale. Infliction of the plagues upon Egypt. A staff that is turned into a snake (and then eaten by another staff that was turned into a snake). Noah's ark. If these stories were merely written my men to tell tales to other men, then yes the defining of them as "legends" would suffice. But it is taught that they were handed down by a deity, and that makes them myths. Michaelh2001 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael, it is pretty straightforward ... and no myth at all. God spoke and there was is as unmythical as you can get. Unfortunately, you are mistaken about what a myth is, preferring to use it as a bat instead. Neither Jonah nor the ten plagues are myths - they might be legends (Jonah most probably), they might even be inaccurate, but doesn't make them myths. And the staff-snake is no big deal at all but a mere trick used by many people, including Egyptian priests. But the mere existence of a deity doesn't make an account mythical. Str1977 (smile back) 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, hold up, what definition of myth is everyone using here. Because im using the Wikipedia one at Myth which has a popular and technical one, (the popular one not being very quanitative, and the technical one being an uncommon thing to think when one sees the word) and while the Bible might fit inside the technical one since it posits that anything basically involving God or any account of a creation is a "myth" of sorts, Christianity definently does not. As a religion which can be proven to exist, (unless you go all New Age and crazy about it, and even then, Wikipedia wouldn't exist anyway to you as long as you don't look at the page so it wouldn't matter) it is not a mythological construct. After that, you need to name things inside the actual article, as long as you simply say "There are many things which are mythical", then how are either of us supposed to know what you're talking about Michael? Homestarmy 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, you are making my case for me. "Zeus spoke and there was..." "God spoke and there was..." No difference between these statements. As for legends, they are stories meant to tell incredible tales of men. For example, many elements of the life of Jesse James are legend. When deities are involved, they become myths because they are no longer just about men or women. Michaelh2001 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Homestarmy, you are trying to further confuse the issue. Who said Christianity itself is a myth??? Of course there are Christians. It is their beliefs which are myth. Michaelh2001 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but according to said Greek mythology, Zeus did not have the power to speak the universe into existence. LotR 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, Mr 2001.
 * "Zeus spoke and there was" - whom are you quoting? Did Zeus, in the view of the ancient Greeks, create heaven and earth or was he a third generation deity whose lineage goes back to Gaia (which is earth)?
 * And no, your distinction between legend and myth is not accurate. A myth is an account trying to transport a profound truth about the world, nature, man etc., e.g. the myth of Pandora and her box. You have Parmenides explaining something by a myth in the Platonic dialogue of that name. The one story that fits into this box is the account of the fall, unless one takes the tree and the snake and the fruit literally. Just because a deity is involved doesn't make it a myth - or do you consider the Kamikaze storm that prevented the Mongolian invasion of Japan a myth, just because the Japenese ascribed these to gods? Or countless events in Greek and Roman history - are these myths just because the gods provide a resuce? No they are not. They might be legends, embellishing the facts but they are not myths.
 * And even if the Bible or Christianity (which is not the same thing) contained myths (and I granted you one single myth) that doesn't make Christianity or Judaism a mythology.
 * Mythology is the systematic study of a collection of myth. You see, "Bio-logy" is Greek "logos", meaning the structured, reasonable, logic word or speaking, of "bios", which is life. Along the same line we have Geology, Psychology and in the end Mythology, which is the "logos" of the Myth. (That it is an ancient branch of scholarship doesn't change anything). So if Christianity is a mythology and than you call it a science!
 * But Christianity is no science, no scholarly enterprise, but a religion.
 * And finally, could you please try to avoid the inflammatory word "stories". Thanks.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit-conflich with LotR above)

Hang on a minute, I think the definition of myth that we're playing with here is a little narrow. According to the definition refered to here in the wikipedia, "creation" and "myth" are synonomous. The definition assumes that if it doesn't have to do with celestial beings bringing the temporal world into existence, it's not a myth. According to most definitions of myth I know of, particularly those of Joseph Campbell, myth is much broader in its implications. "Myth" does not mean untrue, rather, it means "profoundly true story." That is to say, a story (typically an ancient one, but not always) which depicts truths of human existence in the form of allegory. Based on this definition, Uncle Remus stories are myth, Gilgamesh and Beowulf, Moby Dick is myth, Heart of Darkness is myth. Likewise, religious texts might be a mix of myth, history, literary art, and cultural reflection. I think this discussion would be better served if we moved our ideas of myth away from just the creation stories and more towards the stories which try an express deeper truths about being human. MerricMaker 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely this sort of discussion has come up before somewhere else on wikipedia, what definition of "Myth" does wikipedia use to refer to article subjects? Because there seem to be several. Homestarmy 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's simply hilarious how some people can't accept that Christianity is another form of myth. "But God TOLD us the truth, it cannot be a myth..." Bullshit, all religions are based on myths to further overexaggerate the importance of specific events, like a bastard son supposedly born of a virgin, plagues sent by god himself to punish the Egyptians, an Ark that held every species of animal on earth etc etc. All stories that naive people believe because it makes them feel better about their empty lives. Enjoy your "realistic" lives. Myth.


 * It's simply hilarious how some people have deep-seated urges to rave and foam on Wikipedia talk pages as a way of venting their spleens. Get on with your life, my friend. Slac speak up! 06:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Here I am with the numbers again. Of course, by "some people," you (unsigned) refer to some ~2,000,000,000 persons currently (add another 1,000,000,000 if you include Islam). I have an alternative myth: That The Universe with all Its irrational "laws," always was, is and shall be forevermore, created man and woman, destined for oblivion, in Its own prescribed, meaningless Image. BTW, numbers do count (pardon the pun), as they do provide one argument for the truthfullness (i.e., non-mythological nature) of something. Generally speaking, the more witnesses you have testifying to something, the higher confidence you can place in it. Indeed, this is even how Wikipedia itself operates. In light of this, the statement "All Religions are Mythology," is not only offensive, but it constitutes a minority viewpoint in the extreme. LotR 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "god spoke and there was is as unmythical as you can get" is both contradictory and specious. Contradictory because by its very nature it demonstrates mythology and specious because it sounds good to believers but really means nothing. The bible is a book of myth interlaced with philosophy. Primarily it is believers in it that are offended by that label, but the label fits as surely as it fits so many other books. I was also asked not to use the word "stories", because it is "inflammatory". So the word myth is bad, stories is bad. Well, calling them doctrine represents a POV, not a fact. "Scripture"? A little romantic but OK. (I question who the "scripture" came from though - man or a deity) Michaelh2001 08:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So then what's the problem now? :/ Homestarmy 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no problem. Christianity is a religion and "religion" is the term universally used for something like Christianity. Which settles the matter, even if we disagree about the definition of myth, mythology, the truthfulness of Christianity or whatever. Str1977 (smile back) 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a problem. Yes, its a religion. But its also mythology. At no point is the word mythology even used in the article. To correctly understand this topic, one must understand its founding in mythology. And the topic should not be "archived" by a certain Christian editor after only three days of discussion. Michaelh2001 06:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. So what is the solution? What edit do you propose to fix this situation that you describe as a problem? Slac speak up! 06:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT Str1977 (smile back) 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No matter what subtle tricks you employ to redefine the words "myth" and "mythology" from what they have always popularly meant, the fact remains that they are polemic words, when used against the firm beliefs of 2 bn people. They are weasel words.  They are not neutral words.  They are pushing a pov that should have no place here.  They should only be used with the utmost caution where they will give no offense.  It hasn't been forgotten yet that the Marxist Soviet Empire fell in ignominious ruin mainly because they attempted to force everyone to agree that Christianity was mythology, and the very same people are at it now, trying to bring down wikipedia in exactly the same way.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Michaelh2001, the article does mention the idea that Jesus is only a mythical figure with a link to the Jesus as myth article. At the bottom, there is also a link to Christian mythology. Just in case you missed them. To suggest that Christianity can only be understood by understanding its founding in mythology, is one POV that should not become the only POV of the article. Most scholars study and describe it as a religion, so that's the proper thing to focus on here. Wesley 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)