Talk:Christianity/Archive 48

U.S. Centric
Describing only one-fifth of worldwide Christians as "non-Hispanic whites" makes little sense, as much of the world does not share common United States definitions of "white" - and the term "Hispanic" is rarely used in its U.S. sense in the rest of the world. A person who would be "white" in Brazil or the Caribbean might not be regarded as such in the United States, Canada, or Britain, and people from places like Lebanon or Egypt may or may not be classified as "white." Furthermore, is unclear whether "Hispanic" in this article includes or does not include Brazilians, Filipinos, Iberian Spaniards and Portuguese, or the indigenous peoples of Hispanophone America. 72.191.190.68 (talk)

Article sources
I've been looking at the footnotes and sourcing for this article and it needs a lot of work, both in terms of reliability and avoiding original research. Christianity is ridiculously well-covered with a mountain of highly reliable references available. There is no reason that any fact within this main article should be referenced to anything less but modern clearly reliable sources. I am starting off by auditing the lede and the first main section of the article.

Lede:
 * Footnote 1. There's no reason we should be citing about.com and the 1913 EB, for example. Remove most of these questionable and outdated sources, and replace them with modern (preferably academic and highly reliable) sources.
 * Footnote 2. There's no reason we need to rely on a media company for this fact. Replace them with modern sources, as above.
 * Footnote 4. It's most certainly improper to cite the Bible regarding the Biblical canon, considering that the clear academic consensus is that the canon was finalized long after the writing of the New Testament. Replace with modern sources, as above.
 * Footnote 9. Bauer's work, while central in "modernizing" the study of ancient Christianity, is quite controversial and largely not accepted in the particulars by the modern academic consensus (though his "broad strokes" are commonly accepted). To prevent any confusion about whether this particular point has endured, it should be referenced to a modern reliable source. Additionally, reference to the historical source noted should be clearly presented as the historical source in the footnote, rather than as simply another source of reference, to prevent any confusion or claims of original research.

Beliefs:
 * Footnotes 11 and 12. The Bible cannot be used to references the names for "common Christian heritage of beliefs" as the historical perspective that implies occurred long after the writing of the Bible. The various names used by Christianity have been thoroughly discussed in academic and mass-market literature. Use the most reliable sources.
 * Footnote 13. There's no reason to rely on unreliable web sources like jewfaq.org. (The owner of the site openly professes to not be an expert or rabbi.)
 * Non-footnote. The ref to Romans 10:13 supports the "faith alone" or "calling on Christ" model of salvation, rather than supporting the preceding claim.
 * Footnotes 14, 15 and 16. While these references support the pure claims of what the Bible states, their placement is most certainly a problematic synthesis as the statement concludes (unsupported) with "to fulfil [sic] the rest of Messianic prophecy such as the Resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and establishment of the physical Kingdom of God". Again, this is a very well-covered topic and there's no reason the assertions cannot be cited to modern reliable references.
 * Footnote 17. Biblical reference supporting a claim about modern Christians. An obvious problem.
 * Footnote 18. We shouldn't be using weak references like gospelcom.net and world-faiths.com.
 * Footnotes 22 and 23. This should be presented as "The Bible states". If it's a matter of "Christians believe" it should be sourced to a modern reference outside of the Bible.
 * Footnote 25. We shouldn't be referencing to book jackets.
 * Footnote 28. It's most certainly not acceptable to reference the Bible directly regarding such complex, controversial and intricate concepts as justification. Justification is a huge point of contention between various Christian sects and as such we should depend on outside sources rather than direct interpretation of the Bible.
 * Non-footnote (first sentence of Trinitarians). What "most Christians believe" should not be in-line referenced to the Bible.
 * Footnote 33. There is an obvious direct quotation used, without any clear indication of the source of the quotation. Additionally, there appears to be a lonesome floating quotation mark indicating the quotation is not properly marked.
 * Between footnotes 34 and 35. There are direct quotations without an indication of the source of those quotations.
 * Footnote 36. Extremely controversial statement, because it implies that the verse references all scripture, including the New Testament.
 * Footnote 37. Correlating a couple of belief statements is a bit problematic and almost certainly prohibited synthesis. This is especially problematic due to the citation of a statement supporting Biblical inerrancy, which is a controversial topic in and of itself.
 * Footnote 41. It would be preferable if this assertion could be referenced to a source intended to share church doctrine, due to the multitudinous controversies over the statements of LDS president-prophets.
 * Footnote 42. Reliable referencing would be highly desirable here. The UU is a non-Christian organization, though it may have its roots in "actual" Unitarianism. Surely there's a better source than sullivan-county.com.
 * Footnote 45. Christianity as a whole is not unified in the belief of Biblical inerrancy. To assert otherwise is misleading.
 * Footnote 46. The Westminster Catechism is not representative of the whole of Protestant faith.

With such referencing, this article shouldn't even been considered A-Class. Let's improve the referencing and get it up to par. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you took a look into this. I was appalled when I read the article recently and share the same concerns. This article should be on B class until the obvious problems are addressed. There is no reason why this article cannot be well written, and meticulously sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a perennial problem. We get an article knocked into shape, and then well-meaning and not so well-meaning people come along and faff with it until it contains great screeds of abject nonsense.  I propose we revert back to the FA version and then review anything that was removed in the process to see if it genuinely merits inclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think that version is any better. The article was grandfathered in as an FA due to the replacement of the "brilliant prose" category/project with the FA process. It passed a GA nomination, but that version is the article is largely unreferenced and not very good either. If you can find a solid version in the history, I'd be glad to see it, but I haven't been able to find an actual "clean" and "good" version of the article. Obviously though, with the level of activity this article sees, it can be very difficult to comb through the history. I'm not implying that there isn't a decent version to work from, but rather that I haven't been able to find one as of yet. It would be very helpful if there was a well-written and decently referenced version to revert to and work from, in order to bring this article up to par. Vassyana (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Above citations largely fixed. A few got lost due to renumbering and vague description. The lead needs work now. -- SECisek (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations are not "largely fixed". Citations have certainly been added and replaced. However, the replacement is no better than what came before. Many of them are missing page numbers, publisher info, etc etc. There are still OR citations. Many of the new citations are questionable at best. Some information which just needed to be properly referenced and rewritten accordingly was removed. This new set of referencing is just as beset with problems as that which came before. Replacing them with well-formatted citations to reliable references indicating the appropriate page numbers for verifiability is the solution. To be sure, some of the new referencing is certainly an improvement, but all-in-all there's little change in the quality of referencing. Vassyana (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the article being prepared for? GA or FA? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Either, neither, both. :-P My desire is to see the article improve to high standards. Which particular label is being sought is of little consequence, so long as the quality is improved and appropriate. As my comments relate to GA and FA, OR and deficient referencing is equally harmful to achieving either. Vassyana (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we all want to see great articles, but this particular one appears to be on a fast back-track to nowhere. And will struggle to keep even its GA listing I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately agree. When even a partial source audit reveals the kind of deep issues that were shown above, it's a long haul to improvement. I'm currently working on finding sources and working out rewrites per sources as appropriate. It's just going to take some time and vigilance to get the article up to standards. Reviewing the current sourcing and writing is only a first step in a long process. Vassyana (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a process that you'll hopefully find worth persevering with though, because this is clearly a very important article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will certainly do my best. It's most certainly a core topic and deserves a well-written and properly referenced article. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every citation I added today came out of an Oxford University Press book of one title or another - accepted and trusted sources. As for page numbers, they are largely there, as the books are right in front of me. The article is in progress and to say there is "little change" in the quality of the article is to discount an entire afternoon and evening of my work.

Vassyana, what have you done for this article today other then complain about it on the talk page? Please remove any sources you feel are poor and put fact tags next to the statements. We can find reputable source then. As for the ref templates, we can fill that all in later. I have 10+ GAs to my credit and I know what is expected of this article. It does not have that far to go to maintain a GA rating and I don't like the suggestion that the article is "on a fast back-track to nowhere". Pitch in and quit your complaining. -- SECisek (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the comment that I am in the process of reviewing sources and potential rewriting. I provided a source audit (partially), clearly indicating what is a problem and where. That's more that simple belly-aching and it took a good chunk of time and effort. There's no need for several references per statement. Please take some time and consideration to choose a few solid references and rewrite per those references as necessary. I appreciate that you put in a decent chunk of time adding references and the like. However, slapping on a bunch of poorly-formatted references is not very helpful. Vassyana (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That comment about being on a fast track to nowhere was mine, not Vassyana's but I believe it to be simply stating the obvious. I don't mean to imply by that that your efforts haven't improved the article, they clearly have, but it still remains a long way adrift of what is expected of a GA, at least in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have conflicted each other some how. I will give it a rest for a while. Drop me a line on my talk page when you are through and I will return to adding the citation templates to my earlier citations. I agree that there was no need to have some points sourced 6 or 7 times. I think that was historic from some old edit wars. I am quite certain that this article will remain GA when we are all done with. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article delisting

 * Please see Good article reassessment. I for one contest that the article should be delisted without due process, so it must go GAR. Further more, you did not remove it from the actual list at Good articles nor did you drop the offical GA count, you just changed the grades on the project banners which does nothing in the grand GA scheme of things. Send the article to GAR, rather then changing the grades on the banners of projects you do not belong to. --SECisek (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This process wonkery is just ridiculous. Take it to GAR if you dispute the delisting, but I implore you not to engage in process for the sake of process. Vassyana (talk)

Process wonkery? Did you read the policy on the GAR? Unless the subject is closed for debate, which it clearly isn't, GAR is the process for delisting - not bold action. If you feel the article should be delisted, you nominate it for GAR. As for "owning" the article, all I do is guard it against blatent vandalism. -- SECisek (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no vandalism occuring here, so please get off that high horse. The GA process is not a policy. I did read it. Did you? "If  you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, seek another delister,  or  ask other editors to reassess it here." Please note the initial assumption is a single editor delisting, just as single editors list GAs. Do you really think this article is still a GA? Please do not push process for the sake of process. Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

High horse? Not exactly good faith there. Again, I don't have much invested in this. An individual can't simply list or delist an article as GA, there is a process for both and it exists for a good reason. If you sent the article GAR one of two things would happen: 1. the article would be improved by the process and remain GA or 2. it would be properly delisted, which changing the grade on the wikiproject banners does not do. The talk page will look quite silly with an NPOV tag on it, so if you want avoid an edit war, humor me and send it GAR. We went the through this with Edmund the Martyr when someone disagreed with the GA tag and the process worked. Best --SECisek (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe this article is GA quality or within short striking distance? If so, could you please respond to my concerns about the referencing of this article, in the section above? If not, could you please explain why a reassessment is necessary? Vassyana (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's take a breath; each of you are too good to get involved in this type of petty dispute. If you misunderstand one another limit yourself to questions and avoid making statements until you are certain that mutual understanding has been achieved. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I will nominate it for GAR since there seems to be some demand for it. Let's work on the article and get off the talk page. Best to all. -- SECisek (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A comment from a GAR'Guy might be helpful here. First, individual editors can delist GAs, no problem; GAR is for controversial, borderline or contested cases. However, it is strongly recommended that editors wishing to delist an article follow the delisting guidelines, because that gives other editors the chance to respond and resolve disagreements before the delisting actually takes place. This reduces the likelihood that the delisting will be contested and brought to a time-consuming GAR. In the case of this article, the delisting has now been contested, and so a GAR is now the right way to proceed. Geometry guy 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Away we go...-- SECisek (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples
Other GAs include: Hinduism Raëlism Taoism Zoroastrianism How does this article stack up? Which article sections are superior/inferior to other GAs? -- SECisek (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it's always useful for editors to compare other, similar articles, each is of course judged on its own merits. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (edited to add) It would be a great sadness if this article was to lose its GA listing as well as having lost its FA status, so I hope that the editors can pull together to resolve the issues being raised at the GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also worth reading another encyclopedia article on Christianity because it is a difficult topic to actually write about. Oddly, the Encarta entry opens its article in this way. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Issue with Christian divisions
The section on Christian divisions currently lumps Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox together:
 * A 1992 agreement amongst American theologians resolved theological differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians – although this has yet to be universally recognized. Together with the "Church of the East", these can be considered a single large grouping.

The two groups are quite distinct. I'd recommend listing them separately.

See, for example, this article on the differences between the two. Majoreditor (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a member of wikiproject Oriental Orthodoxy and, yes, they are seperate groups. I'll correct this, although the Church of the East is often classed with the Oriental Churches. -- SECisek (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised lede
I've revised the lead of the article. I focused on replacing the OR and shotgun blast of references for a limited selection of highly regarded and reliable references, and rewriting per the sources. I believe it also provides a bit more context, for example explaining why the study of Christianity is important. Comments? Vassyana (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a massive improvement to me. Nice job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Builds off what I put up yesterday, a big improvement. The Worship section is the next trouble spot to my eye. -- SECisek (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amount of followers for Islam and Christianity
In the Islam page on Wikipedia it says that the religion has 1.8 billion followers which makes it the second largest religion behind christianity, yet on the christianity page it states that the christian religion has between 1.25-1.75 billion followers making it the largest religion in the world. Uhm, I dunno but if Islam has 1.8 billion followers, isn't it the largest religion? Or are the numbers wrong somewhere? Gwendly (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you follow the source given in the Islam article for that 1.8 billion figure I think that you might agree it looks like original research at best. The generally accepted figure seems to be around 1.2 billion muslims. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Christianity numbers maybe inflated by people being baptised as a child being part of the stats, while the same people may consider themselves no longer religious. This is very hard to prove, but some statistics agencies may report numbers based on different definitions; making the whole counting of Christians a difficult issue. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All we can use is reputable references. The questions of the quality of belief, degree of belief, or number of actual practitioners of any religion is impossible to identify. This issue is moot. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Identified
According to the watchlist an IP address 142.167.229.201 had vandalized this article and was reverted by VoABot II for possible vandalism. I've warned the IP address on his/her's talkpage. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Three main divisions
I do not have a problem with stating that there are four main divisions in Christianity, however we need a good citation to support the statement. I moved this from my talk page:


 * The source I cited for Christian divisions mentions the fact that "some include the Restorationist denominations as a fourth or fifth group." The Resotationist denominations hold a completely different theology than the other Christian groups mentioned in the article: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox: many are non-Trinitarian, hold other texts in the same reverence as the Bible, such as the Doctrine and Covenants.

The problem is the LDS citation does not seem to make any claim about the number of divisions. Perhaps I am missing it. The Virginia cite opens with:

"There are literally hundreds of distinct divisions (denominations) of Christianity, thousands of subdivisions and sects not to mention untold numbers of independent "non-denominational" churches. Suffice it to say: there are three main divisions of Christianity: Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic split from each other in the year 1054. Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic beginning in the 16th century."

...in full contradiction of the claim it purports to back. The almost universaly reliable Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church sadly has no entry for Restorationism. I will continue looking for a citation for this.

As a note to all, the article is under attack not for a lack of citations but for a lack of cites from published, independent, peer review sources. Let's all try and not muddy up the article further with citations to self-published, non-peer review websites - at least until we get the article through the GA review. -- SECisek (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Virginia citation mentions this initially. However, it later mentions that "American born churches" broke away from Protestanism. After mentioning the three traditional groupings of Christianity, it says "In addition there are a number of American born churches that seem to have started almost from scratch." The categories/headings given in the article also are four: The Eastern Orthodox Churches, The Catholic Church, The Protestant Churches, and American born churches. Under the American born churches, the article mentions "Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Science [i.e. Restorationist Churches]." It says that these Churches "'wiped the slate clean' and 'started from scratch'." The Religious Tolerance citation says that "others define Protestantism as consisting of those faith group who trace their history back to the Protestant Reformation and Luther's 95 theses. Some include the Restorationist denominations as a fourth or fifth group. Within this classification, the Mormon churches would be considered part of the Restorationist group and not Protestant." Yes, there are three traditional divisions: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. However, the Restorationists can be considered a fourth group. With this understanding, I am restoring the deleted references. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a citation that does not require us to use [i.e. Restorationist Churches] to prove the point? Surely some major, independent published source states "Suffice it to say: there are four main divisions of Christianity".

There are other problems with the article to deal with now, but we should try to resolve this before the GA status get upheld or removed. Those citations will not hold up in a GA review as both require interpretation or some degree of WP:OR to back the claim. Neither states "there are four main divisions of Christianity" which is what our article claims right now. I am not going to revert your citations at the moment, but please don't stop looking for better ones. Also noted and corrected your point about Orthodoxy. -- SECisek (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I have restored the references as a temporary provision (per your last comment). However, I will continue to look for better references. Also, thanks for fixing the issue with Orthodoxy in the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Life Section
The section entitled 'Christian Life' has been marked as missing cites, and the editor concerned has suggested it may be original research. I agree, and would query its presentation. For example, I would question the statement that love "in the Christian and Jewish sense" was unknown in the pagan world. 'Love' as defined by this section would seem to equate to compassion (the basis of charity), and I have yet to be convinced that pagans had no such concept. Martin Goodman is cited as having said this, and so he may have done - but did he define 'charity' in his work as it is defined here?

Information on Christian lifestyle can be found throughout the article, and this section does not significantly expand on that information. In fact, it reads more like a sermon. It is difficult to provide proper citations for matters of belief and interpretation in Christianity since one must either rely on the Bible itself, which necessarily means advancing one's own interpretation of it; or one must defer to someone else's interpretation. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I see some support, I will be bold and kill the sermon. it is virtualy uncite-able. -- SECisek (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus The Christ?
My apologies if this has been covered already, and that it is a fairly minor point. I am still unsure as to whether the word 'the' needs to be added here. I know it's used a lot - particularly by US Christians (I see it on the net a lot, but don't remember hearing it used here in Britain) - but I wonder whether it's strictly correct. From my understanding - and I'm happy to be corrected; I'm no expert in ancient languages - the word Christ comes from the Latin christus and is rooted in the Greek 'khristos', which literally means 'the anointed one'. This would seem to imply the inclusion of 'the' in the title. We would therefore only need 'the' if we were to translate the name in full and refer to him as 'Jesus the Anointed'. 'Christ', as far as I'm aware, was considered a proper name in Old English. Anyone want to reeducate/flame me on this one? - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ should suffice. -- SECisek (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jesus the Christ" is an affectation. "Jesus Christ" is proper. (Personally, I think the origin of Jesus the Christ is Gen X'ers fascination with the Star Wars movies and the character 'Jabba the Hutt'. While sacrilegious, I think there is more truth in that than a philological explanation.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad it's not just me, then. :o) - Shrivenzale (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KJV, Matthew16:20, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." It's not a common title in translations, but it's rooted in older English (if prevalent among Gen-Xers, then it's a revival of an old use, not an invention). Nonetheless, removing the title seems good to me. Signaj90 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. However, I disagree.  From the linguistic standpoint, Christ is is a title, which if translated would require a definite article (Jesus Messiah and Jesus annointed one, verse Jesus the Messiah and Jesus the annointed one).  The Greek is inconsistent on this point, occassionaly using the definite article and occassionally not.  That said, consensus (at least on this talk page) seems to be leaning toward leaving out the definite article.  Pastordavid (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rats. "Definite article".  Yes, that was the term I was looking for...  - Shrivenzale (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pastor David; they are both correct and we most often use Jesus Christ. I suspect that most proper form would be Jesus the Christ. The GenX thing is not an accurate portrayal of history. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, the Jews were expecting a saviour for thousands of years. This was to be the 'Christ'. But they certainly weren't expecting God Himself! Most people only wanted a saviour from the Romans in Jesus' day, they weren't thinking of salvation from sin. So at the beginning, they called Jesus 'the' Christ, or the saviour, and it became more of a proper name over time as the notion of a local saviour of Israel became completely irrelevant to us Gentiles. Jesus is now seen as the Saviour of us all, not just Israel, and the Old Testament's fuller meaning is made clear. Granted, 'the' Christ is used sometimes in the writings of Paul, but I think it's okay that that usage eventually died out. So long as we remember what 'Christ' means, I think the definite articles will take care of themselves. Fledgeaaron (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources
These are possible sources but they aren't 'further reading':
 * Ahlstrom, Sydney E. Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.


 * Albanese, Catherine L. America, Religions and Religion. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Pub., Co., 1981.


 * Ariarajah, Wesley. The Bible and People of Other Faiths. New York: Orbis Press, 1990.


 * Arinze, Cardinal Francis. "The Urgency of Dialogue with Non-Christians." Origins 14:39, 14 March, 1985.


 * Arrington, Leonard J. and Davis Bitton's The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints New York: 1979.


 * "Baptism." In Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.


 * Bedell, Kenneth B. Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 1995. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1995.


 * Burr, Nelson Rollin. A Critical Bibliography of Religion in America. 2 vols. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961.


 * Castelli, Jim. "Vatican II: 30 Years on the Road From Road." U.S. Catholic, September 1995.


 * Cox, Harvey. Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey, 1995.


 * Dawe, Nancy Anne. "'Mysterious Pilgrimage' in Atlanta." Presbyterian Survey, October 1993.


 * Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicholas Lossky, Jose Miguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Pauline Webb. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991.


 * Dolan, Jay P. The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.


 * Eerdmans' Handbook to Christianity in America. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.


 * Eliade, Mircea, Victor Turner, et al, eds. The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.


 * Geisendorfer, James V. A Directory of Religious and Parareligious Bodies and Organizations in the United States. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.


 * George, Timothy. "What We Mean When We Say, It's True." Christianity Today, October 23, 1995.


 * Gioia, Francesco. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (19633995). Boston: Pauline Books, 1995.


 * Goldberger, Paul. "The Gospel of Church Architecture, Revised." New York Times, April 20, 1995.


 * Gomes, Peter. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1996.


 * Guerrero, Andres G. A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.


 * Guillermo, Artemio R. Churches Aflame: Asian Americans and United Methodism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.


 * Hackett, David G. Religion and American Culture, A Reader. New York: Routledge, 1995.


 * Handy, Robert. A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities. 2nd ed. New York: University Press, 1984.


 * Hutchison, William R. The Modernist impulse in American Protestantism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.


 * Hutchison, William R., ed. Between the Times: the Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America 19003960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.


 * Keener, Craig S. "Kisses and Veils: Finding what the Bible means by knowing what it meant." Christianity Today, October 23, 1995.


 * King, Martin Luther Jr. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968.


 * Leone, Mark P. Roots of Modern Mormonism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.


 * Limouris, Gennadios, ed. Icons: Windows on Eternity. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1990.


 * Lippy, Charles H. And Peter W. Williams, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience: Studies of Traditions and Movements. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988.


 * Lossky, Nicholas et. al., eds. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1991.


 * Matsuoka, Fumitaka. Out of Silence: Emerging Themes in Asian American Churches. Cleveland, Ohio: United Church Press, 1995.


 * Maxwell, Joe. "Black Southern Baptists." Christianity Today, May 15, 1995.


 * MacMullen, Ramsay. Voting About God in Early Church Councils. Yale University Press, 2006. The history of how Jesus a son of God was elected to be Jesus the Only Begotten Son of the Only God by the early Christian Church by today's foremost ancient historian of the Roman Empire, Ramsay MacMullen


 * Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of American Religions. 4th edition. Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1993.


 * Murphy, Larry G., J. Gordon Melton, and Gary L. Ward, eds. Encyclopedia of African American Religions. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993.


 * Noley, Homer. First White Frost: Native Americans and United Methodism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.


 * Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992.


 * Noll, Mark A. et. al. The Search for Christian America. Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1989.


 * Queen, Edward L. and Stephen R. Prothero and Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr. The Encyclopedia of American Religious History. New York: Facts on File, 1996.


 * Reid, Daniel G., ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990.


 * Shipps, Jan. Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984.


 * Shulman, Albert M. The Religious Heritage of America. San Diego: A.S. Barnes & Co., Inc., 1981.


 * Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1963.


 * Williamson, William B., ed. An Encyclopedia of Religions in the United States: One Hundred Religious Groups Speak for Themselves. New York: Crossroads, 1992.


 * Wind, James P. and James W. Lewis, American Congregations (2 Volumes). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference / citation formatting
I realize that editors are still trying to find good sources but the formatting of the citations is a problem and would not pass GA in its present state. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews
There is a proposal to move Persecution of early Christians by the Jews to Persecution of Christians in the New Testament. Please express your opinion at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. --Richard (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An evangelistic faith?
Someone with a deeper grounding in theology than I do will be better suited to clear this up. The first statement in the lead paragraph currently calls Christianity an evangelistic faith, linking to the evangelism article. The evangelism article states that evangelism is a specifically Christian term, which means that at least this meaning of the word is no good in qualitatively defining Christianity. I know that evangelism has meanings on different levels though, so perhaps the word is acceptable. If so, should the link be changed to a wiktionary entry, or completely de-linked. Or is there a better word which is what the author of that lead paragraph meant? Hope someone can shed some light. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I presume that the use of "evangelistic" there is supposed to be more general than that of the evangelism article. The term has historically been used only of Christianity, but more recently (not in the OED til 1993) it has been expanded to mean advocacy of any cause, not just Christianity. I read it as using that [secondary] meaning of the word. So I would maintain it, but either delink it or link it to wiktionary (which I don't know how to do). Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and de-linked it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have little idea of what exactly that word means. I would prefer it removed, (link to wiktionary:evangelize wiktionary:evangelism - but no evangelic in wiktionary... OED has many words and meanings which are known by a very small percentage of the reading population. Especially with a word that has multiple meanings, I would rather this be removed or changed to one that is uncontroversial. Proselytization seems to have the same meaning - and the article notes that it has been, more recently used to describe non-christian religions. It is better, but I would prefer to simplify that first sentence.--Kiyarr lls ton 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree; will simplify it by removing the term now. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This first came into the article here using missionary rather than evangelistic. It was latter changed, but the edit was a relatively short term edit. I think the thrust of the edit is the response by Christians to fulfill the Great Commission, but I think this puts too much emphasis on the missionary part. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference describes it as a missionary/evangelistic faith. This is a common description in religious studies textbooks and the like. We should stick to the sources. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evangelistic means missionary. The word is particular to Christianity because the gospel = evangelium is something particular to Christianity. Str1977 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, "missionary" does not belong in the first line. Str1977 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The image "Christianity percentage by country"
I think the image "Christianity percentage by country" is somewhat misleading (e.g., acording to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html around 90% of the people of Norway are Christian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the image "Christianity percentage by country" is very misleading I suggest we remove it or replace with better one

If you disagree, please provide a more detailed and reasoned argument - the CIA factbook is not an especially reliable source for this. --Rbreen (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On the webpage for the image in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Christianity_percentage_by_country.png), "CIA - The World Factbook - Religion" is listed as one of the sources; Furthermore, I'd guess that the CIA factbook is quite reliable for most european countries (at least the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland). Regarding the number of christians in Norway, the church of Norway claims 83% of the population (http://www.kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5276). A better source might be "Statistics Norway" (SSB for our Norwegian readers), the relevant information can be found at http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/SelectTable/MenuSel.asp?SubjectCode=07&PLanguage=1&Qid=0&st=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to be needing more than one country being misrepresented to ditch this graphic. It is helpful, clear, concise, and fulfills the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words." Norwegian church membership is debatable in very few 'members' attend church State Department Summary of Norway. Furthermore, one is considered to be a member of the State church unless one goes out of one's way to not be a member of it, so it is open to interpretation how many Norwegians are in fact Christian. --66.173.10.22 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Sorry: --Signaj90 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
 * At least several countries are highly inaccurate according to the CIA World Factbook. Regardless of what any individual editors believes is the truth or most accurate information, we must rely on reliable sources for our information. Vassyana (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your defense of the CIA World Factbook, I will concede to you that an overwhelming majority of the citizens of Norway are members of the state church; in that regard it is completely right. Nonetheless, approximately 3% of the country is in church on any given Sunday according to the ELCA as well as according to the Norwegian Lutheran Church itself. We could choose to regard one's identity as Christian on the basis of formal membership. We could also choose to regard one's identity as Christian on the basis of practice. That is a matter of interpretation. In either case, the map clearly represents an interpretation that says that church attendance counts more than church membership. It does not represent false information; if anything, it is giving Norway the benefit of a doubt by generously putting it in the 10-19% category. At best, you could disagree with their interpretation of the what constitutes Christian identity. If you were to do so, I would happily look up citations for the means by which American churches remove inactive members from their membership lists - a practice clearly not carried out in Norway. Such policies seem to make quite clear that there are a significant number of church organizations that believe that attendance counts for something that membership does not. --Signaj90 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see your list of objectionable countries before any removal of the picture proceeds.


 * I do not think church attendance is a good measure on the number of Christians in a country - if the image depicts chruch attenance a better caption would be "Church attendance percentage by country". Furthermore, if the information differs from what can be found on https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html, then "CIA - The World Factbook - Religion" should be removed from the sources of the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be more apropriate to do the discusison about this picture on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Christianity_percentage_by_country.png" (it is also worth mentioning that acording to "Special Eurobarometer - Social values, Science and Technology" (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) 32% of the norwegian population belives there is a God. Thus, at least 20% of the population of Norway are Christians.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a dispute of the accuracy of this picture should be taken to the discussion for the picture. Thus far, we've only discussed Norway. More countries are being discussed there, and we're duplicating arguments needlessly. However, I am still waiting for a satisfactory set of criteria for evaluating whether someone is a Christian or not. I'll suggest attendance of a worship service four times a year as a crude but effective measurement. Membership in a church and zero participation in a church for years at a time flies in the face of most of this article's assumption that the life of a Christian involves participation in the Church. --Signaj90 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A sentence in a paragraph for removal?
"Christianity is the largest world religion with 2.1 billion adherents,[10] however, Church attendance has been declining in many places."

This seems completely irrelevant to me as Christianity is growing in numbers, not decline, and the later part of the above sentence would make one believe that it is the opposite. Christianity is growing in Africa and China, and in total numbers worldwide. The only unbiased way to phrase the above sentense would be;

"Christianity is the largest world religion with 2.1 billion adherents,[10] however, Church attendance has been declining in many places, it is however increasing in others and in total numbers worldwide"

Which seems somewhat pointless to me.


 * There are two different things being counted here. Christianity has been roughly the same, percentagewise, over the past hundred years (if anything, it shows a slight decline overall, from 34 per cent to 33). A decline in Christians in the developed world has been matched by increases in the developing world. However, this is based on counting Christians as adherents, people who have been baptised or self-identify as Christian. Many of those still counted as Christians in the developed world never go to Church; in many countries attendance figures have been in freefall for the last 20 years. In the UK, 72 per cent of the population described their religion in the last census as 'Christian', but only 8 per cent go to Church. Even in the US, where a very high proportion of people describe themselves as Christians, less than 20 per cent go to church regularly. So the distinction between 'Christian' as an affiliation and as a description of religious practice is an important one. --Rbreen (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference does not support most of what you said above; it points to a website that supports the total number of Christian adherents. If the site supports the balance of what you have said, then it needs to be more clear where it says it. I deleted the phrase that stated particiaption was declining because the reference did not support it. Can you improve the reference; if not, your reversion was not appropriate. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a problem with citations in Wikipedia - I remember checking this citation out when it was first given, and at the time it seemed entirely appropriate. However, in the state it is now, I agree it is not an exact match for what is being said. However, other and better references are available, and I will add one shortly.--Rbreen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The context of the statement will be difficult to cover. I am sure that references will support a general lack of active participation in organized religion in western Europe, but we will also find references that will support increased attendence in other parts of the world. Regardless, let's make sure a reputable reference is used to support whatever statement is used. I find it difficult to believe that any research will be able to distinguish between participation in organized religion and lack of belief; they do not go hand in hand in today's world. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that the phrase needs to be in the introduction; it seems to overbalance the value of Christianity in some parts of the world and discount the others. More importantly, the introduction typically outlines what is being discussed in the article; this phrase regarding participation in church services is not addressed in the article. I recommend that we either add a section that addresses church attendance world wide or delete the phrase from the introduction. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Storm on this.
 * Also, the "however" is totally out of place. This reads like "Well, Christianity is growing in numbers but that is made up for by declining attendence". Also, it is not our job to intrude into the consciences of Christian believers and detract them for not attending church. Many denominations do not require church attendance. Str1977 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

God is Unknowable?
That's not what the Christian Bible teaches. In fact, it teaches quite the opposite (Matthew 11:27). Going by the Bible, this sentence should be removed. (ApostleJoe (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
 * The sentence is at least questionable. Str1977 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of Paul
From an objective standpoint, I would argue that Christianity is more based on the writings of Paul, even though Christians claim and/or believe that it centers on Jesus. And I've heard more than a few scholars suggest the same thing. Jesus plays the largest symbolic role in their mythology, but historically he didn't form a new religion in his lifetime, that came after his death, and Paul was the most prominent contributor to the New Testament and was the largest architect of the Christian religion.

Just tossing that out there for consideration. I think Paul should get more credit for being a founder of Christianity than Jesus, who appears to me to have been pushing for reforms within Judaism, not for an entirely new religionVatoFirme (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point, but this article is more broad than that. And in fact, there is an article that focuses on Pauline Christianity.  Check it out. Bytebear (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "objective standpoint" is not objective but a POV statement. CHRISTianity is centered on Jesus CHRIST, not on the New Testament and thus it doesn't really matter that Paul wrote many books in it. The distinction between "reform" an old and forming a new religion is anachronistic. Str1977 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In Christianity, the New Testament writers were held as writing inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:14-16). Thus, they were writing and teaching the doctrines of Christ (Acts 1:8). (ApostleJoe (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
 * What I argued against was a simplistic deduction: Paul wrote more NT books than others so he must be more important than others, he must be the actual founder of Christianity. This is at best a contentious view, at worst anti-Christian propaganda. Str1977 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other religions
This article should include a section which describes Christianity's similarities, differences, and relationships with other religions. Bless sins (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have articles comparing Christianity with other religions. See Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Islam etc. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And a summary of that should be given here. I'll prepare something.Bless sins (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A Jewish sect?
It's not really appropriate to label early Christianity as a Jewish sect... right from the get-go, it was established as its own religion, with its own doctrines. Yes, it is rooted in Judaism, but it isn't a form of Judaism. (ApostleJoe (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Joe, that position seems to be one based upon your personal faith and not religious or historical fact. Jesus did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17-18). Christianity, as it is known today, is nothing more than the fulfillment of Judaism. I think you will find a great deal written on this point. Also, you seem to be making an evaluative statement regarding Judaism. However, understanding that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law also accepts that what Christianity is today is built upon ancient Judaism. At the time of Jesus it was just a sect within Judaism. It was not until several hundred years later than it became a compeltely separate "religion" --Storm Rider (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right-o about Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. However, He directly went against the Jewish leaders of the day, and what Judaism is today as well. Jesus established new doctrines as well as affirming old ones. Christianity's doctrines are indeed based upon Jewish ones, but the differences are so large that Christianity could never be classified as a form of Judaism, in any respect.

For instance, Jesus is regarded as Messiah by mainstream Christianity, but not by Judaism. In mainstream Christianity, Jesus is worshiped as God, while in Judaism Jesus is labeled as a heretic.

Those are just two (very large) differences. How then could Christianity ever be classified as a Jewish sect? It's like a tree and a seed, the tree springs up from the seed, and is the direct result of the seed, but isn't the seed itself. (ApostleJoe (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

You're missing the point, Joe. The point is that Christianity started as a Jewish sect, but became separate after a very short time (a few decades at the most). We don't need to say that because it isn't now a Jewish sect it never was. It is certainly supportable to believe that the early Christians saw Jesus as reforming and fulfilling Judaism rather than separating from it, and would have continued to consider themselves as Jews. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that possible, when the Jews are under the law of Moses (Joshua 1:8), but Paul explicitly states that Christians are freed from the law (Romans 7:6)? Jews also follow the Talmud (while Christians do not, and, to my knowledge, it is never recorded that they did). If this is true, Christianity could have never been a Jewish sect, not even at the beginning.

I quote from the Wikpedia article on Judaism, Judaism differs from many religions in that central authority is not vested in a person or group, but in sacred texts and traditions. Jesus refuted many of these traditions (Matthew 15:1-20), more than once. Jesus said to call no one "Rabbi" (Matthew 23:6-8). These are all completely in contention with the Judaism of the day. How then was Christianity a sect of something it defied?

According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism in accord with Jewish Law. -Article on Judaism This was not the case with Christianity. People weren't becoming a part of Judaism, they were leaving it for something (for lack of a good word) better.

Having roots in Judaism and being Judaism are not the same thing.

Don't take this as an attack, but as an inquiry. How could Christianity have ever even remotely been a part of Judaism?(ApostleJoe (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC))


 * The information is based on reliable sources. It is the common view in published literature that Christianity first began as a sect of Judaism. Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your quotes from Wikipedia are about Judaism and Christianity as they are now, so they aren't applicable. Christianity ceased to be a Jewish sect during the time of Paul, so Romans (thought to be a late letter) is talking about Christianity at that time. If you read some others of Paul's letters you will find that some Christians at that time were of the opinion that the Jewish law should be followed by Christians. The question wasn't settled for a few decades. In the early years (and I mean very early) Christianity recruited almost exclusively from Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, so were all his early followers. Paul continued to refer to himself as a Jew after his conversion. I strongly recommend a good book on early church history. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact still stands that Christianity didn't fit in with the Judaism then, either. (ApJ (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

this debate is rather futile. At what point does a "sect" evolve into a separate religion? We have origins of Christianity to discuss this. We can state as a fact that Christianity was described as a superstitio Iudaica by outsiders in the 80s AD, but we cannot poll adherents and give the percentage of 1st century Christians who considered themselves as adherents of Judaism. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. That's when you look at who they were and what they did, and they didn't match up. But anyway, you're probably right about us not getting anywhere. Just perhaps it could be worded differently, such as "Christianity grew out of Judaism" or something similar. Just a suggestion, not a demand. (ApJ (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

It is correct to state that Christians were considered (by contemporaries) a Jewish sect until at least the late 1st century. This may have changed in the course of the 2nd century. Thus, if you like, the 2nd century was when Christianity was in the process of "growing out of" Judaism. By the time of Origen, I will grant you, Christianity by all accounts had ceased to be a Jewish sect. Pre-Nicaean Christianity was very little like the Christianity you or I grew up with, so it is really quite misleading to use a single term "Christianity" to cover this huge spectrum. This is where the designation Early Christianity comes handy, but I would submit that even "Early Christianity" was barely recognizable after its first three centuries: anything before Nicaea should more properly be called "Proto-Christianity" to avoid confusion. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Put it better than I ever could've.

That's what I was saying, though. While it may have been considered a sect of Judaism, it didn't match the criteria to be described as such. A slight rewording seems like it would remedy this.

Once again, just inquiry. (ApJ (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Joe, remember that the Pauline letters were written in 57 at the earliest - Christianity had been around for over two decades by then. The fact that Paul's theories on adherence to the Law and the Council of Jerusalem were given such prominence indicates that adherence to the Law was a lively topic of discussion, and many of the earliest Christians considered it was necessary to follow the Law in its entirety. If it had been otherwise, Paul would not have spent so much time upbraiding them for it. Slac speak up! 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * in spite of your praise, ApJ, I don't think you have read what I write above: it depends on what you mean by "it". I agree for times after AD 150, but I disagree for times before AD 80. For the period 80-150, I am agnostic in the sense that I don't think it is fruitful to try and classify it either way. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree, but alright. (ApJ (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC))


 * It is a fact that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect (though not as a sect of Talmudic-Rabbincal Judaism). That Jesus was in conflict with some Jewish leaders is of no consequence as these leaders were also in conflict with each other. Christianity's claim is basically to be the true Jewish religion - just as Pharisees and Saducees and Essenes claimed.
 * Also Paul is no basis to declare such a separation.
 * The separation was the result of a long development: Christianity found more and more converts among gentiles while the Pharisees developed into the Talmudic-Rabbincal Judaism as all other Jewish sects perished.
 * However, it should not be called a "sect of Judaism" but a Jewish sect as Judaism implies a united religion that didn't exist in Jesus' life time or the following decades. Judaism is exactly the name of that unified religion that developed out of the Pharisses post-70 AD and which remained unified until the 18th century.
 * It is a legitimate question whether this has to be addressed in the intro. However, I think it sits well with the reference to the Old and New Testament. Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I agree, then. That's where I was getting hung up; Christianity never met the requirements to be part of Judaism. But it definitely was a movement started muchly by Jews, and so it was Jewish for a long while.

Also, while Christianity claims to be the true Judaism, it was not worded in the way that the point would get across (from what I saw, I could've missed something).

Anyway, I think the situation has pretty much been resolved. Thanks to all of you for not biting my head off, I appreciate it. xD (ApJ (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

POV flag
Why is there a POV check flag on this article? Somebody put this in with just a comment "I think this page should include a section about criticisms and/or a brief section describing inconsitencies or contradictions", and no entry on the talk page, and this appears to be the only Wikipedia contribution they have made. Without a talk page discussion, this is going nowhere. Can someone either start a talk thread, or delete the flag? --Rbreen (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the tag stating that without a specific explanation of why the tag has been added it is not acceptable. Maybe a little bold, but in keeping with policies. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the terrific NPOV introductory paragraph?
It used to read, "Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and they see the New Testament as the record of the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. With an estimated 1.9 billion adherents in 2007, Christianity is the world's largest religion..." I used this as a model to instruct editors of other articles on NPOV. The statements quoted above can be admitted by Christian believers and non-believers alike. Now, we have a version that makes assertions only a Christian would believe. Comments, please. NuclearWinner (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The version here is much better. Let's put it back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. (ApJ (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * OK, I did my best to restore it. NuclearWinner (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, I like it. (ApJ (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

What's with all of the templates?
Why are there so many templates in this article against things that appear to be self-evident, and even common knowledge? Like what "conception" means? The way this article's headed it's going to need a citation for every word, never mind every sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you or someone delete them, cuz I do not see them, nor explicit removal of them in the edit summaries? Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't delete them, and neither would I delete them without addressing the point that clarification had been asked for. The tags are still there so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some of these, to things which I felt needed clarification - if you're not sure in any particular case what it is that I feel needs clarifying, I'm happy to provide more details. I'll send you a pm re: the specific example you cite above. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By my reading of the correct usage of this tag in Please clarify, the great majority of these tags currently in this article are uneccessary.
 * SP-KP, am I missing something there? Are you able to cite something from that guideline that shows why your uses of this tag are correct? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm using the guidance at Template:Clarifyme - specifically "a request ... to clarify text that is difficult to understand". Please clarify only has essay status, so can't really be described as setting out "correct usage". If you feel some of the text I flagged as needing clarification is in fact clear, you presumably haven't spotted the problems - as mentioned above, I'm happy to elaborate on any specific cases. SP-KP (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood, thanks.
 * The large number of tags currently in the article makes the prospect of discussing and negotiating each one individually with you rather discouraging.
 * The essay Please clarify phrases matters as "wording that is likely to be confusing to the average reader." I believe that most of the items currently tagged in Christianity would not be confusing to the average reader.
 * You may have tagged them because they were personally confusing to you. Obviously, everything on Wikipedia will be difficult for someone to understand, and we can't tag or explain every sentence or accommodate everyone. The "average reader" standard seems an appropriate one to me. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Re: "personally confusing to you" - quite the opposite, actually. I believe I understand what many of the tagged sentences are getting at. It's because I don't think they convey that meaning to the average reader that I have tagged them. We may have different perceptions of the average reader, perhaps? Bear in mind that someone visiting an article about Christianity is probably doing so because they don't know much about the subject and want to learn about it. So the "average reader" is an average member of that readership, not an average of Wikipedia's general readership, which (assuming the 2.1 billion figure is correct), does stand a good chance of knowing a fair bit about Christianity already. SP-KP (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a personal dislike for these article defacing templates. Would it not be acceptable for each of these points to be discussed and hopefully resolved here? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a change for one clarify tag in the lede. Could you explain the need for the other clarifyme tags in the introduction of the article? Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do - see separate section below. SP-KP (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed fact tags
I removed the fact tags from the lede. Those statements are clearly referenced. Vassyana (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies - I hadn't noticed the comment which states that the reference supports the whole paragraph. There are inherent risks in whole-paragraph referencing, of course, but you're correct to say that there is a reference for these statements, so we can leave the stylistic issue to one side while we sort out the higher priority stuff. SP-KP (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements tagged as in need of clarification
Subsections for discussions of the clarify tags

Lead, first paragraph's use of "Gospel"
The issue here is that because the term Gospel is likely to be an unfamiliar one to someone who is trying to learn about Christianity, it needs to be explained, either here, or in a wikilink. Editors of this article have chosen the latter option. Looking at the Gospel article, however, its definition is "one of four canonical books of the New Testament that ... [describe the life of Jesus]". The last sentence of the first paragraph then makes even less sense. The addition of the term "Good News" confuses things further still. Does anyone know what this sentence is actually trying to say? If so, we can then try to formulate some words which communicate this clearly. SP-KP (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gospel is both explained ("good news") and wikilinked. You may scroll down further in the gospel article and read it in its entirety. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point on this one, I'm afraid. The article to which gospel is wikilinked is not a page about "good news" - it is a page about the four canonical gospels. A good sanity-check on a wikilink is to replace the wikilink with the definition at the page linked to ... in this case, that would have given us (prior to the previous changes) something that made no sense at all. The other changes made to this paragraph have improved it - we just need to sort out those last four words, and we're done with this one, I think. Is there another "gospel" article which relates to the subject that the wikilink is intended to point at? Or is it intended to point at a specific part of the "canonical gospels" article only? If the latter, then we can wikilink to that section. SP-KP (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing a bit more delving, I think the article you might want to wikilink to is Good news (Christianity)? What do you think? SP-KP (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SP, read the entire article - it is not just about the canonical gospels. That article might be a bit disorganized but that's a problem of that article not of this. Str1977 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to labour this one, but I think I need to. There is an article which defines what a (canonical) "gospel" is, and we're currently wikilinking to that. However, there is another article which deals with the subject of "The Gospel" or "Good News". The latter seems a more appropriate wikilink to me, in that it covers the subject we're actually talking about, whereas the former covers a subject which has the same name as the subject we are talking about, but is actually something different. Why do you think the current wikilink is better? SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that other article (I had missed that previously) is better, though it should retitled to "Gospel (Christianity)". Str1977 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good - I've got through. Thanks for sticking with me. I'll make an edit to reflect this. SP-KP (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph, "foundation of salvation"
What does this mean? The salvation article gives three possible meanings. And in what sense "foundation"? SP-KP (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it into "mediator" as it is followed up by "revealer". Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And what does that mean please? SP-KP (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph, "died and was resurrected for the salvation of all from sin"
I assume "for" means "in order to.." or "so that..." - is that correct? Without some mention of the mechanism by which this event is intended to achieve that effect, this in confusing in my opinion. SP-KP (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is correct. However, we do not need to mention a "mechanism" as a) this is not about mechanics, and b) there are various different explanations. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll reword the "for" to make this bit less confusing. I may not get this quite right, so please do correct me if not. When you say "this is not about mechanics" and "there are various different explanations" - can you expand? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not now and not here. You also wrote into the article a major error: "for all subsequently living people" is not only unwieldy but wrong, as those that lived before are not excluded. Str1977 (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that error, I didn't realise that prior lives were included. Can you provide a source for this? SP-KP (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course prior lives are included. But if you want examples for this, have a look at Jesus' promise to the repentent criminal crucified next to him, or at Jesus' descent into hell, preaching to the fathers. Str1977 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where I can find these sources please? SP-KP (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph, "Jesus will judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers"
Does the everlasting life thing even apply to those who are already dead? If so, we should state that explicitly, if not then what's the point of the dead being judged? SP-KP (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it does and it is clearly stated. However, I think the "to his followers" is inappropriate. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, you're correct here. That the dead will be judged is stated explicitly. Regarding "to his followers", what should we say instead? SP-KP (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, fourth paragraph, "God is infinite"
In what sense? SP-KP (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence is quite clear. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In which case you should have no problem explaining what that part of it means ... go for it. SP-KP (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That God is infinite. What's so hard to understand about that? Str1977 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Infinite in what sense? Size, weight, knowledge? Infinite can only be used in conjunction with a measurment, surely? SP-KP (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In all regards. Str1977 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: you're saying - if I can think of a way in which it is possible to be either finite or infinite, God will always be infinite? What about infinitely bad, shallow, flatulent? SP-KP (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we are talking about essential qualities.
 * And for the record: "infinitely bad" is impossible as bad is not some substance in itself but either the lack of good or the corruption thereof. God is the infinite good - the infinite bad does not exist. At least not in Christian thought. Str1977 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, fifth paragraph, the disciples were first called "Christians"
Ambiguity is the concern here. The disciples were called Christians and then called something else? The disciples were called Christians in Antioch before they were called Christians elsewhere? The disciples were the first people to be called Christians? SP-KP (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the first tiem time the Christians were called by that name was in Antioch. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I can come up with a suitable rewording - let me know if you agree with my edit. SP-KP (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is totally confusing and also can be understood quite differently. Str1977 (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it sounds as though I misunderstood your explanation then, as I thought I just included a rewording of what you said. We can't just revert to the previous version, given its ambiguity (I hope you agree?) Can you tell me what I got wrong with my wording, and then we can try to find a wording we can agree on. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs, "share a common faith"
This feels like woolly padding as currently written. What is the article trying to say here, any ideas? SP-KP (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an introductory sentence. The common features are the content of this section. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So the first two sentences are essentially saying the same thing in different ways, then? I've been bold here and removed the second sentence (and made a small tweak to the first to make its meaning clearer). If there's a subtle difference in meaning between the two sentences that I've missed, let me know. SP-KP (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, second paragraph, "anointed as ruler and savior"
A couple of things here. Anointed - presumably this means anointed by God? Ruler - that bit makes sense - nice easy concept for readers to understand; savior though, not so clear. In what sense? SP-KP (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, second paragraph, "reconciled to God"
Two problems here. Reconcile is technical jargon - fine for theology anoraks, I'm sure - but can we think of a more friendly-for-the-average-reader term? Second, this is the first time in the article that it's been suggested that there might actually be a reconciliation problem between humans & God. If we want people to understand what Jesus' "purpose" is, we need to say that there is (in the view of Christians) actually a problem to be solved. SP-KP (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "To reconcile" is an easily comprehensible word. Str1977 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, ambiguity is the problem - OED gives four possible meanings, and it's not obvious which one is appropriate in this context. What do you understand reconcile to mean here? SP-KP (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the seven definitions given here numbers two and three are applicable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that rather usefully illustrates the point; if there are seven definitions and two of these are relevant, we haven't exactly got a lack of ambiguity. SP-KP (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. None of the others are applicable to one person performing them between two other persons. Two of them are clearly post-Christian in concept (and even more technical than the well-known one). Theoretically if you thought of God as an impersonal concept then the first could apply, but it's a bit of a stretch. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you can eventually work out by applying a degree of logic which meaning we mean, but that's an awful lot of thinking for a reader unfamiliar with the subject to have to do to understand just one word, don't you think? Or are you saying that this is necessary jargon i.e. there is no other word which conveys the same meaning? SP-KP (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, second paragraph, "and thereby are offered salvation"
This overlaps with and will probably become clear as fallout from earlier discussions. I'll leave the detail for unless that doesn't happen. SP-KP (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "having become fully human in all respects"
Hopefully this is just another case of repetition/verbosity? "Fully human" and "human in all respects" - these sound like they mean the same thing, but I might be missing something? SP-KP (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the same. Str1977 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I've reworded. SP-KP (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man"
What does this mean? SP-KP (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, this is also the same, though a necessary explanation. It means that Jesus was tempted to sin just like any human being but did not sin. It is a first part that has to be seen in conjunction with that latter part. Str1977 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so that needs to be worded better, then, do you agree? SP-KP (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see the need but it might be improved. Str1977 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "yet he did not sin"
Not sure we've had anything which explains what is meant (to Christians) by sin prior to this mention of the word? And why is the fact that he did not sin important? SP-KP (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We should do this via wikilink. We cannot explain everything all at once. Str1977 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one possible solution, yes. Although it strikes me that, given that sin is such an important concept in Christianity, there is room for a section on it in this article. What are your thoughts on that? SP-KP (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again"
This bit appears to contradict the next sentence. SP-KP (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction. Str1977 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, well we've got, on the one hand, Jesus, being fully God, and defeating death himself, then on the other, Jesus not doing it himself, but having it done to him by God, and then ascending to heaven and sitting at God's right hand. Something has to give here. SP-KP (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "fully" is used one too many times, and placed in the wrong part of the sentence. Either someone fix this or I am going find a better way to reword those sentences later.  SymbolicMeaning 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SP, there is no contradiction as the Triune God is seen as working together. Hence, Jesus both rose and was raised from the dead. However, "the right hand of God" should really be the "right hand of the Father". That's the wording used in the creed. Str1977 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's come up with a form of words which doesn't appear to be a contradiction, can we? SP-KP (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from correct the "right hand" issue, no we can't as both ways of expressing are used side by side. Str1977 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, fourth paragraph, "Conceived"
The clarification that I feel is needed there is due to the dual meaning of the word conceived. Presumably the sentence is intended to mean "The Holy Spirit thought of the idea of Jesus, and the Virgin Mary gave birth to him"? I presume it doesn't mean conception in the biological sense, but some readers could interpret it that way. SP-KP (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it does mean conceive in the biological sense. Str1977 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK - so this does need clarification then. Can you go into this in a little more detail? It sounds like you're saying that the Holy Spirit took physical form, and that intercourse between him and Mary did in fact take place. That doesn't tie up with my understanding of the Christian view of Jesus' origins though - have I misunderstood you? SP-KP (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No it does not "need clarification then". It is quite clear what is meant and the word is wikilinked - but maybe a link to incarnation would be better. And no, the Holy Spirit did not take physical form but through him God caused Mary to conceive. This whole thing seems to me like wilful misunderstanding, even if it might just be playing advocatus diaboli. Str1977 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that you have a responsibility to Assume Good Faith please. To get this clear in my mind, you're saying that there was a biological conception, is that correct? But unlike other human biological conceptions, it did not result from two physical humans copulating, is that correct? SP-KP (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Holy Spirit physically (and miraculously) caused the Foetus Jesus to come into being in Mary's womb. No sex was involved. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Foetus, not embryo? SP-KP (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now who's getting too technical. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not suggesting we add that to the article :-) Purely out of curiosity, which of the two was it, please? SP-KP (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge the point has never been defined as doctrine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SP, I am trying to AGF but questions like "foetus or embyro" are exactly what pushes the boundaries. This is not defined by any doctrine as doctrine does not deal with biological details but it should be clear that the man Jesus came into being not by normal conception via sexual intercourse by a miraculous act of God. It would be Nestorianism and a rejection of that virginal conception (e.g. by ensouling a already existing embryo) if that act did not occur exactly at the moment that Jesus physically came into being. Hence, the correct biological term would be zygote. Str1977 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like you're trying to find ill-intent where it doesn't exist. Why? Foetus or embryo was an innocent question spraked by DJC's assertion that Jesus' first appearance was as a foetus. Why not embryo was a natural, obvious thing to ask. SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, you come here and sprinkle the article with clarifyme tags. And I take these in good faith as an attempt to make the article more clear where clarity is missing. But if we want to solve these issues (some of which I think are really none issues) we cannot indulge at the same in such questions. It is either or. Str1977 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Anyway, back to the issue. So we're saying that Jesus (foetus or embryo) was conceived solely by the Holy Spirit (presumably we aren't saying that there is a possibility that another undefined parent could have been involved?) and that Mary's genes had no input (i.e. she was a surrogate, rather than a biological mother). Is that correct? SP-KP (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this another curiosity question or something to do with the article? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am wondering that myself, DJC.


 * You're still struggling with the good faith thing, aren't you? Let me say this very clearly so that you won't have to ask this again - if I am raising points here, it is because (unless I explicitly say otherwise) they are relevant to the article's content. If you are not sure why something is relevant to the article's content, I am happy to explain. In this case, I am trying to ascertain exactly what the nature of the conception was, so that we can decide how best to word the relevant section of the article. SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SP, the possibility of another undefined parent is not relevant to this issue as we are relating what Christians believe.
 * Sorry, not sure I understand. Are you saying that Christians don't have a view on whether there was another parent? SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my, could you please think along: Christians believe (as the article states) that Jesus came into existence as a human being by his human mother Mary, a virgin, conceiving a son. This miraculous conception was brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, Christians believe that. Adherents of other religions or none might not believe that and will suppose a human father, either Joseph (the obvious choice) or some other man. Some people use that in polemics against Christianity. But as far as thie article, this section is concerned we need not bother with alternative views as we are aiming at presenting the beliefs of Christians. I hope you understand now. Str1977 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As for "surrogate mother": No. Mary had a part in the "genetic makeup" of her son just as any mother has. (BTW, you are misusing the term surrogate mother. A surrogate mother may be the genetic mother of the child or not. However, my guess is that in most cases she is. The "biological mother" she is in any case.) Str1977 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we're making some headway now. You're saying that there was a biological conception, and that it did result from two parents, Mary and the holy spirit - and that the only thing that was missing was the actual act of intercourse. Is that right, or have I still misunderstood? SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there was a biological conception otherwise there would be no Jesus, right? Jesus has two partens: his mother Mary and his father God. Str1977 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Christians believe that Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary. We know nothing other than what the scriptures tell us; that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Christians do not often break this process down into its fundamental parts because it is believed to be self-evident when said that Jesus was the Son of God and born of Mary. What is clear is that a zygote was present through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this discussion remind me of "Does God the Father have genes" awhile back at Talk:Jesus? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  19:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

History section
I don't know what happened to the history section but something has gone wrong. It now include various details, including things like the meeting of Pope Leo and Attila, which are either purely secular events or the impact of which on the history of the church is left unexplained.

At the same time, things the spread of Christianity is mentioned in the intro.

Both areas will require some work in the future. Str1977 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have put considerable work into the reorganization of the history section. Frankly, it was an embarassment when I first started working on it. The details you refer to were there before I got to it, but I provided citations for them out of a standard Seminary textbook. I'm 100% open to the removal of some of the material, but think that the current larger framework (Ancient, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern sections) is a highly useful skeleton which the rest of it should be adapted to. Please feel free to mention ideas, and I'll happily work with them. --Signaj90 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Some things I like, somethings I don't and somethings I abhorr about the current state. In time I will overhaul the section based on the current version and the version I knew back in the day. I have not yet really begun with it and put the raw materials on a subpage to my talk page. Str1977 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Further issues
As there seems to be a great dislike of the clarify tags, I'm going to add any further issues I find here instead.

Sentence fragment in lead
There's an odd sentence fragment "which they share as part of its scriptures with Judaism[3]" in the first paragraph of the lead. The previous version of this sentence read clearly, but the current version doesn't. This needs some attention - I assume it's trying to say the Christianity & Judaism share, as part of their scriptures, the Old Testament? SP-KP (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called a subclause. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anointing
What is the essential difference between choosing (a nice easy word to understand, but presumably missing a nuance) and anointing (a piece of jargon, but presumably an essential one to convey a precise meaning?) SP-KP (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The words "Messiah" and "Christ" both mean "the annointed one".
 * To chose is simply to pick from a range of choices (not applicable here though in the case of earlier annointments of Kings and Priests) - "annoint" includes the investiture with authority/powers/status etc. It is not a mere choice. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Regarding the sentence: "In spite of important differences of interpretation and opinion, Christians share a set of beliefs that they hold as essential to their faith."

I understand everything up to the words "beliefs" but what additional meaning do the last eight words intend to convey, please? SP-KP (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that these beliefs are not mere side notes (or trivialities) but, in the mind of believers, essential to the Christian faith. It is really simple to understand. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some Christian churches believe that to be part of Christianity one must accept a specific subset of beliefs, without doing so puts one beyond the realm of Christianity in their view. For example, the belief in the Trinity is viewed as bedrock, core doctrine for all orthodox Christians. If one does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as most often cited by the Nicene Creed, you are certainly not orthodox and may not even be Christian in this group's opinion. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the term monotheistic should link
I feel that the term monotheistic should link to the monotheism article. My reasoning here is that if someone clicks on the link, it is most likely to be because they will want to learn about monotheism, and therefore the logical place for them to be taken should be the start of the monotheism article. Are there any opposing views, and if so, what is the reasoning? SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is to the monotheism article. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you're OK with that? If so, we can mark this one as resolved. SP-KP (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the term New Testament should link
I feel that the term New Testament should link to the New Testament article. My reasoning here is that if someone clicks on the link, it is most likely to be because they will want to learn about the New Testament, and therefore the logical place for them to be taken should be the start of the New Testament article. Are there any opposing views, and if so, what is the reasoning? SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistating facts. "New Testament" links to "New Testament". Only in one case, in "as recounted in the NT", it links to another article. Your concerns can be amended by linking the whole phrase, which I will instantly do. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I am mis-stating facts, when as what I wrote above contains only opinions. No matter. I like the revised wording and I'll mark this one as resolved. SP-KP (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By that I meant that: sure NT should be linked to NT but in the one case where it didn't it was for a reason. Your posting suggested to me that NT was somehow wrongly linked. Yes, resolved. Str1977 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tense
In the lead we have "Christians ... believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah (or Christ)". Surely that should be written in past tense given that Jesus is dead? SP-KP (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends- some say he is 'dead' others say he is 'alive' - personally I know he's alive, but it's your own opinion, they should say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.179.233 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, certainly not. First of all, Christian believe that Jesus lives. Before grasping that you are not qualified to discuss anything further. Then, in Christian belief Jesus IS the son of God. You do not get to be the Son of God for a while until somebody else comes along. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful if editors could apply some Christian standards of behaviour to their comments. It is not for you or anyone else here to judge whether SP-KP is qualified to discuss anything further. And I have been frankly shocked at some of the comments that have been made on my talk page for daring to remind one editor over his use of orthodox Christianity that not everyone accessing this article will be reading it. Some will be listening to it, and may hear Orthodox Christianity. Let's try and act like Christians, not like the lions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus (I will also post this on your talk page), very well but remember that this is no Christian website. I am not saying that Christians shouldn't behave as Christians should and I applaud anyone turning the other cheek even though I have not been able to do this all the way. But while I applaud this, I don't think that a failure in doing so is a valid target for criticism. As I am writing, I do not know what happened on your talk page. Regarding my comment: if someone comes to this article and doubles the size of the talk page in a few days in an attempt to clarify things, I think I can expect that he is at least familiar with the basic tenets of Christianity. That was my point: one that doesn't know that Christians believe that Jesus lives doesn't know a lot about Christianity. 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Str1977 - Is it really true that all Christians believe (or are supposed to be believe through doctrine) that Jesus is *currently* alive? Although some of SP-KP's comments are coming off as a little... glib, I think he is making some valid points to improve an article that has serious clarification and POV issues. Gwynand (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that he isn't making some valid points - but other points seem not so valid.
 * Yes of course all Christians are supposed to believe that He is alive. He died, rose again ... why should he die once more?


 * Where have I said that Christians don't believe that Jesus is alive? I'm well aware that this is what they believe. However this is an article whose audience is in the main non-Christian. The central issue I have is about presenting the material on this page in a way that is clear for its intended audience to understand. Using the present tense to describe a dead person (albeit one who is believed to be alive by one group of people) is just going to confuse the average reader, surely? SP-KP (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what was the point of the "past tense" thing in the first place if you knew the Christian belief? And you are doing it again. If we are describing the Christian faith it would be detrimental to speak of Jesus as dead. "to describe a dead person (albeit one who is believed to be alive by one group of people)" - "I could just as well say: a living person (albeit one who is believe to be dead by some people)". 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * . Re: doing it again ... yes, because it is accurate to describe a dead person as dead. You could say "a living person (albeit one who is believed to be dead by some people)" yes, but that would be pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it? Detrimental - can you explain what you mean? Detrimental to what? SP-KP (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think calling the Christian faith "ridiculous" is helping the article here? Str1977 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really would encourage to consider and reply to what's actually being said. Nobody has suggested that the Christian faith is "ridiculous". Simply that a particular hypothetical form of words would be ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you beat me to it! SP-KP (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Malleus, that's what the sentence implies. And my hypothetical words were no more ridiculous than his words, especially under the premises of NPOV.


 * Hopefully, you'll be happy to know that that was not what I intended to reply. My point is that if we're trying to conduct this discussion in a way in which everybody can understand everybody else's views clearly, then to say something that is intended only to be understandable by Christians (or others who are 'in on' the Christian viewpoint) is not very helpful. This isn't "the talk page of the article on Christianity written by Christians for Christians, everyone else please leave" after all. Does that make sense? SP-KP (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is not a matter of "not understanding" - I do honestly disbelieve that anyone had trouble with the article on the issue of the tense. Str1977 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SP, Detrimental to the article, which tries to relate what Christianity is, what Christians believe. Str1977 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (in edit conflict)


 * Thanks for that explanation. SP-KP (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Jesus article, Jesus is referred to in the past tense. So, which is correct? Is it "Jesus was" for things to do with his life on earth, and "Jesus is" for everything else? If so, this definitely needs clarification within the article.Gwynand (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the context over there but the overall Jesus article includes more than just a Christian perspective. In some contexts the past tense would be correct. In our case, stating that "Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God" is nonsensical, isn't it? Str1977 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a valid point there Str1977. We do, absoutely, have to present the viewpoint of Christians accurately, so "Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God" would be a bad form of words to choose. Something like this could be left in the present tense if presented in a non-confusing way. Whatever we choose, we need to find a way of avoiding puzzlement from non-Christian readers when they come across something like that. One way that this has been done at other articles is to use footnotes. What are your thoughts on that? SP-KP (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and applaud it in theory but the whole issue of this subsection is the tense. Hence there is nothing else that I could have thought on. I see nothing confusing in this passage. Can we move on to other things? Str1977 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"I see nothing confusing in this passage." ... that's the point. Because you aren't able to see the confusion yourself, you're not able to understand why there might be a problem. How can I help? SP-KP (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think any confusion as to whether "is" is appropriate will be dispelled when the reader reads about the Resurrection. We mention this in paragraph 2, so I would expect confusion to be short-lived. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. To say that someone was resurrected is not the same as saying that they are still alive 2000 years later. If there was an explicit statement that says something like "Christians believe Jesus has remained alive ever since", I would agree with you. SP-KP (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a link that gives more details. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SP, the problem is that we have here a supposed problem (that so far only you have spotted), that is resolved (for those that might share your concern) when they read about the resurrection and which cannot be solved without turning this article's presentation of Christian beliefs upside down. There simply is no alternative to "is". Str1977 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This statement is not a statement to his actual status as dead or alive, but only what Christians believe him to be, which is alive. Therefore, any clarification on whether he actually is alive should be in another section, and we should keep the is. ---G.T.N. (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Italicisation
There are some italicisation (and non-italicisation) in this article which I'm not sure about. I can find Messiah and Christ in both italicised and non-italicised forms, I can find unitalicised Bible & Old & New Testaments, although the Manual of Style would suggest that they should be italicised. SP-KP (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and italicize. There's anyway some formatting issues to be dealt with. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agreed - the reason for raising it here is that I want to get some consensus on what should & shouldn't be italicised. I could charge in and make changes wholesale, but given that, when I wrote that, you were reverting most of my edits at the earliest opporuntity, I thought I'd try a different tack. If you could give me consistent messages about how you'd like me to raise the issues I've identifed, that would be awfully helpful. SP-KP (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not revert just any edits but specifically the many clarify me tags that had nothing on talk or which I though settled or otherwise superfluous (remember you had three in one sentence).
 * The Manual of Style states that Scripture should not be italicized. See WP:MOSTITLE. Alanraywiki (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. See below for the remaining problem. SP-KP (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection against italicizing these terms if that is in line with the MoS. Str1977 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's helpful. And the same for non-italicising Messiah & Christ? SP-KP (talk)

Str1977, can you let me know if you are OK with non-italicising Messiah & Christ - if so, we can mark this as resolved. SP-KP (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. I'm marking this as resolved. SP-KP (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV at the end of the lead's first paragraph
"[Christians] see the New Testament as the record of the message ... that was revealed by Jesus."

This says: "Whether the New Testament is it or not, it is a fact that Jesus revealed a divine message. Christians believe that the New Testament is the record of this message".

It needs amending to point out that the supposed divine revelation is only the view of Christians, not established fact. SP-KP (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No it does not need to ruin sentence structure for supposed POV problems. In any case, I have already edited it in a way solving your problem (even thoug that was not my intent at the time - I had stylistic issues in mind). Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an improvement - good work. However, it's still not NPOV in that it still presents, as a fact, that Jesus revealed (in the sense as described at the wikilinked article) a (divine) message. SP-KP (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To my eyes it is perfectly NPOV. As long as we are sticking with the English language we can do no better. Str1977 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So it doesn't say that a message was revealed by Jesus? SP-KP (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And what'd wrong with that? Do you want to word the intro so the "Jesus-mythers" are included as well. Furthermore, it doesn't say as a fact that Jesus revealed a message as "the message revealed by Jesus" only further explains what Gospel means.
 * However, if you really urgently need to fix it, we can drop that explanation again. Str1977 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No urgency, happy to go at whatever pace you feel comfortable with. I wouldn't want to leave out an explanation of Gospel, as anything that means that a reader doesn't have to click on a wikilink to understand something is good. Other than perhaps wordiness, is there a problem with "they see the New Testament as relating the "Gospel", which they regard as a revealed message"? SP-KP (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what are "Jesus-mythers", by the way? SP-KP (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesus myth hypothesis. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I did know about that and should have made the connection. To answer Str1977 - I assume you're asking whether we should replace "Jesus" with something like "Jesus, who may have been fictitious" - no, my feeling is that it would be compatible with Wikipedia policy not to mention that here - given that the number of people who believe Jesus didn't exist isn't that great and that readers can find out about the myth hypothesis at the Jesus article. SP-KP (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did a bit of reorganizing of the intro. This also affects our passage here. Have a look. Str1977 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. We're getting somewhere - there's now a whole paragraph I can't find any problems with. OK, it's only one sentence long, but it's a start :-) Let me take a look at the second one now. SP-KP (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would go with "Christians believe..." rather than "Christians maintain..." throughout, even if it sounds a little repetitious. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd be fine with either, unless there is a specific nuance about the word maintain that I'm not aware of. SP-KP (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What Christianity has in common with Judaism
OK, so on to the second paragraph. "Its followers, known as Christians, believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah (or Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament, which they have in common with with Judaism" - I could read this as saying that Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The use of the wikilinked term "scriptures" was quite helpful I thought. Perhaps we could drop ", which they have in common with with Judaism" from this sentence and have a separate sentence later in the lead which summarises briefly the points of commonality and difference between Christianity and Judaism (and maybe Islam too?) SP-KP (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. My wording is ambiguous. I am trying to fix this. Str1977 (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The new version is looking good. That's two whole sentences I like now - we're on a roll :-) SP-KP (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Types Of Christians?
Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that some of the types of Christianty have been missed out E.G. Quakers- also where is the part about the Holy Bible, the new and the old testament! Really, if you want to find out about Jesus- read the Holy Bible; it revels all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.179.233 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion but that is hardly undisputed fact. Str1977 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the section headed "Scriptures"? As for the Quakers, there are so many branches of Christianity that it is impossible to describe all of them in a single article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And why is there no mention of the CJCC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_Christian and the dubious conversions in the "New World"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.101 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For exactly the same reason. It is not possible to even name every tiny branch of Christianity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy
There is redundancy in the intro:

"Its followers, known as Christians, believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah (or Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament .."

"Jesus, referred to by Christians as Jesus Christ, is central to Christianity as the mediator of salvation, the revealer of God, and the model of a pious life; not just as a teacher, but as the son of God who suffered, died and was resurrected in order to bring about salvation from sin for all."

Str1977 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed this. Str1977 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnote to explain use of present tense
I removed a footnote that seemed to imply that Christianity was illogical. "While logic would suggest that Jesus, having been born 2000 years ago, is now dead, Christians believe that he is still alive. For that reason, in places in this article where a Christian belief is described, the present tense is used." It's not our place to decide what logic would suggest, and I'm not sure why we'd need to explain the use of the present tense, given that the article mentions the beliefs that Jesus rose from the dead, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will judge the living and the dead. Wikitumnus (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this removal.
 * SP, please consider whether such behaviour is really helping the article in any way. Aside from the points mentioned by Wikitumnus (POV, OR), it is also faulty: there is no logical necessity that someone has to die a second time within 2000 years. In fact, it is rather more logical that everyone dies only once. Str1977 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on - look at the edit comment when I added it. The specific words used aren't the important thing here, it's the message that this footnote is trying to get across, and whether a footnote is the way to do it or not that I want to discuss.

So ... let's dealk with issues separately, if we can. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to put aside the issue of whether the tense thing needs explaining.

Taking the second issue first, whether a footnote works as a device for conveying this kind of information - what do you think?

Regarding the words themselves, I thought when I was writing it "I bet this will get some grumbles". I've no particular attachment to the word "logic" ... I can see that Christians might feel put out by having their views described as illogical, so by all means, let's come up with a better word. Any suggestions for how this could be phrased in a way that gets the message across without provoking them?

One final thing, am I correct to read into your comment "please consider whether such behaviour is really helping the article" that you're still not convinced that what I'm doing here is motivated by actually trying to help improve this article? If so, that's a concern. If you'd like to raise that with me on my personal talk page, I'd be happy to discuss, as I think it's important to convince you otherwise, in the interests of helping us make progress in resolving the article's problems. SP-KP (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any explanation is needed. Most people won't notice the change in tense. For those that do, Jesus' resurrection and ascension are mentioned on line 4 of the intro, with wikilinks, and that should clear up any misunderstanding. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with DJC. No explanation is needed.
 * SP-KP, my concern is that, yes, you are bringing up issues that are valid or at least worth discussing but every now and then you are delving into very unhelpful habits. You say you have no attachment to the words but that raises the question why you wrote them in the first place. Insulting the topic of the article is not helping your valid cause which I assume as being in good faith. Str1977 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tense discussion resurrected
I've been giving some more thought to a form of words that could break the logjam with this. The problem we have with "was" is that it could be taken to mean that Christians believe Jesus is no longer the Son of God (e.g. that he lost favour, or that someone else has come along as taken his place). The problem we have with "is" is that the average reader's comprehension of this article could (temporarily) be thrown by the (apparent) incongruity. I would like to suggest the following: "Christians believe Jesus to have been the Son of God". This avoids the comprehension problem. I believe it also gets round the "was" problem too - to the average reader, the word "was" very strongly conveys "was, but is no more" whereas if a reader draws the same conclusion from "to have been", they are making an inference of their own, not relying on inherent meaning in the words. SP-KP (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To have been is also past tense. It's be more appropriate to say "Christian believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" because Christians do believe that he is alive, and since the belief in Him is present tense, it's more grammatically correct to use "is" rather than "was" and "to ahve been" "To have been" has a strong meaning than was. Think about this statement: "Johnny believed that Bob have to have been rich." That would imply that john believed that Bob had to ahve been rich at some point. IronCrow (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Present perfect tense might help here --JimWae (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Made the edit. Please review Nautical Mongoose (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'm missing something - can you explain how the new form of words resolves the difficulty? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God". I think the statement speaks for itself. I'm not going to over-elaborate on what should be a fairly simple concept. To do so would patronize the reader, whom I would assume is intelligent enough to understand what Christians believe about Jesus. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I thought you meant by "resolved" was that you felt that you had come up with a form of words that would deal with the issues I raised about the previous wording AND also deal with IronCrow's reservations about "to have been". You don't mean resolved in that sense, then, is that correct? SP-KP (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Divisions
The divisions section has problems:
 * Is the current place the best solution. Wouldn't be placing them behing beliefs better (as beliefs described the commonalities, the divisions section describes the counterpart).
 * It is out of balance: RC and EO get one sentence each (both not written very well), Protestantism multiple paragraphs. The Old Orientals (Monophysites and Nestorians) are totally ignored.

Str1977 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a sticky wicket trying to make the Protestant section more concise. The first paragraph does little for this article; it is information that is more appropriate for the respective church articles; it attempts to answer how and why the Reformation rather than just naming branches of Protestantism. I attempted to work with it, but then felt all I would be doing is stepping on our Protestant editors' toes. What I think the section should do is address the who and not the why. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided expansions to the section in question (based on info from other places), but I haven't had the time to cite them yet. I'll try to do so soon. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (With regards to BozMo's partial revert): Ah, yeah, there's that whole Reformation thingy. Silly oversight on my part, though the dispute is de facto between RC and Orthodoxy at the present time. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers
And where to put the numbers? They certainly did not belong in the middle of the history section but where shall we put them? Str1977 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Eternal life" not "Everlasting Life"
"Eternal Life" is a more accurate term than "Everlasting Life". Eternal Life (greek Zoe) is the "God-Kind of Life". Zoe represents not merely unending, or everlasting life, but also the quality of that life, which begins when received by virtue of the new birth, and continues beyond the grave. The term "Everlasting Life" may imply the cesation of existance. But, in the scheme of eternity, existance does not cease. Death, hell, the lake of fire, eternal-damnation are reserved for those that are condemned at the great white throne, or judgement of unbelievers. But, eternal reward is bestowed on the faithful at the Judgement Seat of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.125.175 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem of course is that "eternal life" is not actually eternal as it had a beginning. But still, it may be used. "Everlasting life" however may be used as well. It in no way implies what you claim. Ah, and Greek Zoe is not "eternal life" but simply "life". Str1977 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Following the most recent edit, by DBaba, it occurred to me that there is nothing in the lead to explain Christianity's notability. Its notability as a subject is in no way in doubt, of course (in fact it's a good contender for a "top ten most notable topics covered here" award, but ... it would be useful to point out, in the lead, the major reasons why Christianity can be regarded as notable. DBaba's comment regarding Christianity's adherent-base is a good start. I'd like to propose longevity, artistic legacy and widespread "state-sponsorship" (somebody please give me a better term, though!) as three other notabilities. I'm sure we can think of more. Any thoughts? SP-KP (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the same issue was raised by User:Geometry guy in the GA reassessment. SP-KP (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some stuff about state sponsorship. As well as artistic legacy, I think we should mention architectural and cultural legacies. SP-KP (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Balkanization of Christianity
Just as an aside, this silliness of of dissecting Christianity into segments is too much. What in the bloody heck is am Anglican Christian? I know that some within the body of Christ take great interest in seeing who is the "real" Christian, but as for me and my house we will let the Lord decide that. I see no value except in having a single Christianity portal and deleting all of these silly new portal that appeal to...I don't know who they might appeal, but I think they are fundamentally the same as balkanization. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have corrected this by deleting the entire "See Also" section. The portal links were superfluous, and in any case the links to Portal:Christianity should suffice for expanded investigation. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case you meant this question seriously StormRider, an Anglican Christian is one is part of Anglicanism - approximately 77 million people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean it seriously; I reject this penchant by some people to break down Christianity into denominations and thus creating reasons to be divided; that type of house never stands. To me a member of the Anglican tradition is first and foremost a Christian and not an Anglican. I do undestand that we deal with denominational terms to gain understanding of belief systems, but that is a secondary issue than being first identified as a follower of Jesus Christ. As an aside, I am aware of Anglicanism and a great many other -isms.

Trinity complex?
User:SP-KP today added a neutrality tag to the statement that the doctrine of the Trinity is complex. SP, are you saying the doctrine is not complex? This doctrine has long been thought of as impossible to comprehend or at last beyond the understanding of man. Are you saying that it is a simple doctrine to grasp? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Storm Rider. The tag's purpose is to indicate that the statement "The trinity is a complex topic" is an opinion, not a fact. We can say things like "The Trinity is widely held to be a complex topic", or "The trinity has been described as a complex topic" but we can't say that it IS a complex topic, as that's POV. SP-KP (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, I agree with you re: referencing. However, I can't tell what the reference you've added is. It appears to be someone's personal webpage? (not sure who) Can you help? SP-KP (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the ref to the "false-trinity" page, as it said near the end that it was an "ungodly heresy". We need a more 'neutral' ref than that! rossnixon 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, SP, just change the sentence. You make more work than is necessary and your proposed changed cannot be disputed. What you did was force others to search for a silly reference to say the concept is complex, which exercises others because it, in this instance, it happened to be on a site that does not support the Trinity. It may be both reputable and verifiable, but it is certainly not the best. I will just change the sentence and let's move on. Tagging is the last option, particularly when simple edits improves the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the citation supports the entire paragraph. Vassyana (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks better now. I've marked this as resolved. Storm Rider - I disagree with you re: the merits of tags versus edits, but am happy to discuss if you wish: leave a note on my talk page if you want to take me up on this offer. SP-KP (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Monotheistic
There should be a blurb that many do not consider Christianity monotheistic due to the trilogy, saint, Jesus, etc. Islam and Judaism both believe that God is singular and indivisible and are true monotheistic religions, while Christianity's claim to monotheism is questionable at best. It's more like a pagan religion with a panoply of saints and "Jesus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.194.60 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Be bold and add sourced text. Note that Attack page is official policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, please note the numerous discussions we've had on this issue, most recently in what is now Archive 45 of this page, which have ended with the result that this is OR, without any RS to back it up. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral references supporting the fact that Christianity is monotheistic abound. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguably this could be seen as a matter of misunderstanding. I think its safe to say that Christians know what they believe better than others, since they are the ones who hold such a belief!Tourskin (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Format of Dates
At several points in the article (in the fourth paragraph of the introduction for example), a year is given as such-and-such AD. The AD should actually go before the date - AD 100, not 100 AD. Only the BCs go after. I know it seems minor, but that mistake really bugs me for some reason. Thesamocrat (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is supported by WP:MOSDATES, so I've gone ahead and switched over the ones I found. Think I got all of them. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity is several religions
Christianity is an umbrella term for several religions that root their teachings to those of the mythical figure Jesus Christ. That should be the opening sentence. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Do you have a reference for that position or is it your personal opinion? When churches are built around the concept that there was a Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth; that he was the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, now sits at the right hand of God, and will return again one day, it is hard for me to call those churches different religions. Also, if those churches follow the teachings of Jesus and are centered on him, it is hard to think of them as anything but Christians.
 * If your statement is to point out that there are differences in doctrine or theology; rest assured that it is not necessary. People have died for beliefs in doctrinal differences for too long.
 * The mythical figure bit may be nice, personal commentary, but hardly worthy of an encyclopedia and is POV. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering Zeus is "mythical" and there is more proof he exists than Jesus. I'd say Jesus is mythical. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Show me some reputable sources that assert this and we'll get talking. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I smell a troll and a rather dim one; let's be careful to not feed it further. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Christianity is a hateful religion. 207.224.55.182 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say "Hateful things have been done in the name of Christianity." However, this is not the article for such issues. Bytebear (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity is not an umbrella religious term, it is one religion with a few different views. The vast majority of Christians accept the Council of Nicaea in 327 AD, and that incorporates the vast majority of Christian teaching. Now then, Jesus was a myth? Right, you, being a modern day person with no references would know better than contemporary Roman and Greek writers or even Jewish ones like Josephus? And hateful things have been done in the name of all religions.Tourskin (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread is a clear-cut case of flamebaiting, and nothing will be accomplished by responding to them. I would recommend that an admin archive this topic immediately, as it was clearly not made with the intent to improve the article. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Some revelation there, except that its only been made so obvious by the user's comments. However, I agree I should not have responded but hey everyone else did. Tourskin (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And sorry if I sounded rude. Tourskin (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's how it works. Some people post to forums and discussion pages in attempts to get a rise out of people for their own amusement (they may not even care about the actual topic they are trolling). I've found through experience that when conversing with trolls, the only winning move is not to do so in the first place. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it happens. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, u dont need to tell me, the Jesus article gets enough trolling. Tourskin (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Present day Christian divisions
This title should be changed to "Present day denominations". Firstly the entire article is about Christianity so having this noun in the title is superfluous. Secondly the word "denominations" is a more accurate description of the different branches of Christianity. As evidenced by dictionary definitions and the fact that this section is a short form of the main article Christian denomination. If there are no objections then I will make the change in the next few days. --Logiboy123 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that 'divisions' gives a false impression, I don't think 'denominations' is right either. Orthodoxy is not a denomination - it is a grouping of denominations. Likewise Protestantism is made up of many denominations. If people think the section is intended to describe all Christian denominations then they will start adding each tiny denomination and the section will grow to swamp the article. Maybe "Branches of Christianity"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That works for me. --Logiboy123 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it. Hope you like n.n Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?
I can't find this out in the article. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sin, death, and Satan. See Soteriology. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing - his followers just needed to put a positive spin on it after he died...it's hard to accept that your messiah has died unless he was supposed to die. (I posted this before and someone deleted without arguing against the point, they probably assumed that is was a petty snide remark, but I think it is a well reasoned argument about how faith twists facts to suite what they want to believe. If someone wants to delete this, then they should post a justifiable argument against it rather than assuming that anyone who disagrees with their religion can be ignored - please excuse the rant) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.70.190 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that's a well-reasoned argument, you're kidding yourself. Richard Dawkins, for all his arrogance and faults, has a far more coherent argument than you. Anyway, this is a talk page for improving the article, and not for airing your own views. Brisv e  gas  04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it not coherent - if you believe someone is the messiah, but they die before actually saving us, then when you are trying to continue the movement, you need to insert the idea that his death was the salvation, otherwise the end of the bible is a bit of an anti-climax. If you ignore the assumption that the people writing the bible are telling the truth (which is an awful assumption), then the argument is perfectly coherent. And I accept that here isn't the place for personal opinions (such as yours about dawkins), but i didn't start this section, I just answered someones question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.70.190 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Universal Reconciliation
I am simply trying to give a little more explanation as to why Christian Universalists believe what they believe. I've now put back the original sentence on Universalism in the "Afterlife" section (now under a sub-heading).I've also trimmed my original content considerably, providing 2 references concerning the "aion" controversy. Thanks for the feedback, but I'm having trouble understanding why this is apparently such a big deal. Christianw7 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the latest version of my contribution that has been deleted for reasons of "original research" and "undue weight" (the first sentence is not mine and was from the previous version):


 * Universalists hold that eventually all will experience salvation, thereby rejecting the concept of an eternal hell for those who are not saved. Christians who believe in everlasting punishment must resolve apparent contradictions in the problem of hell. But proponents of Universal Reconciliation argue that such contradictions only exist because words such as “everlasting”, “eternal” and “forever” are debatable translations of the Greek word aion and its derivatives in and similar passages  (see the Concordant Version and Young's Literal Translation of the Bible for alternative translations).


 * The first sentence was there before and cited no references. So what my contribution amounts to is 2 sentences, one stating the obvious and referring to another wiki article (the problem of hell). The other sentence makes the point of aion potentially being translated another way, cites 2 published references and offers 2 alternative Bible translations. How is it original research if I cite 2 references for 2 sentences? How do 2 additional sentences constitute undue weight? I've trimmed my contribution down to the bare essentials of informing people that aion can be and is in fact translated in other ways besides "eternal". This is even true in mainstream translations. For example the very last word of Matthew 28:20 is aion, translated "age" in most English translations: "...I am with you always, to the end of the age" (NRSV). How can there be an "end of the age" if aion means eternity? Isn't wikipedia about informing people of verifiable facts? What I contributed are facts and I've verified them. I would appreciate a rational response from anyone.
 * Christianw7 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one has yet responded to the above argument, I am offering yet another compromise. Here is the contribution I will post later today if no one can rationally justify why it should not be posted. Once again the bulk of the first sentence is already there in the "afterlife" section. Also, the reference links don't work here on the talk page:


 * Christian Universalists hold that eventually all will experience salvation, thereby rejecting the concept of an eternal hell for those who are not saved. This view, also known as Universal Reconciliation, teaches that the doctrine of everlasting punishment is questionable because words such as “everlasting”, “eternal” and “forever” are debatable translations of the Greek word aion and its derivatives in and similar passages  (see the Concordant Version and Young's Literal Translation of the Bible for alternative translations).


 * This time I'm adding only one sentence with 2 references. I can't see why anyone would object to this fact being included, unless they simply don't want this relevant information available on a major wikipedia page. Thanks Christianw7 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The translation discussions are an inordinate amount of detail. You have also linked twice to the same page.  Both of these strike as undue weight.  In the spirit of what you proposed, a better solution might be


 * Universal Reconciliation is the view that all will eventually experience salvation, rejecting the concept of an eternal hell for those who are not saved. Christians espousing this view are known as Universalists.


 * Succinct, to the point, avoids esoteric scholarly discussion which bogs down the article, and should be easy to reference. Also, no "must cope with the contradiction of Hell" OR which is a "still beat your wife?" complex question assertion, attributing to the reader an assertion that they may not acknowledge.  A fuller discourse on UR is still desirable on its main article, of course.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The latest proposed version above already excluded this sentence: "Christians who believe in everlasting punishment must resolve apparent contradictions in the problem of hell", even though the wiki article on "the problem of hell" makes the same point. So is that whole article a "still beat your wife? complex question assertion"? But as stated before, I'm willing to exclude that sentence. I also don't see how one sentence explaining one reason for the universalist position constitutes "esoteric scholarly discussion which bogs down the article". As far as linking the same page twice, are you talking about my references or links to Universal Reconciliation? If it's the references, it must be a technical problem, because there are in fact 2 sources. If it's the link to UR, I'm fine with only one link instead of 2. What about this version of what you proposed above, including the links to sources:


 * Universal Reconciliation is the view that all will eventually experience salvation, rejecting the concept that hell is literally eternal . Christians espousing this view are known as Universalists.


 * Christianw7 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No sentence comparable to "Christians who believe in everlasting punishment must resolve apparent contradictions in the problem of hell" appears as far as I can see in the problem of hell article. There is no assertion of an obligation to resolve. On top of which that article is a backwater not a mainstream former featured articles (and Wikipedia for Schools article) like this. Other than that I think your sentence would be theologically more correct if it read everlasting instead of eternal, but I am ok with the rest of it. --BozMo talk 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've altered that sentence in the UR & problem of hell articles in an effort at greater neutrality. It now reads: "The problem of hell is an issue because points A and C create an apparent contradiction." However, the overall article on the problem of hell does make the point that if you believe in hell, there is a dilemma. Just out of curiosity, why the issue with the word "eternal". I'm OK w/everlasting, but the original sentence on UR did use the word eternal, before I ever began to stir the pot. Christianw7 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I was taught theology was that in the NT everlasting is mainly about the time duration whereas eternal is mainly about quality/value. Semantically I don't think the word is different and I am not sure the lecturer was right but it seems easier not to invoke confusion with people who use the words that way. --BozMo talk 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the problem about UR?█►Student Of the Word◄█ 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons with the Islam article
The article on Islam discusses directly the issue of terrorism perpetrated by minority cults of extremist muslims - in keeping with that tradition, perhaps we should discuss pro-life Christian terrorism on Christianity. Perhaps this would be appropriate:

''"Christianity, like Islam, has it's extremist minorities who engage in the practice of terrorism . Such terrorist groups as the Army of God claim to practice terrorism in pursuit of the "pro-life" agenda - a line condemned by the mainstream pro-life movement which is largely peaceful

1. US abortion clinics in anthrax scare. BBC News. 19 October, 2001. 2. List of terrorist organizations, from the MIPT's Terrorism Knowledge Base


 * My knee jerk reaction is first to quantify how many Muslim terrorist happened yesterday? Next, how many Christian terrorist activities happening in the last year? How do they compare? The concept is fringe; Christians have committed terrorist acts but there is no comparison to the number and wide prevalence of terrorist activities by Muslims. More importantly, there is no comparison in the degree of support terrorists receive from the Muslim majority; it is not supported by "minority cults of extremist Muslims". --Storm Rider (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't honestly believe that the majority of Muslims support terrorism do you? Because if you do I am astounded by that remark; additionally, depending on one's view it could be argued that there were a number of attacks by the Iraqi and Afghan resistance movement yesterday but zero notable terror attacks. The main foundation of my point however is simply this: do you think Christian terror is less significant to the families of those abortion doctors? An example - the British Muslim Association has more than 100000 members and abhors terrorism - how dare you sit there and say that a majority of Muslims back Al-Qaeda. This encylopedia as a whole MUST be balanced. If Islamic terror is discussed on Islam then so should Christian pro-life terror be discussed at Christianity. --77.98.178.218 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone please add my section under the heading "terrorism" or "Christianity and terrorism" --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its an obvious fact that Islamic terrorism is more well known than Christian terrorism. I'm not saying anything other than that people are more aware of Islamic terrorism, for better or worse, than Christian terrorism. I never even knew of such terrorism by Christians. Furthermoore, the New Testament speaks out against all forms of violence, so Christian terrorism is completely unorthodox. Islamic terrorism can be meddled in with jihad (a struggle, yes I know what it means), which is an orthodox Islamic view. Tourskin (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But still what about Donald Spitz and Army of God. He is a reverend and claims that AoG acts in the name of Christianity --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen articles that stated that between 30 and 60 percent of Muslims support suicide bombers, those you identify as Muslim extremists. Any form of support that approaches even the lowest estimate of 30% cannot be evalutated as extremists unless the religion is extremists. There is nothing comparable to Jihad in Christianity. There is no theology in Christianity that makes it acceptable in any situation to either force individuals to believe in Jesus Christ or kill them. More importantly, I still think the main issue is relativity. The number of Islamic terrorist acts so completely overwhelms any comparison relative to Christianity or, I suspect, any other religion that the proposition seems without merit. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 30 - 60% is in no way an accurate figure. Where have you seen this ridiculous statistic? --77.98.178.218 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with you there. User:77.98.178.218, Donald Spitz has the support of no Christian Church today. Your argument is a massive fallacy.Tourskin (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of incidents of anything that could be classes as "Christian Terrorism" comes nowhere near close to the number that have been claimed in the name of Islam. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I quickly found one article on a recent Pew poll in countries predominately populated by Muslims. This recent survey states that support for suicide bombers is declining among Muslims. Depending upon the country, it appears to range from 13% to 70%. Blowing oneself up only to kill innocent human beings is simply not justified by any Christian denomination or church. Innocent life is held sacred whereas in Islam there are those who have found a way to support their actions by their interpretation of the Qur'an. It may be that a majority of Muslims do not support these murderers, but they are a silent majority and thus have become irrelevant. I still submit that there is no comparison betweenn the two groups. Please understand that I am not saying Christians have not done terrible things, but in this type of offense is not one of them. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Raising the question of how much of the Muslim population supports violent jihad and how prone to such an intepretation the Qu'ran is only brings up a whole new can of worms. It is sufficient to say that such a comparison is invalid because: Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a false balance; what may be relveant to one may not be relevant in the other
 * Violence by Christians, qua Christians is not comparably notable, iaw WP standards, to violence by Muslims, qua Muslims

Religion and state


What would the corresponding map of christian countries by constitution look like?

And is there any orgnisation of christian countries corresponding to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference? --83.253.251.189 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the Countries who are Christians are now known as the Secular world/countries or the western world as we know, view Secular state or State religion to view the countries. Moshino31 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to figure out the degree of devotion and practice amongst Christians is somewhat contentious to begin with, as it brings up the old, heated questions of who "really" is a Christian. The best we can do in a WP context is work with statistics that denote the number of self-identified Christians (which is really the only standard we can safely use) and mark out the countries which have either Christianity (or a form of it) as the state religion or simply just have a Christian majority. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might find a list of countries who have Christianity as a state religion. That's not necessarily being a "Christian state" in the same way that we would understand an "Islamic state". For example the UK technically still has a state religion (The Church of England) but it doesn't have any disgnificant effect on the way the country is run. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection
I was surprised with the contention over belief in the resurrection. Is there any church that teaches the resurrection is only fantasy? I am not aware of any church or denomination that teaches such. The contention appears to be over use of "most" rather than "many". First, we need to limit conversation to what churches teach and not what a Christian believes. It is impossible to cover the wide differences in the beliefs of the individual whereas it is feasible to cover what churches teach. One of the editors stated they knew Christians who did not believe in the resurrection. I have served in numerous teaching/missionary capacities on two continents and I have never met a Christian to profess such a system of belief. That is not to say that I am not familiar with liberal Chris scholarship (read Jesus Seminar), but those individuals I have not met personally. Without the resurrection what purpose did Jesus have? Everything is tied to that event. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Christianity is underpinned by Jesus' ressurection. There is no Christianity without ressurection. This is what defines Christendom. Tourskin (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we need to focus on the point of contention. This article is not concerned with individual beliefs, but with what Christian churches teach. It is impossible to attempt to understand what is actually believed, to what degree, etc. This attempt to quantify personal beliefs is a red herring. Christian churches teach that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. What you or I or Joe Mensch down the street believes is irrelevant. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems, as far as churches go, that Quakers and Unitarians do not have resurrection as a doctrine. I think there are a few more too. Then, also, there are the many liberal clergy who do not think of it as doctrine. One may disagree with whether they are Xn, but many do consider themselves Xn anyway. I wonder if there are any Docetists around still.--JimWae (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I love Quakers as much as the next fellow, but they are hardly the center of Christianity or even a significant minority. The article is "Christianity" and its focus is the broad movement. It is impossible to cover all the idiosyncrasies of the the fringes, but sub articles are made for covering the ever more subtle distinctions in the smaller groups. I think it will be very easy to supply tens, if not hundreds, of references to verify that all major Christian churches, denominations, sects, cults, etc. teach that Jesus rose the third day. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with MOST. I do have problem with ALL & with ALL MAJOR, and also with unmodified CHRISTIANS. MOST will do - but a source would be helpful for that. --JimWae (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand and hate the use of the Bible as a source for what Christianity is but 1 Corinthians 15:17 (e.g. http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-17.htm ) is fairly strong on the point for those churches which use the Bible. There are odd liberals like Don Cuppitt who dissent but the dissent seems enough to make them notable. I think All major is certainly accurate. --BozMo talk 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Resurrection is a fundamental element of Christianity, the Divine object being the Living Christ, and an encyclopedia ought to relay that. Like Storm Rider says, it matters not if there are isolated individuals or sects who believe what they will about the man Jesus. A basic encyclopedia article should not get bogged down with such trivia. The Christ-ian faith began explicitly with the Resurrection, and this is clear from the earliest of New Testament writings, for example:


 * God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
 * Acts 1:32-33


 * MOST does the job just fine (once a source is found) & does NOT raise the further issue of who decides (& how) which ones are major & which are not. MOST says what needs to be said just fine. --JimWae (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ALL is not appropriate, but either MOST or ALL MAJOR is sufficient, with ALL MAJOR likely being more accurate. It is quite simple to asses what MAJOR means, which in this context refers to the size of the group of followers of the that particular opinion. A group of about, or less then 1~3% does not constitute as major. The difference between ALL MAJOR and MOST is the connotation of the two phrases, as ALL MAJOR conveys a message that is more significant and specific then MOST. Thats my two cents anyway. Jargon777 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)