Talk:Christianity/Archive 29

Divisions of Christian Thought
As I was reading the article, I noticed that Anabaptists are shown to be a Protestant group. Though, technically this may be true (they protested against the Catholic church), traditionally they have been considered a third way, neither in line with Catholic thought or the other protestant groups of the time such as the Lutherans. There are Anabaptist groups that still consider themselves a third way, such as The Meeting House. There are many distinguishing characteristics about the Anabaptists which seperate them from the other Protestant faiths that warrant them to be grouped seperately, such as their emphasis on community, simplicity of living, seperation of church and state, and active pacifism. 142.167.181.23 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

NonTrinitarians
Today I deleted polemic language from the Non-Trinitarian section. The entire article speaks of Trinity and Trinitarians; a full 19 times. It would be hard for anyone to read this article and not get the sole impression that the Trinity is the concept of Christianity. My edit read as follows:
 * The earliest non-Trinitarian belief claiming descent from Jesus was Gnosticism, which generally held that the God of the Old Testament was a lower, evil god, while Jesus was an emissary from the higher good god.
 * Other ancient examples of Trinitarianism include the Ebionites, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Modern examples include Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarianism.

A.J.A. reverted to the old language which is as follows:
 * The earliest non-Trinitarian belief claiming descent from Jesus was Gnosticism, which generally held that the God of the Old Testament was a lower, evil god, while Jesus was an emissary from the higher good god.
 * Some non-Trinitarians condemn Trinitarian doctrine as an implicit tritheism, though Trinitarians have explicitly denied holding such a view of God and Trinitarian statements of faith from all traditions affirm that there is only one God (e.g., the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Chalcedonian Creed; the Protestant confessions; catechisms of both Protestant and Catholic origin).
 * Ancient examples of this kind of non-Trinitarianism include the Ebionites, Sabellianism, and Arianism, and modern examples include Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarianism.

Could someone please tell me why it is necessary to immediately follow up a rebuttal to simple statements of fact? NOT EVERY CHRISTIAN IS TRINITARIAN and it is okay; the world will still go on! It seems like with my edit we have a more balanced approach. I do understand that a contrary position is inflammatory for the zealots among us; heck, I guess all of us can be a bit zealous at times. Regardless I find the current position to be unbalanced, POV, and silly. If it stays then I assume that non-Trinitarians would then have to add a plethora of evidence as to why Trinitarianism is false; wouldn't that be a stupid thing to do. Edit wars are so silly!

It is times like these that I can understand why John Lennon would write the song Imagine and why so many others sing it with such conviction. They just want peace, a surcease to strife and conflict and a tolerance for others. There is not a doubt in my mind that if Jesus was to return today, we would still want to crucify him. I am really tired of such small-minded, fanatical zealots. It has not been a good day and I need to get off my soap box; I apologize in advance if I offended anyone, particularly A.J.A. I realize you are just doing what you think is best. Could someone please assist in editing the section by removing polemic language and just stating facts? We are not here to ‘’prove’’ anything, just write an encyclopedic article. Thanks. Storm Rider (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from misrepresenting your actions. Your edit actually read:


 * The earliest non-Trinitarian belief claiming descent from Jesus was Gnosticism, which generally held that the God of the Old Testament was a lower, evil god, while Jesus was an emissary from the higher good god.[14] Some non-Trinitarians condemn Trinitarian doctrine as an implicit tritheism.


 * Other ancient examples of Trinitarianism include the Ebionites, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Modern examples include Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarianism.


 * Emphasis added.


 * The version you falsely presented above would be acceptable. A.J.A. 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did make an error and omitted the statement: Some non-Trinitarians condemn Trinitarian doctrine as an implicit tritheism.  That statement should be included because it states why some nonTrinitarians disagree with Trinitarians, which is logical.  The section is more than brief and does not provide the myriad of reasons why some disagree with Trinitarian doctrine.  Given the rather lengthy explanation of Trinitariansism, don't you think even more information to the contrary is warranted?  Storm Rider (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What, your cut-and-paste selectively dropped a line? A.J.A. 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem interested in how I made an error...I pulled up the compare screed and then copied off of the left had side for may edit and then the right hand side for your edit. I don't know how I missed the sentence because I think it needs to be in the edit.  Since I have admitted the error, let's move on.  The question on the table is, don't you think even more information to the contrary is warranted?
 * I understand it is fun to verbally joust and accuse others of shortcomings and premeditated evil, but let's just put it aside for now. If you wish, we can go to our personal pages and fling verbal stones at one another; it would be great fun...about as much fun as having another root canal.  Focus AJA on how to make the article better.  Storm Rider (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Initially you omit it in a still-suspicious "error", but now it comes out you want even more? How about none? A.J.A. 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW: "Other ancient examples of Trinitarianism include the Ebionites..." That's not the end of a paragraph. What's up with dropping the "non-" then? A.J.A. 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think AJA's version is most NPOV. — Aiden 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aiden, do you think the way the article now reads meets the standards of NPOV and being a balanced article? I would also appreciate hearing comments from others.  Thanks.  Storm Rider (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have come to believe the best way is to remove all the pro and con style arguments. I was already planning to handle the Reformation that way when I got to it -- that is, just say what happened, not the reasons people give why it was a good or a bad thing. The fact that Protestantism exists is not in itself pro-Protestant and does not need to be "balanced" with all the reasons people have for criticizing Protestantism, and neither does the existence of Trinitarianism. Rather, including a criticism is the unbalance and creates a need for arguments in favor. But the whole thing almost always becomes a mess of bad writing, is a provocation for people to add their own half-baked arguments, and doesn't serve the reader's need for information so much as the editor's need for self-gratification. A.J.A. 11:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent points and I agree with you. It might be helpful to briefly explain the beliefs of those groups who are not Trinitiarian.  The current paragraph introduces the odd beliefs of the gnostics, but does not address the others.  In doing so, I think it unfairly paints the beliefs of the other groups, which are not so different.  Some are strict modalists, etc.  Regardless, I think the points should be brief.  Storm Rider (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Cross Figure
Would it be more appropriate to use the Christian Fish sign as opposed to a black cross? Colonel Marksman 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd need to discuss that on Template:Christianity. Homestarmy 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of concepts
A table should be created to show the origins of various ideas presented in the bible, such as creator of universe, omnipotent god, trinity, 7 days in a week, incarnation... etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholor (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 September 2006.


 * Scholor, please read this section of this page, where objections to your edits are clearly stated. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes  (~) ; they will automatically expand into your signature and the date, making it easier for others to follow the talk page. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Those objections are clearly nonsense. --Scholor 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that these proposals are unsourced, I don’t see the relevance. Lostcaesar 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Scholor, nonsense were not my objections but most of what you wrote. I will not repeat my comments here again and focus on the "new" items. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Creator of universe
found in Atenism before 1962 BCE
 * Found in common sense probably a lot sooner, can't have a creation without a creator. Homestarmy 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Then could you tell me who created the creator? Bachila 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See, this is why people would save themselves a whole bunch of time if they read the Bible before trying to get all sneaky with philosophy, nobody created the creator, He has existed for all eternity, otherwise you have an infinite chain of causes causing each other, which doesn't make any sense if they all have to be finite. Homestarmy 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnipotent god
found in Atenism before 1962 BCE.
 * Creator of everything probably doesn't require a huge leap in logic to figure that He probably knows everything about what He created. Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that Aten in Atenism is mother of the different omnipotent gods. -- Bachila 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trinity
found in Hinduism before 3102 BCE.
 * Not the same as Christianity's trinity at all, other religions can organize their concepts of deity any way they please, of course one of them might hit on a concept which might bear an abstract resemblance to Christianity Homestarmy 13:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Scholor: Where on Earth are you getting these exact dates from? I cannot imagine that such dates (e.g., 3102 BC) could have been determined with a precision of 1 year.  Oh, and BTW, the Triune God is a uniquely Christian concept that is, to this day, difficult to comprehend and is outright rejected by the other monotheistic belief systems (Judaism and Islam). LotR 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

7 days in a week
found in old Babylon before 1900 BCE
 * Most likely had the story handed down as their society got farther away from Adam and Eve geneologically Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Incarnation
found in Egyptian religions and Hinduism before 3102 BCE.
 * "Incarnation"? Is this supposed to be reincarnation? Because that's not the same as "incarnation". Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Healing blindness with spittle
found in godman Vespatian
 * So would it appease you if Jesus had just punched the guy's lights out or something, and then he could of awoke while not being blind? Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely nonsense in the wording. The "godman vespatian" (I guess you mean the Emperor Vespasian?) is actually no godman at all but a man, Roman, soldier, general, Emperor. Romans held that an Emperor, once deceased would become a god (not the God!). Vespasian didn't think this way and made fun of the idea. However, no one thought of him as a god (or the God) in his lifetime. Additionally, Vespasian (prominent since 67 AD) chronologically comes after Jesus (crucified 30 AD). Also, miraculous healings are nothing new - you can find a couple of these in the Old Testament - and nothing so spectacular - unlees you categorically deny miracles - that it needs special sourcing of the idea. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is not nonsense, the idea of healing blindness WITH SPITTLE was not common at all, and it's mentioned in Tacitus and in the bible (John 9:6). Could someone show me the recipe to perform this miracle? Bachila 19:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Turning water to wine
found in Thracian god of wine called Dionysus
 * Also found in common sense, wine was pretty much the most sanitary drink in all of, well, everywhere during this time period. Homestarmy 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dionysus is a deity, as you say: the god of wine - hence it is his job to do this. If a man does it, it is quite another matter. In the end, it is just another miracle, this time involving nourishment, for which again you can turn to Elijah. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just a joke! Nowadays, I don't think people would believe this kind of unrealistic thing. --Bachila 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sytle Cleanup
Some basic style changes, I removed articles from titles; I made the lead for beliefs a little more technical, for the section on salvation I cleaned up the association between justification and salvation to show the appropriate subtlety; I kept the structure of subparagraphs that of the main groupings within the "divisions" section, i.e. I went Catholic - Reformed rather than the other way around for stylistic consistency; the creed was missing a line (through whom all things were made) and had odd links which were removed or cleared up (passion is disambiguous, for example). Lostcaesar 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Positioning of section on the Creed
I am of the mindset that we should put the creed first in the section on beliefs, since that provides a clear statement of beliefs and its order can be used to frame the remainder of the section. It has the advantage of naming the beliefs, then explaining them; which should be sytlistically fruitful I think. Lostcaesar 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Sytle"
Lostcaesar, you have a habit of unilaterally rewriting articles under the guise of merely "cleaning up" the "sytle" (sic). Please stop. You're obviously moving in the direction of destroying the intuitive and logical topical organization in favor of the necessarily sloppy denominational organization you advocated above. There was and is no consensus for the changed and I for one strongly object. Your organization is downright perverse in its refusal to be informative to the reader. Remember, we have readers who don't already know all the stuff in the article. So suppose a person from a country with few or no Christians wants to find out what Christians believe. Why should he have to wade through four sections? Actually, four is optimistic; after all, "Protestants" and "Others" are themselves hugely diverse, so by your stated principles we need separate sections for Lutherans, Baptists etc., which for length reasons will be uninformative stubs (but each stub will say nothing about something very specific, thus "providing clarity"). So the reader trying to cure his state of ignorance would be left to guess which Catholic doctrines carry over to which other denominations, unless the article tediously repeats over and over:

"Lutherans also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Orthodox also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Presbyterians also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Mennonites also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Seventh-Day Adventists also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Baptists also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Methodists also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Anglicans also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

"Amish also believe X, Y, and Z, just like Catholics..."

And that's scattered throughout mounds of other text.

No: just state the common doctrine, state the few exceptions, and we're done. All in one place.

The same applies to history and worship.

For compartive purposes: Islam describes Islam, not the Sunni, then the Shi'a, then the Sufi. That includes a section on the divisions within Islam, but that's just one section, like in the article, and the rest of the material is divided topically. Judaism is similar. Also Buddhism. Why should Christianity be uniquely unreadable?

Where you wish to put the section on the Creeds is exactly the wrong place: a reader in a state of ignorance is immediately confronted by a quick statement of foreign concepts without any real context provided by the article itself. In my ordering, there has already been a discussion of Jesus, and the Creeds are placed in the context of Trinitarian doctrines (which reflects their historical context), so the reader has some preparation for them. This is more important than satisfying your personal desire to classify everything by organization.

You have also formatted the Creed wrong, making it a big blob of almost unreadable small text rather than breaking it up into readable lines. It is almost as if you are specifically trying to prevent the reader from learning. Also it makes no sense for "Non-Trinitarians" to be a subsection of "Creeds". A.J.A. 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you discussing my edits? I could use examples of what you are accusing me of.  I did not go through and use the chopped up denominational format that you seem to think I have.  The only thing I did in relation to this is (1) when this already appeared in the article, I kept the order consistent (I think I moved text twice in this regard), and (2) I stated in one sentence that certain denominations were in agreement concerning some basic points, an idea already expressed more vaguely in the same section, and something antithetical to what you seem to think that I did.  You haven’t really talked about the changes I made: I formatted titles correctly, fixed some links, cleaned up some prose, this sort of thing.  I don’t see how my actions were unilateral.  There was a post here (not by me) that specifically asked for some of these corrections.  Also, I posted some points which received no objection; I specifically decided not to use the denominational structure any more than the article already had it since there was no support for this notion.  The creed, which I first moved, I returned to its original position after your revert.  You have not addressed the fact that the creed in use was missing a line, and has inappropriate links; I will not use the blockquote format since it bothers you, even though it seems stylistically better (especially since the article contains a warning that it is too long).  Honestly, this commentary of yours doesn’t make any sense to me, and I find it hard to believe that it has anything at all to do with my changes, what you have mentioned is a mischaracterisation of the cleanup.  Lostcaesar 08:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just stop.


 * You complain about a disambiguation page, but the page you linked instead was itself little more than a disambiguation page. Please note that merely being different from your preferences is not "inappropriate".


 * You made the prose worse.


 * You made the intro inaccurate. There are common features of all mainstream Christianity (most notably the New Testament canon), that aren't mentioned in the creeds.


 * The Creed needs to be in stansas for readability.


 * Your edits read like preparations to rename the whole section "Catholicism" or "Catholicism and Orthodoxy" in line with your so-called peer-review (it's not, BTW). A.J.A. 15:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I went through and did each change step by step so you can examine them carefully and revert only what changes truely bother you. The Creed has remained in stansa form, though I did remove the breaks.  The peer review was not mine, I was merely trying to follow someone else (for example, by changing the title to "Creeds" instead of "The Creed").  What specifically did I change to "rename the whole section "Catholicism" or "Catholicism and Orthodoxy""? Could you be specific here? Lostcaesar 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like how you mischaracterize my objection, then ask for me to "be specific" in repeating what I didn't say in the first place. Also, the latest round of changes is not identical to the last round, or at least the final result is when compared to the previous version (I have no inclination to check each individual diff). A.J.A. 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To-Do list
Up there it says in the to-do list "Christianity is not a religion. It's a branch of religions", is that serious or just some random comment someone sneaked in? Homestarmy 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * An IP hath done this. A.J.A. 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More specifically 58.107.116.235. I reverted.
 * BTW, since this article is a candidate for WP:AID, shouldn't we pull ourselved together and hash out a better "to do" list? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Gio's external link
I'd look at it, except our firewall at school blocked it for "Gay and Lesbian issues". Anyone want to take a look at it for me? Because even though our firewall can be pretty weird sometimes and lump sites in the wrong categories, that sounds like it could be a really lousy external link. Homestarmy 12:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The link is included before. It is basically an essay based on various fringe theories about Christianity, lumping them all together and presenting them as "findings of scholarship". Back in the day it was a hard battle to even word the link in a NPOV fashion. Who removed and and why I cannot tell. Str1977 (smile back) 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So is it basically presenting assumptions that are false about scholarship? Homestarmy 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been scholars that held these views, but the essay portrays the fringe as the mainstream. BTW, I have now realised that Gio was mistaken when he thougt the link was removed. It wasn't removed at all, but was placed under further reading. I have deleted one of the links, since even the best articles (and this isn't one) is linked to only once. Str1977 (smile back) 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Christian Theology definition please
Could someone please offer a working definition of this term in the context which it is used within the article? Thank you, Lostcaesar 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

These theological propositions (for Christianity is more than just theology) that are held by the great majority of Christians and Christian denominations both now and in the past. Str1977 (smile back) 08:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good definition. Do you think it might be helpful to incorporate that in the article the first time the term is employed?  (I mentioned theology because its first use is in that context).Lostcaesar 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought my definition rather a tautology, as that is what a mainstream is.
 * PS. I have made some tweaks to you recent edits:
 * We can savely say that the Hebrew Bible is the Old Testament, nothwithstanding the Deuterocanonicals. This is a debate about the extent of the OT, not about its substantial make-up.
 * The passage introducing the Creed's text and explaining the Filioque was possibly objectionable to Eastern Orthodox, as it implies that the full text includes the Filioque. Also, IMHO the simpler structure is better: the sentence introduces the text while giving a caveat in regard to one phrase.
 * Several links within the Creed where misplaced or highly questionable: to link "maker" to "Creationism" pushes either the creationist or an "atheist" POV. "Consubstantiality" should be placed where it is stated in the creed.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 08:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the link Creationism, indeed I tried to take it out by changing it to "ex nihilo", but this was revereted regularly so I decided to avoid it. I did not add the word "full" either, that was already there. So those are not my changes. I don't think it proper to treat the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament a synonyms when (1) they are not and (2) a slight nuisance of wording can express this, but I will try and better understand this position.Lostcaesar 08:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S., it is not a tautology because it clarifies “now and in the past”, whereas mainstream can easily be interpreted as “majority now” without considering the past. Lostcaesar 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Caesar,
 * sorry if I implied that these were your changes. In fact, I started with some of your changes and then proceeded to edits that have nothing to do with you.
 * re the tautology: "now and in the past" is important, as you say, as we cannot, as some unfortunately do, posthumously deprive previous generations of their religion by redifining Christianity (not to speak about issues like God and truth). However, strictly speaking in encyclopedia term, the "now" has the primacy, as we are covering phenomena that exist now (or if they don't exist anymore, we address relics or reports of them) - I repeatedly had to state this in regard to the history section. Like it or hate it, we have to proceed from the presence and look backwards.
 * Now, apart from this theoretical excursion, I don't know how you would want to include the definition into the text and what other would say (and remember, I drew the definition out of my common sensical hat, hence someone might shout: OR! Str1977 (smile back) 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input as always. I don't know how to include it either.  I am just looking for some percise way to say what mainstream Christianity is; maybe it is a detail best just avoided.  Lostcaesar 09:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Shield of Trinity image in "Creeds" section
I'm not completely convinced that the Shield of the Trinity diagram is significant enough to include in this article (and I say this as the main author of the Shield of the Trinity article) -- but if it is included, there ought to be some minimal context and a link to its article (which I've provided). Also, you might want to consider using the translated English version (instead of the original Latin). AnonMoos 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A removing all External Links of other POV's
A.J.A has removed several long-standing external links. This has caused some edit warring. He has not bothered to come here, despite my asking him to, in order to argue the case and gain consensus for his removals. I noted that these links have been here for many months, some close to a year, and my link about 6 months. The basis for his removal of the links, he has explained as "removing garbage." Its clear he doesn't like the POV it expresses, but to say that any POV that he disagrees with is rubbish, worthless, is the height of arrogance and egocentrism. It has no place on Wikipedia. I demand that he explain why he feels he is justified in removing all the long-standing links that he doesn't agree with. The others being, "A Cathar Interpretation of Christianity," "A Gnostic view of Christian teachings," and "The Rosicrucian Interpretation of Christianity.", The link I originally contributed solved an edit war over 6 months ago, and which presents a scholarly secular POV. He has removed all external links which provide different POV's (one of the purposes of an external links section).

To review, the edit war that produced my secular link as a compromise over 6 months ago, stemmed from this link:. Finally, I proposed another, better one, that presented a similar POV, but was more scholarly, and it was accepted, with a compromise on the wording of the title that was offered by Str1977. See: "Revision as of 20:38, 23 April 2006 (edit) Str1977 (Talk | contribs) (rv unexplained removal of link, posting another NPOV title, reinsert accurate intro (stop the edit warring, Ali))

Now, while A.J is removing these links, I note he has made false claims. He accuses me of changing the long-standing description of the link (although his edit doesn't reflect a problem with the wording since he removes the entire link, instead of changing the description. But to refute his false claim, the facts are that it was Myopic Bookworm who made the change to include ,"though from an overtly secularist and so essentially unsympathetic point of view." I merely changed this to say, "An essay by Scott Bidstrup, which presents much historical information on the Bible and the development of Christianity, from an secularist point of view. M rationale is that we should not label what we think is sympatric or non-sympathetic, but simply state it's a secularist POV. Otherwise, we would have to add a description to all the pro-Christian POV links that it is an "overtly Christian and so essentially sympathetic point of view." Since we do not do that, we should not single out the other POV.

Now one editor has removed all these links that express the other POVs. His final defense is that they are "garbage." This claim is without any support. I expect him to defend this rather unsosphiticated objection that he asserts as the basis for he editing behavior, which I might add lacks courtesy. The secular POV essay in question references two main scholars. One is Karen Armstrong who is a prolific scholar of religions and she has written on a multitude of faiths. The other is Burton, Mack, who is a Professor in early Christianity. Its clear that A.J.A doesn’t like their POV, but this does not excuse him calling them "garbage" (his POV), nor does it allow him to censor their POV's by removing all links of POV he doesn’t like--esp without the use of the talk page here, and against the consensus that was forged among editors of different perspectives here many months ago.Giovanni33 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, whether they last a long time or not doesn't make them good links, and it is common practice on many articles to label external links as critical or not. If we couldn't label things as sympathetic or unsympathetic, then it should apply to the rest of the article too, and WP:NPOV would be non-enforceable. Homestarmy 21:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To label it as secular, gives plenty of information about its POV. To say its "secularist and therefore unsympathetic" is a little redunant. The other POV links are clear that they are Christian POV's. Is it necessary to label those as "sympathetic?" No, because that is already clear. Also, consider that what one considers sympathetic vs. unsympathetic despends on ones POV. The link is sympathetic to a secular POV, and only unsympathetic to a Christian POV. To call something unsympathetic assumes already taking a stance from a Christian POV. And how does one categorize the Cathar or Gnotic POV? In anycase, the real problem here is not this issue but the fact that one editor has seen fit to suppress all these other POV links by removing them entirely.Giovanni33 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just forget having a long note and write (critical) next to it, it's short and to the point :/. Homestarmy 21:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because critical to what? Its not critical to a secular POV---its critical to a mainstream Christian POV. But to label it as critical assumes one has a Christian POV. That is the problem. What is wrong just labeling it according to its POV, ie. secular, Christian, Gnostic Christian, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Cathar, etc?Giovanni33 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is "Christianity", i'd hope writing (critical) would be self-explanatory to readers. This same sort of deal is on Mother Teresa, and it seems to of worked out just fine. Homestarmy 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there are many different versions of Christianity and takes on the subject. The secular link I provided presents the view of Burton Mack which is one that looks at it from an historical aim to demythologize Jesus and reach the historical teacher. Its not clear that its inherently a critical view of Christianity (at least not from my persepctive). It is a secular POV. for example would it be correct to label his books as "critical" to Christianity? Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) (1986) A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins Fortress Press (1988) The Lost Gospel: The Book Q and Christian Origins Macmillan Co. (1966, paperback 1994). A reconstruction for the layman of the Q Gospel; historiography and its relation to belief. Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth HarperSan Francisco 1996. The gospels as fictional mythologies created by various communities. Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God (with Michael L. Humphries) The International Lost Gospel Rhetoric and the New Testament Patterns of Persuasion in the GospelsGiovanni33 22:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For now if would restore this link and add your own text as you feel is apropos for its description, while we work out the details here, I will not change it-- until there is conensus here on the question.Giovanni33 22:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gio, this might be a first but I actually agree with the point you are making. I never liked that link and to describe it as scholarly is akin to calling manure cream but I do not approve of deleting it alltogether, especially without discussion. However, it needs to have a NPOV title (which was what we two were fighting about back in the day, if you remember, Gio) without dashing the article (and no, I wouldn't ever think of putting in "manure" in the link) but also without endorsing it or giving false statements about it. I don't think secularist is incorrect but maybe there are better words. "Secular" is not among them, as this implies that other accounts are not secular. All historiographical treatment of events (of which this is a very bad one) is by nature "secular". As you say, it is a secular POV, but not the secular POV.
 * As for the other links, I can't remember what they looked like, so I cannot comment whether they are garbage. But they do serve a useful purpose of covering "alternative versions of Christianity" (yes, I do still hate that expression, but get what I mean). How relevant they are today is another matter, but they shouldn't be removed without discussion.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we agree on principal. I am not opposed to a fair and NPOV description of the link. My interest is only to have the external links section provide different perspective and takes on Christianity in porportion to the degree with which they are POV in the larger society, and to the degree that they reflect the contents and treatment of the subject in the article itself. TO me this means at least one link with such a pov.Giovanni33 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you are talking about a headmaster or about Pamela Ewing, but if you actually mean principle, yes, then yes. Just a little good night joking. Your aim seems reasonable to me. Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the external links and other reading references. Until this discussion is completed. Gio is correct; we need balance and NPOV in this article. Those viewpoints that we might view as "false", "wrong", or just contrary are appropriate as long as they are from a reputable source. I beleive these meet that standard.

As an aside, Christianity has nothing to fear from contrarian viewpoints just as truth as nothing to fear from falsehoods. Though we might think we are strengthening others by "protecting" them from secular viewpoints, in reality we weaken them. Storm Rider (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So Gio accuses me of arrogance and egocentrism, then issues demands and announces what he expects of me. A.J.A. 05:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For what its worth the phrasing of An objective outlook on Jesus and early Christianity from the world of acadamia is poor and should be restructured (isn't it academia?). Concerning the essay by bidstrup, Gio said it was "well referenced", but it only has 9 footnotes from 2 books, so I'm not impressed.  The page on the Cathars is uesless; the Cathars ended as a movement hundreds of years ago.  Just because someone calls himself a Cathar does not allow him to then expound Cathar views.  The Cathars are a well documented medieval movement, and there are real sources to express Cathar belief.  We don't need amateur polemics.  Lostcaesar 12:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Incarnation vs. Trinitarian doctrines
Having run across confusion about the Virgin Birth and the begotting of God the Son -- I thought this article didn't make them clear. So I put something in.

Someone else promptly made an edit that confused them.

The doctrines are distinct. There have been sects that have held one without the other. Neither one is an expansion of, or development of, the other. Goldfritha 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what the sentence is trying to say in the first place, I assume it's attempting to say that Trinitarianism is contrary to these verses, but then first it says Trinitarianism means people who believe God created Jesus, then it says it's when people believe Jesus always existed? The only thing I can come up with is that this is a latter day saint view or something, their the biggest group I can think of off-hand that thinks Jesus was a created being.... Homestarmy 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out your problem. The Trinitarian doctrine is that God the Father begot God the Son from all eternity.  The doctrine of the Virgin Brith is that Mary conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse.  These are distinct doctrines.  What's the problem?  Goldfritha


 * Incidentally -- do you consider C. S. Lewis a Mormon? He drew the distinction between the eternal begotting of God the Son and the Virgin Birth too.  (Not to mention many, many, many other Christian writers.)  Goldfritha 23:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also clarify that LDS do not believe that Jesus was a created being; Jesus is eternal and he is the Son of God. Storm Rider (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the edit at hand; I find it redundant. By stating that it was a virgin birth one is stating there was no sexual intercourse. Is you purpose to state it twice or is there some confusion? I thought the previous language was perfectly understandable without being redundant. Storm Rider (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was pointing out that the Virgin Birth was distinct from something else -- namely, the Trinitarian beliefs about the relationship of God the Son and God the Father. Goldfritha 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I know it's either Jehovah's witness or LDS doctrine that claims that Jesus isn't eternal, so I assumed it had to be something from one of them. I also don't see then what exactly the birth of Jesus has to do with the trinity then, the doctrines aren't really amazingly related, and the way you worded it made it sound like the Trinity opposed the virgin birth by saying that one proposes Jesus came into existance, and the other doesn't or something, I seriously doubt C.S. Lewis would support that. Homestarmy 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you admit that you can't make heads or tails of it, why are you asserting that you can tell it has to be about Jehovah's witness or LDS?


 * On the other hand, if you don't think the doctrine of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation aren't related, you don't understand Christianity very well. Especially when you doubt that C. S. Lewis would support the view that Jesus, being God the Son, never come into existence -- or more precisely, there was never a time at which he did not exist -- and also that Jesus became, at one historical point in time, incarnate as a man and as such had a real, historical beginning.  This is, in fact, standard Trinitarian doctrine, and therefore the overwhelming belief of Christianity.  Goldfritha 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't make heads or tails of it, so I was changing it so that it made sense, and assumed it was some sort of objection, because it said it was "distinct", implying it was separating, and possibly implying that it was opposed somehow. The Virgin Birth in and of itself has little to do directly with the trinity, and there's no point in calling it out as "distinct" from the virgin birth, who would think that the virgin birth is the same doctrine as the trinity? The way you wrote it first stated that trinitarians believed that God "Created Jesus", then it said trinitarians believed He was eternal, they can't both be true, either Jesus was a created being or He wasn't. Homestarmy 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, you changed it to remove the meaning. If you could not make heads or tails of it, you had no reason to assume anything about it.
 * Second off, I have repeatedly seen people confusing the Virgin Birth with the Trinitarian doctrine; that's why I put in the distinction
 * Third off, I did not write "created Jesus" and therefore you should not have claim that I did -- especially not framing it in quotes.
 * Fourth off, your last sentence is an untruth. Trinitarians DO believe that Jesus is both eternal and has a temporal origin.  This article is not about your beliefs.  Your assertion that they can't both be true is irrelevant to it, and if you find that the belief makes not sense -- you are wrong to alter the sentence so that it "makes sense" in your own eyes.  Goldfritha 02:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldfritha, it would be helpful for you to quote a reference for your proposed edits in the article. In doing so, you will limit the degree and quality of contention. Though we all get into discussion about personal beliefs (and it is okay to share, to a degree, those beliefs on the discussion page); however, when making edits and discussing propsed edits it is best to provide references. Good luck. Storm Rider (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, if a reference was given showing that people (somehow, I have no idea how) confuse the virgin birth with the trinity, then that sources wording could be used, and I doubt we'd be having this argument. Homestarmy 02:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that "begotting" isn't a word. You want "begetting" or "generation". Also it's placed badly. A.J.A. 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism
I just read this on the website about Protestantism: <> Does this not seem a little unfair on pre-Reformation Protestant Churches and groups like the Lollards? The Hussite Church of the Czech Republic dates back to the late fourteenth century. The Waldensians date back to the twelfth century. Both of these are detailed on wikipedia.

The history section jumps from the 7th century to the mediaeval period without any mention of the Celtic Church and the Synod of Whitby. It also dates the Reformation from Luther without mentioning the Waldensians, John Wycliffe and the Lollards, Jan Hus and the Hussites, thus missing 300 years of pre-Luther protestantism. In my opinion this distorts the Reformation as a 16th century and German affair.


 * That's because the Lollards & Cathars weren't Protestants, any more than Arians or Marcionites were. "Protestant" in scholarly terms means "descending from the Protestant Reformation". It does these movements no credit to lump them in with different, entirely distinct, sects. Slac speak up! 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they were Protestants. Sorry in Britain Lollards are regarded as Protestants, and in the Czech Republic Hussites are regarded as Protestants.  The Protestant Alliance cares for Lollard Memorials, John Wycliffe is called the Morning Star of the Reformation.  Protestant strictly speaking means someone who "protests" against the Catholic Church.  Luther associated himself with the teachings of Huss and his point of excommunication was that he agreed with the "heretical" teachings of Huss, who had previously protested against some Catholic doctrine.  I don't understand how you can say that Lollards and Hussites were not Protestant.
 * Protestant was first used to refer to a particular group of pro-reform German (Lutheran) delegates, and by extension later became used to refer to those involved in the Protestant Reformation (Zwingli, Calvin, even Henry VIII). The reformers at first mostly called themselves evangelicals.  Whatever the case, the Lollards have no historical connection to the Reformation or to the Reformers.  The business about Wycliffe being the “morning star of the reformation” sounds like an anachronistic and romanticised reinterpretation of history.  However in this regartd the Hussites might be worth further thought.  P.S., I live in England. Lostcaesar 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the Lollards influenced the Huss, and the break between Luther and Rome came whem Eck maneuvered Luther into acknowledging his agreement with some of Huss's previously condemned propositions. Also some think the Lollards went underground rather than vanished completely and reemerged as the Puritans. A.J.A. 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia entry on Protestantism:  Whilst the term Protestant was first used at the time of Luther that does not stop the word's usage being wider. Were there Christians before the word "Christian" was coined in Antioch?

Scriptures
I read this on the website: <> There is no such thing as the Catholic and Orthodox canon nor a single Jewish canon. There are many different Orthodox canons (Syriac, Greek, Slavonic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic...) also different Jewish canons (Septuagint LXX, Hebrew, ). The "other books" in the Orthodox canons (not canon) are not called Deuterocanonical and these books are in the Jewish canon of the Septuagint LXX tradition, whereas this sentence implies they are not in the Jewish canon - depends which Jewish canon you refer to. Deuterocanonical means refers to a 2nd canonisation (deutero = 2nd) at the Council of Trent in teh sixteenth century. These "other books" were always protocanonical and in the original canons of the Orthodox Churches. To call these books deuterocanonical in the Orthodox context is misleading and implies 2 stages of canonisation which is historically incorrect. Can we rephrase this to something like this:

<>


 * I have to pick you up there: the Deuterocanonical books were accepted to be canonical long before the Council of Trent. Slac speak up! 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation
I can hardly believe that there isn't a separate section for PF, as this was a widespread structural revolution that "came from within" (essentially more than just a few rebellious priests who found many Catholic practices to be perverse and anti-Christian) and then proceded to alter many structures and functions of the Catholic Church.

I believe it is a big deal (a major and permanent shift of direction in a good portion of Christian belief and practice) and requires a separate section.

Homebuilding 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken about the topic of this article. We have passages on the various Christian denominations, including the Protestant ones. If you think them insufficient, go ahead and ammend them. We mention the Protestant Reformation in the history section, but we can do no more as we have to include the entire history of Christianity into short space. Str1977 (smile back) 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Christian communities
I see the zealots are active again; a never-ending fight on this article. C'est la vie! It is very difficult to assume good faith in these situations.

Okay, in the section entitled Christian Divisions, we have had a few editors who insist on removing the term "Christian" when describing several hundred million members of churches who claim to be Christian. For some unknown reason, except possibly strongly held POV. However, in the paragraph immediately before it we bend over backwards calling Protestants Christian. Are we observing NPOV policy or not? If the term Christian is removed the article and/or section will need to be tagged for POV violations. I am tired of this infantile back-and-forth edit war with zealots. STR, you know better and it is more than just a little disappointing you participated in this. AJA I can understand; it fits with this MO, but you were involved in the discussion on that paragraph to a significant degree in the past and you know better. Storm Rider (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I think if the groups call themselves Christian, and they are significant in size, then it is difficult not to extend the name to them. Obviously this approach is tentative, but it seems to be the basic policy we have applied here, and I don't really see the disadvantage in this one situation.  This article is, after all, about Christianity, so any group discussed here is by implication Christian.  Lostcaesar 07:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * @Lostcasear: Not necessarily at all: we are of course obliged to bring non-Christian perspectives to the page.
 * True, though given the context here I am not sure if that applies, but yes this point is well taken. Again I think it best to take each situation as a particular case.  Lostcaesar 09:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * @Storm Rider: Please don't view the removal of "Christian" as a hostile act arising from personal POV's: speaking for myself, I simply believes it is more desirable because it avoids making a judgement.  Let's be very clear: the absence of that word makes no claims on whether or not they are Christian. From that perspective, it is more tendentious to have it there than to remove it.  I sincerely believe in doing this I, among others, am not being zealous; but rather, desiring to respect the POV of many who are of the view that Witnesses etc. are not Christians. Removing that single way is a relatively problem-free way to do this. Slac speak up! 08:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Storm, you know well that I had little part in this.
 * I have been involved in this before, yes, but I can't remember that we used the affirmative "Christian" in this context back in the day.
 * But, let me ask you: Doesn't the inclusion of the word "Christian" itself push a POV, namely that these groups are Christian? Or is that disputed in case of some groups? I don't see where the ommission of the term pushes the term that they are not Christian - it just leaves the question open -, especially in the light that they are included in this article at all. We don't talk about Islam in this section at all!
 * Regarding "significant size" - I can't see how these groups fit. They might make up several hundred millions together, but group for group they are rather small, aren't they. (If that argument matters at all - I doubt it.)
 * But I will not edit-war on this. Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should come up with a working standard for how large a group must be to warrant inclusion - that sounds like a fair thing to do. Personally I think the bit about the "unity church" can go for this reason.  I think the matter about the use of the word "Christian" is as follows: these groups call themselves Christian (Muslims do not); thus, do we accept this self-characterization?  Like I said, I don't know what the general policy is, but we could fairly describe them as calling themselves Christian.  Personally I will say that we indulge the Old-Catholics as using the name "Catholic", something that I find problematic but have decided to leave since that is how they describe themselves.  Lostcaesar 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I brought up the Muslims because they are unproblematic. They don't call themselves Christian (though they claim Christ) and hence are not even debated for being included into the article. If groups like the Mormons or others would not call themselves Christian we would not contemplate mentioning them either. As they lay claim to the name, they are part of the article, the dispute notwithstanding. But then we must take note of the dispute. Str1977 (smile back) 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Friends, the title of the article is Christianity not Orthodox Christianity. I know that for some of you it is a thorn in your side to be listed as fellow Christians to JW and Mormons, and other churches; however, that is a personal issue, which on WIKI you will have to tolerate. It is not POV to list them as Christian exactly because of the reason given by above; they self-describe as Christian. WIKI is not set up to define who is Christian and who is not. Further, it is POV to identify all other groups as Christian except for these specific few. I would welcome a conversation on the definition of Christian as long as one is willing to confine the definition to biblical references.

If certain groups wish to define others as nonChristian, then the appropriate location for those comments are on their respective articles. Again, this article is Christianity, a much broader subject than what some of us would term orthodox or historic Christianity. The article already explicity defines mainstream Christianity. Tolerance is difficult for orthodox Christianity, but let's reserve the stakes for each orthodox chruch's article; I will even help you gather the kindling to burn all of us heretics.

Str, the reason I pointed you out is because you reverted me at least once, I think twice, when I reverted the article to what it has been for the last several months. I have a high degree of respect for you and I also hold you to a higher standard than some of these others. We may disagree on some things, but we fight the same fight. Storm Rider (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Storm, I think you are overreacting. I can't see where the article pushes a POV that "orthodox Christianity" or "mainstream Christianity" is true. It merely covers the mainstream as the mainstream.
 * "If certain groups wish to define others as nonChristian, then the appropriate location for those comments are on their respective articles." - no, not at all. These respective articles are not owned by their respective groupings either. They must be NPOV as well.
 * And no, the article is not defining some groups as non-Christian. It merely reports that some groups consider others as non-Christian.
 * And no, tolerance is not "difficult for orthodox Christianity", at least not any more difficult than for other groups, Christian or not. Tolerance is difficult for human beings.
 * And no one here wants to burn anyone. That's the big mistake of modern pseudo-tolerance: avoiding clear thinking to preclude burnings. Of course it doesn't work, as those daring to think will then get burned in the end. Str1977 (smile back) 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is so, is that there are groups that dispute other groups calling themselves Christian and their presepctive is taking precedence. It is POV to force only the mainstream or orthodox view.  The sentence in question read, "Other Christian denominations and churches which distance themselves from the above classifications and some of their major beliefs claim around 275 million members." (I went back to the August 15th reading before all the tampering began)  This sentence is in keeping with NPOV policy.  If you feel the absolute need to further separate mainstream Christianity then state that "Mainstream Christianity rejects these churches as heretical or even as cults".  But you go too far to deny groups that self-identifies as Christian the name Christian.  It is POV!  Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, He lived, was crucified for our sins, and rose the third day.  He lives today.  We are forgiven through his atoning sacrifice of his blood.  He was neither created or made, but is eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost.  We are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost and in so doing covenant to follow Jesus Christ.  We renew those covenants weekly when we partake of the holy Sacrament.  That is biblical Christianity and any group that does believes those things is Chrisian.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see any sign of the "POV" you allude to taking place, as the dispute seems to of settled on not removing the term. However, if you want to bring up the issue of what the LDS church says, I was under the impression many of the words you mention in your speech here don't mean the same thing in LDS terms as they do for most people, for instance, atonement from the Church's point of view is supposed to mean Jesus granting us the ability to make the attempt to earn forgiveness, and i'm fairly certain in Joseph's Smiths Journal of Discourses, volume 6, page 5 that it claims that there is no "the Living God", but merely a whole bunch of them. But i'm just scratching the surface here, the point is, I don't think the LDS church actually teaches what you claim they teach. Homestarmy 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Homestar, I appreciate your inability to see no conflict. History demonstrates that the one not being persecuted does seldom sees a problem.  It is only when we individually feel the sting do we perceive that it hurts.  As a LDS for many, many, years, I feel capable of telling you what a Latter-day Saint thinks, believes, and teaches.  I understand that it may conflict with what you have been taught that LDS believe, but it would not be the first time someone who is not a LDS is mistaken about what is taught.  You will find nothing that conflicts iwth my statements above.  Be careful about entering the Faith and Works debate here.  Catholics and LDS have an identical understanding of the importance of works; you would very much find yourself the minority in that discussion.  If you want to get into a more lenthy discussion about the broad range of beliefs of LDS, I am more than happy to take it to our own discussion pages; it is not appropriate or germaine to this article.
 * Let's try to put an end to this silliness; please define what it takes to be labeled a Christian. Storm Rider (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen Mormons claiming that John MacArthur agrees with them about works, and I suspect your claimed agreement with Catholicism would hold up just as well.


 * Anyway, neither this nor your persecution complex has any bearing on whether it's appropriate to state your POV as fact in the article. A.J.A. 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And here's one of the problems, right now, none of us have actually apparently dug up any good sources concerning the LDS church specifically and what it teaches. I haven't referenced either thing I mentioned above very extensively, and you haven't referenced exactly what you say the LDS says. The thing is, one thing i've picked up really quick about, well, any adherant of any religion or group is that each individual person can have beliefs very contradictory to what their church says, and the church doesn't do anything, either because the person never sees anything wrong with their beliefs from the church's perspective, or because nobody really pays any attention. I've seen plenty of sources from various sources that says that the LDS doesn't believe exactly what you say they do, but alas, it would take time to dig them up and sort the citable from the personal websites. I've only marginally followed the arguments you've gotten in in the past on this article talk page concerning the LDS, (Primarily because I was focusing more on the Jesus article or WP:GA at the time) but it seems to me that nobody really provides well-referenced assertions on the talk page about everything the other side actually claims to believe. I think what needs to happen is that, even if people may highly dislike it, a very concentrated discussion needs to take place concering your church and what it believes, and I think alot of the mess concerning the LDS on this page would resolve itself eventually, primarily because the discussion itself would hopefully produce references which could be turned into new parts of the article.
 * As for what a Christian is, there we find another rather annoying problem, a Christian is supposed to be born again through faith in Jesus Christ exactly as defined in the Bible, but by Wikipedia's standards, giving that status to any one person is compleatly unverifiable. Even if somebody simply claims they are born again, it doesn't prove anything to anyone else. And of course because you can be born again without knowing very much, if you pick up things other groups see as heretical and impossible to be saved by, nobody would have any indication that you'd be a Christian, yet in a compleatly unverifiable way, you would be. So the definition of Christianity is verifiable, but actually saying "so and so is Christian or not Christian" isn't, I couldn't say with certainty whether any specific person is Christian or not, but I could note whether the teachings of a person were Christian or not. So for me anyway, the big question for this article isn't so much whether the people themselves are or are not composed of Christians because that's not verifiable either way, but rather, does the actual group leadership teach things which are Christian or not, and I think the article would be much better off if it focused on that more rather than getting into a very unverifiable fight over whether somebody is Christian or not. (Well, except maybe for that one section in one of Paul's letters talking about how people who act in a certain way definently aren't Christians, but that's a whole other story) Homestarmy 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are making this more complex than I intended. What does a person need to believe to be a Christian?  In answering this question, we would arrive at teachings and in so doing, we arrive at Christian churches.  As I have stated elsewhere, when we use a definition of being Christian that Jesus or the earliest apostles taught, we cut to the quick of the matter.  All of the superficial junk that we, collectively, have created goes to the wayside.  It prevents the type of behavior that I find offensive; it is behavior that each of us is guilty of so please don't take this personally.
 * I think your recommendation to put the LDS church on trial would be interesting and I would find it enjoyable; however, I strongly doubt this is the place for it. Also, the topic is not solely about the LDS church, but it is about all of the groups that editors belonging to mainstream Christianity are willing to brand as non-Christian in this article.  A bit of advice, when we want to learn about what another group believes, go to that group and ask.  When I want to know about Roman Catholicism I do not go to the Southern Baptists to be enlightened.  I go directly to the Roman Catholic church.  If you want to know what Latter-day Saints believe, go to the website for a brief overview:  lds.org and click Basic Beliefs.  Storm Rider (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I went complex with this because this is a very complex article (and, also, an even more complex debate) and because we're the ones who mostly are patrolling it now. If this was just a simple debate, then we wouldn't need to consider verifiability and Wikipedia policy, but since we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia entry, the considerations of who equals what in terms of encyclopedic value get more complicated. There's nothing somebody "believes" that makes them a Christian, you're either in the body of Christ or you aren't, but once again, there's no way we alone could somehow cite references that would let the article say whether somebody in particular is Christian or not. Yes, I understand how alot of editors like to say that anyone who has a philosophy loosely based on Jesus's teachings and claims to be a Christian somehow can be a Christian, and that thusly it would be extremely inclusive, but that kind of thing isn't something Jesus ever said. I reccomended the LDS church specifically to debate on because that church seems to be the biggest locus of dispute between us, and because I know you've worked on the LDS article, so you'll probably know plenty of references already, and we won't have to wait on each other as long to respond to each other. And finally, the problem with going to "ask a group what they believe" is that, even at some of the highest levels of any one group, you'll still be getting the perspective of a single person unless you go directly to a church's stated doctrines, and although the lds.org site may be summing them up, unless it shows the direct quotations of the doctrines somewhere, (Which I assume would probably require you to go out and buy Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price) wouldn't necessarily give a compleate picture. Homestarmy 19:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several issues confused in this:
 * 1) Whether a group calls itself Christian.
 * 2) Whether individuals are Christian by standards of their personal faith, by what they believe doctrine-wise, and by their status as, to use that expression, "being born again".
 * 3) Whether a certain denomination is considered so far off from mainstream Christianity that it is considered non-Christian.
 * 4) What the reasons are for such considerations.
 * 5) Whether these considerations are correct in their observation ... (do these groups really believe what they are thought to be believe?)
 * 6) ...and their conclusion. (Do these believes justify calling them non-Christian?)

Now, the only question that are relevant here are numbers 1 and 3. If number 1 is answered negatively the group need not be covered at all, if number 3 is answered positively we must take note of this. Number 2 is irrelvant in regard to the group, number 4 might be mentioned but probably takes too much space. Numbers 5 and 6 cannot be answered as it would violate NPOV. Str1977 (smile back) 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)