Talk:Christians/Archive 2

Christan faiths
There is no mention of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. unique versions of the Christan faith that deserve mention if not by me then someone. (mparlette (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC))


 * From May to June 2008 this article was Content forking from the main article Christianity and others, which is against Wikipedia policy. Rather than add more as requested above, I have removed the entire sections about denominations, which are covered elsewhere and are not needed in an article about Christian.  Likewise, I have removed the section on salvation, just leaving the material on "Who is a Christian". This article needs to be kept focussed.  Look into the archives, linked above, for more information on this. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

χριστιανους
This label is NOT a created term of endearment, as the original followers in Palestine and the Holy Roman Empire had to socialize in-cognito (private house meetings, cryptic symbols, metaphorical theology and rites) as these followers were subject to expulsion, imprisonment, torture, and of course death by stoning, crucifixion, mauling, etc. as its leader was accused of breaking Jewish (Blasphemy) and Roman (Treason) Laws. Thus, this article needs first a Jewish/secular interpretation that includes harsh contempt for a despised concept of "Messiah" around the Mediterranean Sea as it took 200 years to gain a political/cultural foothold in North Africa and Europe. Similar mis-lables as Mohammedians, Shakers, Quakers, Puritans, Holy Rollers, etc. In the Bible this is similar to the Scribes' slur against Jesus for 'driving out demons by Beelzebul (Lord-of-the-Flies), prince of demons. Thus, the founders of this religion is born steeped in contempt which perpetuates itself using the axiom of either remaining faithful to Jesus' teachings, or standing apart from them and his followers. Similar contempt can be found of other fraternaties of faith, philosophy, and science to label outsiders, such as Creationists, Flat-Earthers, and Zealots. User: bwildasi Mon Jun 30 16:17:29 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you post that your a Christian?
I'm a Christian and Yea!!! --- Pånchø - (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be relevant to post it in this article or on this page, but you can put such information on your user page; it lets other editors know where you are coming from. One way to do it is to add a userbox there e.g. with this code:
 * - Fayenatic (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - Fayenatic (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories of Christians
I added my edit because I think it explains the term Christian to people who are trying to understand it's context.

I agree it has no independent verifiability - but I thought it might balance the lack of objectivity that already exists in the article in describing the term Christian.

The weak reference to a US study does not justify the categorisation of "Active Christians" vs "Liturgical Christians" - it is a blatant bias that has no worldwide basis in fact - just fundamentalist Christian prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.37.217 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the identification of two denominations within "Liturgical Christians", in that source document, was US-centric. However, it appears to describe a form of Christian practice that is found in many countries. I therefore reinstated the category without referring to any denominations. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. "Active Christians" has a description attached which is obviously a description of fundamentalist Christians (mostly). Using the term "Active Christian" seems to imply other Chrisitians are less active, where I would argue that these other Christians just believe their Christian activity should be expressed in different ways. Therefore I think the quote is biased towards a description of Christianity as seen by fundamentalists/evangelicals. The phrase "Active Christians" is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.242.93 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 27 November 2008


 * Even though the phrase "active Christians" was used in that survey, it might be appropriate to change this to "witnessing Christians" in this article, as sharing their faith is the main distinctive that was attributed to this category. Opinions? (It would be WP:POV to link that to "fundamentalist" Christians, as some others also share their faith.) - Fayenatic (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Witnessing" sounds pretty shaky. What about "Organized Christians", or even the somewhat silly-sounding (at least in my POV) "Church Christians"?  I like the former better than the latter. -Aeonoris (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merger (again)
Another editor has suggested merging this page into Christianity.

Oppose. The same merger has been proposed before, and there was a strong consensus against it. See archived discussion here: Talk:Christian/Archive 01.

This article is actively watched by multiple editors to ensure that no content fork arises. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Support for move as primary topic, and pretty clearly so. Sole opposition is not supported by policy or guideline. The move necessarily required a move first of the current Christian, a dab page to Christian (disambiguation), which as been done. The redirects to that page will now redirect here as primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
This article should bear the title Christian, not Christian (word), because it is nearly the only meaning it has EVERY time anyone Wikilinks the word Christian, and because the disambiguation page will come up instead. There is no need for a disambiguation page because there are only two meanings for the word, and they are handled by "This article .... For ... see ...." on the two articles. Request from an admin is needed to delete the disambiguation page. Agree or disagree? If the consensus is move, please complete the process via the admins, as this is not a page I visit often. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I strongly support this proposed move.  Cheers,  T B erg   Drop a Line ޗ pls


 * Oppose: the title Christian is ambiguous and thus properly is given to a disambiguation page.  The incoming links to that page are pending disambiguation.  You can help.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Una - please stop asserting that being ambiguous alone is basis for making the term in question a disambiguation page. Please review the criteria for determining whether a given ambiguous term or name should be an article about one of the topics, or a dab page.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: The issue is not whether Christian is ambiguous (of course it is), but whether it has a "well-known primary topic ... much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)". It should be obvious that the subject of this article is it. The assertion above that anytime anyone wikilinks Christian the intent is to come to this page stands unchallenged, for good reason, and goes a long way towards meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria on its own.  Also, every single hit for the first page and a half of google results in a search for "Christian" is clearly a reference to the topic of this page. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, as the primary meaning is clear. The disambiguation page has rightly now been restored to more than two meanings, but still most inbound links will be intended for adherents of Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It is a clear primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Sam5 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I says im vandalising the site for saying Jesus came from the Pagan God Horus [(The Sun God)(Which is where the son of God oridinated)} Even though it's true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.157.175 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because your edit makes no sense. Your earlier edit makes clear your actual intention.    Doulos Christos   ♥ talk   03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it would belong on the Jesus article. Also, "son" and "sun" do not have the same etymological roots, methinks.  -Aeonoris (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a Christian?
I am adding a quotation of the New Testament concerning the question 'What is a Christian' because the Bible is the first source to give a proper answer. This should not be missed in this article.

I do not regard these categories and such expression like 'active Christians' as fitting, as already someone else mentioned above. I propose to add following sentence: "Others hold that categorizing Christians is not in line with the understanding of the New Testament of the term Christian. In the Biblical sense it is a character of a Christian to be active in obeying God's word, serving in the church, sharing his life with other believers, professing his faith and in general to love God and his neighbour in daily life." I will wait some time with adding this sentence to see whether other editors possibly disagree. - Nikil44 (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Using primary sources should be avoided on WP, especially when we have material from secondary/tertiary sources, as we do in this case. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this principle really applicable here? The point here is to give a description what a Christian is. For this reason a primary source is sensible in my opinion, it does not want to convince anyone of any specific view or influence anyone in a biased way. It gives simply a neutral definition of the term 'Christian'. For instance, if I want to get to know what a Buddhist ist, I would ask Buddhists and read in their scriptures to understand their ideology. Additionally I would ask non-Buddhists to see what these people know about them to get a comprehensive image. But I would never omit the first step. Anyway the explanation of the American Heritage Dictionary agrees with the Bible verse from 1John and in this way we have a primary and secondary source. - Nikil44 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm removing it because it would be the start of a content fork from the article Christianity. Also, we need WP:Reliable sources to back up the selection of scriptures for a general article such as this, otherwise it's WP:Original research. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
I think that the following statement in this section is not right: "The name Christian was first used to denote those known to be teachers or leaders of the church (saints). They were disciples and followers of Jesus Christ".

The end of the verse in Acts 11:26, 'the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch', does not refer to Barnabas and Saul (Paul) but to the church which is mentioned in the same verse as well. Not only teachers and prophets are disciples but everyone who follows Jesus. The term disciple and Christian is used for every follower of Jesus throughout the whole New Testament. The passage in Acts 11 agrees with this fact. It is a misunderstanding to refer it to Barnabas and Saul. I can't imagine other reasons for this statement but perhaps someone else knows more. I will wait some time before deleting these two sentences to hear the opinion of others. - Nikil44 (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah i have a question. which religion do you believe or which kind of christian r u based on the article you wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwo4 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I too have a question, but mine is on topic, i.e. etymology. Why did the Antiochenes call them "christianoi" with three iotas rather than "christanoi" with two? Wouldn't "christanos" be the ordinary adjectival form of "christos"? And wouldn't "christianos" be the adjectival form of "christios"? Is "christios" a Greek word? Rwflammang (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Defining a Christian
The dictionary definition is good. But shouldn't a definition be added that describes the basic beliefs of a Christian? The article seems to be lacking this description. The Bible would be a good source. Many denominations vary on many beliefs, but most agree on some basics, like the following:


 * 1) Jesus is the son of God become man through the virgin birth.
 * 2) Jesus called us to believe in him.  - This is open to interpretation, but in its basic form, it is to follow his teachings, sometimes also known as the way.  He expands on the ten commandments in his Sermon on the Mount.
 * 3) Jesus had no sin and died for us that we might once again have a relationship with His father, God.
 * 4) Jesus rose from the dead and showed himself to thousands, giving us real hope of eternal life.

Jesus is quoted as saying those who love him will obey him. His commandments were summed up in loving God and loving your neighbor. Therefore, the sign you are with a Christian is that they are showing you love.

Most of what I have added above is based on faith, but how do you define a Christian without discussing faith?

Trilby1970 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We need definitions from secondary sources, not your (or anyone's) interpretation of primary sources such as the Bible. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, elaboration on the beliefs of Christians belongs in the linked article Christianity; this must not become a WP:Content fork from that article. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"the virgin birth" Most chritians dont believe in the virgin birth these days. Not even taking into account any birth in the first 2 years of marriage was called a "virgin birth"

The opening definition of adheres to should be removed. Not to mention the 4 major diferent definitions of what christianity is, without taking into account all the other ideas of what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.11.49 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I would say that what a Christian is is very simple: you must confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead. Knowing who is a Christian is the hard bit. And, while the virgin birth is not a central, defining core aspect of that, most Christians do believe it, as the apostles' creed is almost universally accepted (and certainly should be). Kan8eDie (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say 'I would say...' - this is a POV about what a Christian is, not what a Christian is - there are Christians who have different definitions. I agree it should be acknowledged that there are Christian sects with specific exclusive definitions (such as the concept of 'the elect'), just as it should be acknowledged there are others with more inclusive definitions, and these need to be backed up with WP:RS, rather than what we think (or don't think) it is. Mish (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Viewing the Church as a Teacher
Part of the problem with this article (and in others) is that it does not or cannot conceive that a fairly good definition for a Christian is simply someone who is a member of the Church. For Catholics, especially, the Church is a Teacher and Mother (see Mater et Magistra), something that Protestants do not typically identify with. Therefore, from this perspective, every person who faithfully receives his teaching from the Christian Church is called a Christian. ADM (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read all the paragraphs of that document that contain the word Christian, and it doesn't define "Christian" that way. Please provide a source in accordance with Wikipedia's policy WP:Reliable sources; otherwise it appears to be your own "WP:Original research". - Fayenatic (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the beginning and the end of the document, paragraphs 1 and 262, it defines the Church as the bride of Christ and the people of God. Those are documented terms of ecclesiology, which are commonly used to define the internal and collective self-understaning of Christians. There are more relevant documents on the issue such as Ecclesiam Suam and Mystici Corporis Christi, which tend to focus on the plural and corporative interpretation of who/what is a Christian. ADM (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article already contains a statement (needing a citation) that "Christian" also means a member or adherent of a church... I can't see that your addition is any more relevant than the (apparently Protestant) Bible-based original research which has already been deleted; see above. If it's not defining or explaining "Christian", it doesn't belong here; this article must not become a WP:Content fork from Christianity. Para 262 of that encyclical says that the Church is the Mother and Teacher of all nations   - but you wouldn't add this to the article on nation. It's not directly relevant here either.
 * However, if you could help with a WP:RS citation for Christian meaning a member of a church, that would be helpful. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian = Protestant?
I do realize that the most common definition of "Christian" is "someone who believes in Christ". But isn't the word "christian" also used sometimes to refer to just Protestants, using christian as opposed to Catholic? Maybe it's only colliqual, but I'm sure people use the word this way too. However, I can't find this definition here or on Wiktionary (Christian). Am I mistaken? Jonathan talk 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether you are mistaken or not, but I do hope that you are! To use "Christian" in this way would be to imply an unacceptable bias against the Roman Catholic Church.    D b f i r s   16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Use of the word in this manner is unsupported by the OED. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have come across that usage anecdotally, but I think it's only an accepted understanding of the word (i) on a very localised basis on certain islands, (ii) among people who are less well informed or (iii) within Protestant groups who use it to reinforce their point of view. I don't think it should be added here unless there are WP:Reliable sources for that usage. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Im Protestant) Yes, we dont believe in the stuff Catholics do, but we DEFINATLEY BELIEVE IN THE LORD. --69.116.87.74 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Image
I do not think the recently-added image of a modern cross monument illustrates this article particularly well. What would be better? A multi-ethnic group of Christians, perhaps? A montage of photos of people wearing or doing things that illustrate Christian practice? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; I am also not fond of the picture. However, finding an alternative might not be the easiest of tasks. Pictures of acts of service from food lines to good will stores to work in the third world all would be good. I don't see a montage as being feasible, but several pictures might be helpful. -- Storm  Rider  19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing about it. I added a caption of what the cross was, but I don't think it represents christianity. Also, "pictures of acts of service from food lines to good will stores to work in the third world all would be good." is not a representation of christians very well. Not all christians do that stuff. Aany christians dont symbolize the cross, thus making the current image a bad representation. I'm not sure if this article is suited for an image being that a "christian" is a individuals lable. Though, it could just be a simple picture of a bible? Andrew Colvin (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this issue comes up a lot, and I am ok with the cross, simply because even outside of Christianity it is universally understood, even if some denominations do not have the same image or even use a cross in their liturgy. So, I was thinking. The cross at the top of this page with the blue circle seems to have survived scrutiny on the talk pages. Why not use it for the article image?

Christianity Today Poll
The Christianity Today poll does not represent a world-wide view of "Christian." The poll was taken only among Americans. Additionally, the poll was sponsored by Leadership, a fundamentalist/evangelical organization with specific kinds of questions - which the poll answered. In short, by adding this poll material to the page "Christian," we leave out a swath of information about Christians other than Fundamanetlist/Evangelicals - like mainline protestants, Catholics, Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Etc. I, therefore, am removing this information.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove this information. It is valid research and is a well-recognized sample. One may even conclude that it is tilted toward the less conservative end of the spectrum. There is no evidence that mainline protestants, Catholics, Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Etc., have been removed. If you can find a better poll, please submit it. Meanwhile, it is the best we have and presents a fair picture.Afaprof01 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not address my specific concerns.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In removing the entire section, you also took out the material about the analysis of the creeds, which are not specific to North America, nor to any particular breed or denomination. I have restored so that a more careful edit may be made after consensus is reached on the talk page. For the record, I don't see any other editors arguing for the removal of the poll information. HokieRNB 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the CT/Zondervan poll (co-sponsored by Leadership), neither organization could be characterized as "fundamentalist", and some would even say they are no longer even truly "evangelical". That aside, the article clearly states that the poll is American in scope, but directed at "self-identified" Christians, which would include all the categories you purport are missing. HokieRNB 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons above, I have removed the poll and the creed section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll is better placed on the Christianity page, since polls do not describe who or what a Christian is. The Christianity page is broader, and can incorporate information that describes self-described Christians.
 * The Creed section was unsourced.

Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll is specific to "kinds of Christians", not "kinds of Christianity". Reverted.
 * The analysis of the creeds is cited as follows: Martin, Michael (1993). The Case Against Christianity. Temple University Press. p. 12. ISBN 1566390818. Reverted.

images, quote, and audio
To the editor(s) who has inserted these three times without any edit rationale or discussion, please engage here before adding back in. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for their inclusion on this page. The quote from the Bible and the audio both need some commentary (preferably with a reliable source) to give proper context, if indeed they are relevant to the article. The cross image is really no improvement over what is already in place, and the other one seems entirely unrelated to the adjacent text. HokieRNB 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

links to be avoided
I reverted the IP editor because the following links are against WP:ELand WP:RS - The additional media should be discussed before adding. This editor may be the same as this one and this one. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Links to any search results pages) - www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=5Eh&defl=en&q=define:christian&ei=03bUSrLJFo_k8QaIv6WMDQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CA0QkAE
 * (Links to open wikis) - wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_name_Christian_mean&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_does_Christian_mean

article rehab
Concerning the changes to the layout of the text (which has been like watching a ping-pong match), it is consistent with other articles to begin with a concise definition of the term in the lead paragraph, then include the etymology or origin of the term, then work from early history to present. Please discuss here if there is a good reason to deviate from this course. HokieRNB 14:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the etymology section so lengthy that some readers may stop there and not get to the meat of the article. I don't disagree with your consistency approach.
 * I agree that the etymology seems inappropriately long. However, I didn't see anything that should be cut out.  It is extremely important to note that in many places around the world, the concept of "Christian" is not at all related to a personal faith or even a religion, but rather to a cultural identity.  This is especially true in places where Islam is prevalent.  To say one is Christian may simply mean that one is not Muslim.  Perhaps these cross-cultural ideas could be taken out of "etymology" and worked into their own sections.  I just don't have any good reliable sources to make the following distinctions:

HokieRNB 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Christian" as opposed to Muslim (many parts of Africa & the Middle East)
 * "Christian" as opposed to Pagan (many parts of Russia & Europe)
 * "Christian" as opposed to Atheist (many parts of Russia & Asia)
 * "Christian" as opposed to Animist (many parts of Asia & South America)
 * "Christian" as opposed to Catholic (many parts of the "non-Western" world)
 * "Christian" as opposed to Secular (many parts of the "Western" world)
 * This is a very valid point. Let's leave Etymology as is and be on the lookout for good reliable sources for your idea.Afaprof01 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To my dismay, I'm guilty of inadvertently deleting the Lede. Thanks for all of your superior edits. The article seriously needed your fresh and wise edits! It's obvious you spent much time and energy checking things out and repairing as necessary. In great appreciation and admiration of your skills and conscientiousness, Afaprof01 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Mark M. Mattison, why is he considered a reliable source? I'm not asking for it to be removed, I just want to clarify whether this is perhaps a self-published source. HokieRNB 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Fosdick quote, I have removed it because in its original context, he was lamenting apostasy in Christianity, not complaining about ambiguity in the term "Christian". I have also cleaned up the verbiage around the Anderson Cooper quote, as it was starting to smell like an essay. HokieRNB 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted this edit, because Christianity Today does not need qualification in the context of this article, and it would be inaccurate to characterize it as "Religious Right". It is even debated whether it remains "Evangelical", but in either case, leave it to the reader to follow the link and draw their own conclusion. I also reverted this edit, for similar concerns. Although historically a Baptist organization, Baylor is not particularly conservative within the spectrum of Christianity.  I reverted this edit because the website in the source cited actually uses the word "liberal" and not the word "mainline". I reverted the deletion of the section with the Baylor study because all it needed was a correct link to find the source, which does support the text. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your wise and correct edits. Very good of you to take the time to explain your edits and reversions. A good example to be followed. Afaprof01 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs
To mention the term Christian without including what they believe does not describe a Christian very well. Christians are who they are because of what they believe about God, Christ, the Holy Bible being God's inspired Word, of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, Christ's second coming, and their present and future salvation from the wrath of God to come on all who are not born again into Christ through their faith in Christ. These are some of the Cardinal Christian Doctrines of the faith of every Christian that shape not only what a Christian believes about God but how the Christian lives for God.

Without turning the current article into a written confession of faith (such as the London Baptist Confession of 1689 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith) or catechism of instruction (such as the Westminster Larger Catechism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Larger_Catechism), language should be inserted in the current article to include brief topics of these Christian tenants of faith (or at least mentioned and linked to other supporting Wikipedia articles). This can be done for various readers without causing disagreement on one end or the quoting of Frank Mead's Handbook of Denominations (Latest Publish, 12th Edition: October 15, 2005; Publisher: Abingdon Press; ISBN-13: 9780687057849) on the other. Neither must one go into all the nuances of various sectors of belief such as Armenian, Calvinistic, Full Gospel, and Fundamental Christian belief systems.

The basic problem with the current article content is that the definition of a Christian easily includes all cult adherents such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormans, and may well include many pantheistic belief systems and possibly even Islam.

This leads me to wonder if the current article was written by a non-Christian or by a Christian that was edited to death by non-Christians who object to clear definitions of what a Christian is. Like those who know nothing of nuclear physics refrain from editing articles that discuss quantum physics, should not non-Christians refrain from either writing or editing the current article?


 * Where do you suggest that we find a list of "Cardinal Christian Doctrines" that would be generally agreed upon, even among most Christians? That one of the points that is already made in the article--that there is no set of beliefs which with any authority we can say describe the beliefs of "most Christians," ___% Christians, etc. Since the so-called Enlightenment began around 1800, not even the deity of Jesus nor the virgin birth nor the Trinitarian concept appear on any list that has any credibility or respected research behind it. Welcome to the world of liberal interpretation of all things that used to be held sacred and holy. Please review the talk page for this article and see some samples of things that have been disputed and debated ad nauseam. Please also share with the rest of us your ideas for overcoming such obstacles. Also, please "sign" your posts on this page with four tildes. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Cardinal Christian Doctrines" have already been suggested in the article:
 * theism
 * the historicity of Jesus
 * the Incarnation
 * salvation through faith in Jesus
 * Jesus as an ethical role model
 * Ἀλήθεια 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Christian" defined (or not) by behaviour.
I've often seen a person's behavior (specifically, their obedience or disobedience towoards Biblical commandments) used to define whether someone is or is not a Christian.

For example, if someone who claims or is claimed to be a Christian (e.g. a priest or minister) behaves in an "unchristian" manner (e.g. lies, steals, commits adultry, etc), then some Christians will say that this shows he wasn't really a Christian. On the other hand, other Christians will say that a Christian [i]shouldn't[/i] have done that, but Christians are still people and so can still sin, and that that doesn't mean they are not a Christian.

Of course, it is neither my place nor Wikipedia's place to say if either is correct, but the fact that this difference in views exists ought to be described in the article. (I'd do it my self, but I don't know enough about how exactly believes what and why). Wardog (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You raise a very valid point. You also correctly characterize the difficulty in expressing it─in Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter). A Google search on "Christian behavior" somewhat illustrates the problem. However, that search will also bring up copies of John Bunyan's classic text of that title. Main problem is that it's in King James English and not easy to read or to quote. C.S. Lewis also wrote a well respected book on the subject. "Christian beliefs" is a nearly impossible-to-define term. Hence, "Christian behavior" follows. I realize you are thinking of what both of us would consider flagrant misbehavior. Not everyone agrees with us.
 * I will give this more thought, and encourage you to do the same. If you find some quotable credible sources that succinctly describe a practical approach that would at least speak to the issue, please let me know. Thanks for caring! Afaprof01 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Large-text reflist
Why does the reflist have larger text than most other reflists? Us441 (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it. HokieRNB 12:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)