Talk:Jesuism

New Article
New article has been written. I will continue to add/to sections on Jesusism and Paulinism, Jesusist Philosophy, Jesusist Epistemology, Jesusist Political Philosophy, Jesusism and Science, etc. Any comments or contributions are welcome.eheke (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the Orphan tag as I have added links to this article from 10 related articles. -hekeheke (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made
Some parts of this article go against WP:SYNTH. Some of the individual sources do not mention Jesusism, and the ones that do aren't quite up to the standards of WP:RS. The writers in the "Jesusism, Paulinism, and the Bible" section don't discuss Jesusism, they really shouldn't be in this article unless a source discussing Jesusism mentions them as influences. Furthermore, the article should really describe it as a modern description of Jesus's original teachings, since the concept only came about in the 19th century. It is basically a liberal and non-Evangelical version of Christian Reconstructionism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edgar Jones's Paul: The Stranger, appears to be a personal reflection, and doesn't mention Jesusism.
 * The book "Jesus' Words Only" is another sectarian personal reflection and does not mention Jesusism either.
 * Mark Alfino's notes are basically a forum post (and NOT by Alfino), which does not meet WP:RS, and is just a repetition of Flanagan. It is either a mistake or academically dishonest to cite it as Alfino's work.

New article title: Jesuism
It seems that Jesusism is also known as Jesuanism or Jesuism (a Google search for each term will verify). Should the article title be changed to Jesuism, as per Gandhism rather than Gandhianism? It certainly is less of a mouthful. I could move the article to Jesuism with Jesusism as a redirect. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just gone ahead and made the move after reading Paulinism versus Jesuism (1878). Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first modern use of Jesuism was to describe an atheistic interpretation of of the various Gospels at http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=3767&discussionID=551368 (Jan 2009) It is clearly stated as distinct from Jesusism which is a similar but theistic Christian based philosophy. The redirect from Jesusism is inappropriate.J&#39;Carlinbl (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The term Jesuism was coined long before 2009 and beliefnet.com. Jesuism has actually been in use since at least the mid-1800's. See searches for "Jesuism" on google books and google scholar. The terms Jesuism, Jesusism and Jesuanism have all been used to highlight the differences between mainstream Christianity and Jesus' actual teachings/practices. Some of the authors who used these terms were atheists and some theists. The term that specifically describes the philosophy of accepting Jesus' teachings but not God is Christian atheism, not Jesuism. Please also note that forums are not regarded as reliable sources. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at your references in Google books and Google Scholar including Paulinism versus Jesuism show no coherent discussions of Jesuism. Also note the article consistently refers to Jesusism as identical with Jesuism and the references are mainly to Jesusism. I would suggest Jesusism is the appropriate title for your article. You are probably within your Wiki rights to use Jesuism, and as they say "It doesn't matter what they say as long as they spell your name right." The top search references are to beliefnet&copy; and my blog so it is no skin off my nose. J&#39;Carlinbl (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This provides a more coherent description of Jesuism: It is a chapter titled Jesuism in Involution (1912) by Lord Ernest Hamilton. He basically describes Jesuism the same as Tom O'Golo describes Jesuanism in Christ? No! Jesus? Yes! (2011); simply "love one another" and "love God." Although given Hamilton's career as a soldier and politician, one must wonder if he actually practiced Jesuism! I guess it is easier to say than do. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

naming conventions
This term doesn't appear to be have been used in Google Scholar in the way it is being used in the article. In 1943, Mr. Fagbenro-Beyioku founded Ijo Orunmila Nigeria, with Orumnlaism, the basis of Jesuism Lagos, Tika-Tore Press, 1940, and a writer used this to refer to Jesuits. And George Bernard Shaw used it incorrectly "Communism and Jesuism [sic]" so what is the correct English word for what this article is about? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jesusism" no better, these words barely exist. What is the subject of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree the term is used in Google Scholar as per the meaning in the article. See Commutation Across the Social Divide by Rodney Stenning Edgecombe: "This shifted focus from what he preached (moral tenets that ought properly to be called Jesuism) to what subsequent commentators, Paul of Tarsus among them, made of his violent death." Also see Jesuism in Involution (1912) by Lord Ernest Hamilton, for example. The terms Jesuism, Jesusism and Jesuanism may not be common but they are in use, as per Tom O'Golo's 2011 book Christ? No! Jesus? Yes!, in which the moral philosophy attributed to Jesus is termed "Jesuanism" rather than Jesuism. Jesuism may not be very well recognized but the title is precise, concise and consistent with other articles (such as Gandhism). Nirvana2013 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * Yet the majority of GS sources don't use this term in this sense. So when was the first use of this term in this sense, Hamilton?, and what did people call it before? And are they all using it in the same sense?
 * And why is there a see also link on Ebionites, Therapeutae, and Essenes for article Jesuism. Have you discussed this article on a major Talkpage or project page if you're adding see also links so widely? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the article. The history of the term is listed in the article under "History of usage." The term appears to have arisen out of the "freethought" movement in the mid to late 1800's. The links to Ebionites etc were prompted by a book by Tom O'Golo (see "Adherents") who listed them as important groups in the development of Jesuism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied at greater length at WT:X, but I doubt O'Golo is a reliable source. I couldn't find out anything about him, and his books seem to be self-published (the publisher apparently doesn't even have a website, and I couldn't find a single book by that publisher that wasn't written by O'Golo). Furthermore, even if those groups were important in the development of Jesuism, in no way need Jesuism be important to those groups. Huon (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed from See Also links of Ebionites, Therapeutae, and Essenes. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Christian Reconstructionism
Maybe given lack of sources here and overlap the merge should formally be proposed? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 1/ There are no "lack of sources". I hear what Huon says about the reliability of Tom O'Golo but there are plenty of other sources listed. Again, I suggest reading the article. 2/ Little to no overlap with evangelical Christian Reconstructionism. If anything, Jesuism has more in common with Christian radicalism and Christian primitivism than Christian Reconstructionism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are completely different. But if you want a merger you should go ahead and propose it, not proposing a proposal... StAnselm (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose: Jesuism is its own belief system. This that you as proposing is just outrageous 2001:56A:77F3:B700:4145:F15A:12A5:9F1D (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing Tom O'Golo
Since Tom O'Golo's book is not a reliable source, I have removed all content exclusively sourced to O'Golo, including several quote boxes. Huon (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography?
If this is actually a "philosophy" and not just a neologism, there should be a list of academic works that focus on examining and explaining this philosophical belief system. This would be beyond the inline citations. It appears that it isn't a philosophy and is actually more of a theological notion, concept or practice, isolated from any structural philosophical systems or traditions. If it is connected to some greater tradition and isn't an isolated idea, the article would be strengthened by listing some works or authors that focus on it (as opposed to just mentioning the term in an unrelated text).

This article also is unusual that this article contains no criticism of what is a reductionistic understanding of Christian thought. A critique is necessary if this article is to have a NPOV. Liz Read! Talk! 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesuism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320202711/http://escholarship.library.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/2117/2404 to http://escholarship.library.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/2117/2404

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research tag
The article appears to improperly derive claims from a lot of historical sources that we should probably be treating as primary. signed,Rosguill talk 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Reciprocal hatnotes with Society of Jesus
I'm not sure the hatnotes from here to Society of Jesus, and vice versa, are justified and useful. Please comment at talk:Society of Jesus. --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)