Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of Christianity


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Types of Christianity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's an article on Christianity. Is this one needed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Shire Reeve (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge It seems this information could easily be added to the Christianity article. Being the current list on this article lists only variations of the main Christianity.  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. This article is based on the research and conclusions made by Arthur J. Bellinzoni Professor of Religion. The Christianity article is protected. Since I couldn't put these classifications on there I wrote this article. I would be quite happy if somebody with editing permissions could do such a merge (Yessy543 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Delete Prof Bellinzoni, whose classification this article is about, is expressly giving his view on the development of what he terms Early Catholic Christianity. The subject heading isn't appropriate for this and there are several articles on Early Christianity. AJHingston (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge then with either Christianity or Early Christianity. How Christianity is today, is a direct result of the substreams that developed initially. Still today those branches of Christianity exists very definately - Gnosticism, Pauline Christianity, Johannine Christianity as well as Jewish Christianity are active streams within Christianity, and the fact that this differentiation is not made when people introduce themselves as being Christian creates a lot of confusion, even when one starts doing research on the types of mysticism that applies to the different branches, and yet is almost worlds apart (see Christian mysticism. Why the article on Early Christianity and Christianity isn't combined I don't understand.Christianity is such a vast topic, I would have personally been much more comfortable if the main article Christianity merely pointed to a long list of sub-articles, including Early Christianity without being an article in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The early divisions are enormously important, of course, and the classification is not novel. But it is inferred from the sources, not the only way of looking at it, and Paul, of course, famously rejected the attaching of his name to a particular faction. Then there are those who are very uncomfortable with the whole idea, which is presumably why Prof Bellinzoni carefully talked about the development of Catholic Christianity. Added to that is the question of whether any doctrinal understanding since 200AD has validity other than by reference to things written before that date (or an earlier one). The difficulty for Wikipedia is that the topic of Christianity is so complex and far reaching. Keeping control of the structure (hence this discussion) is essential, and periodic restructuring will have to be done. I voted for delete rather than merge because it seems better to address inadequacies in the present articles directly than simply trying to slot in this material wholesale. AJHingston (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic of Christianity is indeed complex. And the greatest division is indeed about the Gospel of Paul. You said "and Paul, of course, famously rejected the attaching of his name to a particular faction." Within the context of his gospel, I disagree with you. In Paul's letters to the Galatians (Chapter 1) he talked about "his gospel" and stated in no uncertain terms, that if anybody rejects "his Gospel" (Paul's Gospel), let them be accursed. Paul had no tollerance for any other Gospel than his Gospel. He considered it as the only truth, the only true interpretation of the message of Christianity. Yet the other streams of Christianity does not emphasise the Gospel of Paul. The Teachings of Jesus is rather emphasized as a guide to assist people in their spiritual development when adhered to. This division within Christianity between those following Paul's Gospel and those that reject it, is so enormoys, that to consolidate all groups that uses the bible within one umbrella called "Christianity", would be similar as to group together all vegetarians as all serving some common couse. I would love to see that divide emphasized in any way, it doesn't have to be with the content of the article under discussion. Paul's Gospel is either rejected or embraced, no neutral stand on it is possible in Christianity. Not in early Christianity, and still not today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I really wasn't wanting to express an opinion either way on whether Paul's teachings stand as a distinct doctrine. What I wanted to get at is precisely that we all have our own understandings, and these differences may even extend to the way the Christianity articles are structured, because what makes sense to us may unwittingly step on somebody else's profound belief. The challenge is not just to try to maintain a neutral point of view but in these matters actively seek to accommodate views which we consider mistaken. The Wikipedia Christianity articles would be better if everyone had found that possible. AJHingston (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "The challenge is not just to try to maintain a neutral point of view but in these matters actively seek to accommodate views which we consider mistaken."
 * The issue is that wikipedia goes from the standpoint that there are many truths and one should not try and offend. Fundamental Pauline Christianity is however an extremely offensive religion. It boldly proclaims that there is only ONE truth, that there is no salvation available to anybody that does not embrace the Pauline Gospel, that all people are lost and deceived that resists the Gospel of Paul and that our best efforts to try and please God without faith in the finished work of Jesus on the Cross, is like filthy menstrual cloths before God - that disgusting, not our sin, our self-righteousness!!. Except for pointing out that there is a distinct difference between Pauline Christianity and all other religions that tries to earn salvation or enlightenment by means of pursuing some spiritual path and doing good deeds, there would be no way to cater for all. If the current "Types of Christianity" article is not satisfactory, let us change it then, and then merge it, but let us present the concept of Christianity with it's fundamental divisions from the very introduction. (Yessy543 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)) PS: Looking at the article Christian mysticism, the need for type spesifications, running through to practices and the different mysticisms that applies is unquestionable. (Yessy543 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Merge to Christianity, this is a pretty clear cut situation here. There is no indication that this needs a dedicated article. I dont think anyone will dispute that this religion, like most religions, have differences within, but there is not ample evidence that a dedicated article is needed.  Those differences can be briefly covered in the Christianity article and then expanded in the articles on each "type" (certainly there is a more academic word than type that can be used here instead)?.   RadioFan (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete altogether. Redundant and inferior in coverage to List of Christian denominations, with an interesting but ultimately irrelevant addition of the Christian sect Marcionites. They became extinct in the early centuries of the first millenium, and have neither grown sufficiently in recent years, nor have their beliefs remained sufficiently unaltered, such that they would not be better described as Christians who believe in Marcionism, rather than a separate type of Christians. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The types of Christianity is the higher category. List of dinominations are under each (except for the one distinct type). The types are completely different like fruit and vegetables. Under fruit is a list of fruits, and under vegetables is a list. But to mix a list of fruit and vegetables without a type heading will be less meaningful. That's the issue here. (Yessy543 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment: You claim the types are higher, but there's nothing in the word types that readily distinguishes the content from say, Roman Catholic v. Eastern Orthodox v. Protestant; or, Western v. Eastern v. African v. Asian; or several other categorizations that all seem to be "types" as well. You clearly need to define "types" more explicitly, or find a term that doesn't make people wonder why you're not talking about the "types" of Christianity that are more commonly talked about today. I agree with the editor above who said this is really an article about early church terms, because it ignored everything after the Chalcedonian split. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Help needed please: This article on Types of Christianity in itself is not what is so important to me, but the greater issue is. The Liberal Gnostic streams of so called "Christians" have taken over the word Christian mysticism for themselves. On the article Christian mysticism they totally redefined what Christianity is all about. Refer to the article Pauline mysticism and compare it to Christian mysticism and you will see it is two worlds apart. Yet, no matter how hard I try, how many times I try to bring anything about Pauline mysticism into the article, it simply gets deleted to leave the article only with this New Age Gnostic type of flavour. I hoped that having some types of Christianity defined somewhere else I would be able to pull it through to that article. You will see the trail of my failed attempts on the discussion page. I am a Pauline Christian, and suddenly now my view groups take on Christianity and our practice and beliefs about mysticism gets totally disregarded as the "not true" "not valid" stream. Even attempts of me just to include Pauline mysticism as a "see also" item in the list got deleted time and again. And I am not an administrator, so what can I do? I tried twice again this morning to place something about Christ mysticism, but I don't know if the second attempt had been deleted once again, without even engaging on the discussion page with me. Please help. (Yessy543 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure why the other editor keeps removing all your references to Pauline mysticism; I've asked him on his talk page to respond. It's unclear to me how much material should be added to/removed from the page while the article is being reconstructed. There's no reason to have endless edit wars when we can simply seek consensus on the talk page first. But I want to point out that what you call "New Age Gnostic flavor" in the article is actually just an overview of the Roman Catholic tradition. Your calling it New Age Gnosticism comes off as either uninformed or as dismissive of Catholicism. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an enemy of the Catholic Church, in fact I even enjoy the work of Madame Guyone, a Catholic mystic. I agree with much of the principles in the article Christian meditation. But the article on Christian mysticism, promotes the view of the Eastern Church, and even refer to Ghandi. Read the section on Practices. To me it is describing New Age with a flavour of Christianity. If I could have my way it would be for the article "Christian mysticism" to be simply a reference article referring to various Christian mysticism related articles, such as Pauline mysticism. Then they can keep their article and call it Eastern Christianity mysticism. Then all could be happy. (Yessy543 (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
 * These are the kinds of comments you need to be making over at Talk:Christian mysticism, since they're off-topic for this discussion of Types of Christianity. Let's move this conversation over there and then hope the other editor responds to our request for comment. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not off topic for that is the very reason this article was written. My inputs on the discussion page of Christian mysticism are blankly ignored and my edits are simply deleted. Over and over. What else can I do but to discuss it here? (Yessy543 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
 * What else can I do but to discuss it here? You can discuss it on the talk page of the article, and you request discussion on the discussion pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality. I appreciate your concern, but the discussion you and I have been having here is no longer about Types of Christianity, and the person who is reverting your edits isn't likely to come to this page to discuss the issue, so we need to find ways of moving the discussion to a more appropriate and more effective place. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per AJHingston. Bellinzoni's theories might be notable for an article on himself or his work, but I don't think that they are held by enough other people to justify having a separate article on them. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, do not merge; this seems to be a typology reflecting a viewpoint held only by one or few persons and is as such not suitable as the basis of a classification article.  Sandstein   07:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't merge. This is only the viewpoint of the author and is already covered in Christianityand List of Christian denominations.Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is blatant POV, if it survives it needs to be as a theory of Prof. Bellinzoni and not as a definitive list of 'types of Christianity'. Even then there needs to be evidence that it is a notable theory and not just something he said in a lecture once. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.