Talk:Christians/Archive 1

Monotheistic

Many people do not consider Christianity monotheistic and this should be stated at the outset, rather than simply stating categorically that it is monotheistic. Additionally, the source for this statement is the Catholic Encyclopedia, most certainly not an unbiased source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious bias

Check for yourself, the admins have locked changing the Jewish or Muslim articles, but not the Christian. I also notice that they label many groups as anti-semitic which is not subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swoods83 (talk • contribs)

Timeline inconsistencies

Under the "Christian as a derogatory word" header it has listed that anti-Christian sentiment in Islam goes back to the inception of the Christian religion, but Christianity predates Islam. Either it's wrong or I'm interpreting the wording wrongly. --Freedbyhislove 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Older posts

I'd like to know why "the message" is in italics. I can't see the reason behind this.

I must say, I was expecting to find either a Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, or perhaps even Fundamentalist Protestant bias in this article, but I find essentially nothing that seems to discount either side.

Is there really much more to say within this article? Perhaps the stub tag is unnecessary?

This would be better as a redirect to Christianity. - SimonP 18:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is meant to be article about the people, along the lines of Jew and Muslim. There is more discussion at Talk:Christian (disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Shouldn't the history sections be removed? They're already covered under Christianity. Perhaps there should be more on the various uses of the term "Christian." For example, many Muslims in Muslims countries consider the US to be a "Christian" nation. This use of the word isn't addressed in the article. barefootmeg 7 Feb 2005 (I'm completely new to wiki so please excuse my fumbling with the code and protocols.)

Why are "Christian" and "Christianity" seperate articles, yet "Lutheran" redirects to "Lutheranism" and "Protestant" redirects to "Protestantism"? I feel we should be consistent: either do as SimonP suggests, or write seperate articles for the Lutheran and Protestant peoples a la Netoholic. -Archola Sept 2, 2005 9:02 AM CDT

I just noticed that this page tops Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the most linked to disambiguation pages, and by a large margin at that. --Joy [shallot] 20:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That report's a little old, After moving the disambiguation page to Christian (disambiguation) a few weeks ago, I ran through those 1900 links and pointed them as needed. It took a few days :), but most everything incoming to this page refers to a "Christian person". -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

That's good, although there's still way too many links pointing here for a page whose content is, well, puny... --Joy [shallot]

page is protected at the moment, so i can't do it myself, but i think maybe rather than saying that the pope is the most famous christian, it might be better to call him the most prominent christian.

I'd add Billy Graham to the list of prominant, present day Christians. I'd also remove Joseph Smith from the list of Christians. He's a Mormon. barefootmeg 7 Feb 2005

I must agree, Joseph Smith doesn't belong on this list any more than Mohammad does. Biases aside, accuracy is paramount. Sweetfreek 06:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying Mormons aren't Christians? They worship Christ.

Normally I would not rail about with my prejudices, but I will say that I try my best to avoid associating myself with the pagan sludge that passes for Christianity. Even that said, I refuse to be inaccurate with my assessment of Mormons--they are not Christians by any credible account. Moreover, if I told any of you what I do know about Mormons, I would be in much more trouble than Salman Rushdie. Sweetfreek 22:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know this is an old post, but it needs a response. My, my, my, Sweetfreek you do have an opinion, but the only thing that is certain about what you have stated is that it is just an opinion. As a member of The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints I state with absolute certainty that the LDS people are Christian. Not only in name, but in deed, which does appear something that might be unknown to individuals of your ilk. You may state whatever you like on your personal "church" page; however, on WIKI we strive to write in a strictly NPOV manner. Latter-day Saints worship Jesus CHrist as the only Begotton Son of the God the Father. Belief in Christ is the only path that leads back to the Father. Christ lived and died on the cross so that our sins might be forgiven; His blood paid for my sins, your sins, as well as those of all people on earth. He is the personal Savior of Mankind and He lives today. When you start trying to define what a Christian is, stick to what Christ stated was a disciple and you will be right becuase it will be what Christ thought. However, if you try to define a Christian by 4th century teachings you will only achieve a definition what men "think" is historical christiainty. Storm Rider 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, this deserves a response though it is 2 years old. I have two friends named Matt. Just because they're named the same doesn't make them the same. One's a hunter, the other a cyclist. Were I to go hunting with the one who was a cyclist, we'd have a miserable time. And were I to go cycling with the hunter, we would again have a miserable time. Just because you claim the name of Christ doesn't mean you're a Christian. Jesus said "Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; Depart from me you who practice lawlessness.’" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.143.3 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to use anyone's definition of Christian is POV. For purposes of this article, anyone who considers themselves as following Christ is a Christian. Playing this "I know something secret about Mormons BS is academically garbage, and your kind can never back up such statements without mindless namecalling. If you are adding or taking away from the definition of Christianity in the Bible, you're adding or taking away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you know what happens then... Non-nicean Christians and non-Protestant Christians (including Mormons, Catholics, JWs, etc.) are still Christians by any non-POV measure. --Mrcolj 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen up, Dabbler, but if you're going to remove Tolkien (the man who converted Lewis), then by extension you must remove (I'll assume "seperate" into another category) every other Catholic on the list! I'll grant you that there may be adequate reason behind creating a seperate page for Catholics, but until then, leave them here.Sweetfreek 04:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• note* it was George MacDonald who Lewis said converted him, not Tolkien. ; ) Just had to add that. --Bob the Great

Plus - Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic--Mikepope 04:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(8-2-05) Why did someone remove the second paragraph of the article? I added it to demonstrate the Biblical philosophy on "what a Christian is." The paragraph was about how one becomes a Christian and is very relevant to the article. Describing how one becomes a Christian is the essence behind what a Christian is, is it not? I think I will add the paragraph again unless someone objects. If someone does object than let us discuss it. It is factual that ALL New Testament conversions were done as adult baptisms and that the New Testament description of what a Christian is, is essentially someone who has been baptized as a repenting adult.

Removing Tolkien

Tolkien was removed because, though he was a Christian, and a teacher, he did not teach Christianity in the way that the other listed persons did. He taught English.

I am thinking about expanding the stub "Modern Times" and putting in Tolkien there as a Christian who was a popular writer - along with G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and possibly Charles Williams.

His Catholicism had nothing to do with the removal.

Stolzi 20:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the writings of the Inklings perhaps, whatever the case they are very highly respected writers for their influnence in the fantasy genre.

C.S. Lewis The famous christian and peodfile, was he ever a church priest or minister?--Polygamistx4 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing two authors: C. S. Lewis, Inkling but not a minister, and Lewis Carroll, who was a minister and is suspected today of (celibate) paedophilia. Fayenatic (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war?

What's going on with the latest edits and reversions by User:Rdsmith4 vs. 142.179.53.247 and User:Wahl? The version Rdsmith4 reverted were certainly no vandalism.
Sebastian 06:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

User Wahl here: I was 142.179.53.247 then I made an account. I don't understand why my contribution was reverted, but I created a new section to separate contributions.

I would like to comment that this article should emphasize the meaning of "Christian" and not be about "Church". I realize they are closely linked, but there is a difference.

(8-2-05) Why did someone remove the second paragraph of the article? I added it to demonstrate the Biblical philosophy on "what a Christian is." The paragraph was about how one becomes a Christian and is very relevant to the article. Describing how one becomes a Christian is the essence behind what a Christian is, is it not? I think I will add the paragraph again unless someone objects. If someone does object than let us discuss it. It is factual that ALL New Testament conversions were done as adult baptisms and that the New Testament description of what a Christian is, is essentially someone who has been baptized as a repenting adult.

"Christian - a term for derision"

What is the evidence for this comment in the first paragraph of the article?

NPOVing needed on requirements for consideration as a Christian

"For the major Christian denominations, the only requirement to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Some Christian denominations require a formal committment to become a member. Other denominations (The Church of Christ, International Churches of Christ, and the Independent Christian Churches) teach that the definition of a Christian is someone who has been baptized as a repenting adult “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” – (Matthew 28:19). For them, adult baptism is the transition from non-Christian to Christian."

THIS IS WAY NOT NPOV, AND IS IN FACT WRONG. What did the author consider to be a major denomination? Catholics (Roman and Eastern), Anglicans and Orthodox (and some Reformed / Protestants) consider only a person who has been baptized to be a Christian. One who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God but who has not yet been baptized is regarded as a catechumen. These churches make up the preponderance of Christianity by almost any definition (at least 75%).

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church

Similar statements can be found in the confessional documentation of many other churches: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]...

The following table is derived from a table at adherents.org, and represents a fairly recent breakdown of self-called Christians by denominational grouping.

Breakdown by Major Denominational Groupings

Branch	Number of Adherents	First Mechanism of Initiation
Catholic (Roman and Eastern)	1,050,000,000	Baptism
Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox	240,000,000	Baptism
African indigenous sects (AICs)	110,000,000	Various
Pentecostal	105,000,000	Faith Statement
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United	75,000,000	Baptism
Anglican	73,000,000	Baptism
Baptist	70,000,000	Faith Statement
Methodist	70,000,000	Faith Statement
Lutheran	64,000,000	Baptism
Jehovah's Witnesses	14,800,000	Non-trinitarian
Adventist	12,000,000	Non-trinitarian
Latter Day Saints	12,500,000	Non-trinitarian
Apostolic/New Apostolic	10,000,000	Faith Statement
Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement")	5,400,000	Baptism not necessary
New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.)	1,500,000	Various
Brethren (incl. Plymouth)	1,500,000	Statement of Faith
Mennonite	1,250,000	Statement of Faith
Friends (Quakers)	300,000	Non-trinitarian

Most of the denominationals groupings above consider Baptism to be the first step in Christian initiation, followed by Chrismation/Confirmation and Eucharist, with all baptized persons being nominal Christians.

Most? How do you consider five out of eighteen a majority?207.157.121.50 06:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Furthermore, most of these churches teach that infant Baptism to be appropriate and necessary, and that baptized infants are in fact Christians without regard to their ability to make a profession of faith.

Most churches that do not profess the necessity of trinitarian Baptism practice it regardless, and all churches which profess the necessity of Baptism incorporate a profession of faith in their corporate liturgy or worship, leading most self-nominal Christians to satisfy either criteria at some point.

I'm not saying that the currently present POV is not valid, but it must be qualified as a minority POV and balanced.

I am adding an NPOV template. This needs to be fixed, and I don't have time right now to do it.

--Mm35173 21:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Catholic leaning on this article?

I just thought I would tackle this and see what was thought about this. I saw the below statement as being very much biased. Many other sects would make the same claim about Roman Catholocism.

          Today many modern Christians live their lives in relation to a community of      
          faith, usually a local church. These churches, with the exception of the Roman   
          Catholic church, stand in a variety of man-made traditions as a result of history."

I did not edit it out, but thought that was a pretty bad Bias.--69.153.227.37 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)nick

Hm, I should edit that out if someone hasn't gotten to it. That's definitely swapped around -- the protestant communion believes in the teachings of the Historical Church, and with the Word of God (Bible) as the primary source of authory. The Roman Catholic Church developed man-made traditions which added to it on equal authority with the Word of God, hence so many protestant splits (Martin Luther). Still, that segment should be edited out all together.--NWalterstorf 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher and Blair

What is the point of noting especially these two prime ministers as Christian. Mr Blair is the current one, but why Mrs Thatcher? Legally, a prime minister is required to be Christian. Str1977 20:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What law requires a prime minister to be Christian? - Nunh-huh 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the PM has a say in appointing bishops of the CoE, he is supposed to be a member. It's a remains of the test act from the 17th century, which (then) obliged all civil servants and MPs to be Anglican. Str1977 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Supposed to be" and "legally required to be" are different things. My understanding is that there is nothing preventing a Muslim or Jewish Prime Minister, and therefore nothing legally preventing a non-Christian from being the person who "advises" the Queen whom she shall appoint as Archbishops in the Church of England. I'm interested to know if that's true or not. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on English law, but there used to be laws like this. Though have been cut back around 1830 (emancipation of Catholics and non-conformists), laws remained in regard to the Monarch himself, and his spouse, and the Lord Chancellor. I cannot positively state that this also applies to the PM, but I heard that it did. Now, my view is that the political government should not determine church appointments (the Queen should do it either by herself or with a special, non-partisan council), but as long as the PM has a say in this, I think it only logical if he has to be Anglican.

Anyway, my real point was, why highlight these two PMs when every PM since Rober Walpole was a Christian (at least nominally)? Str1977 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the only religious restrictions still current are that the monarch must not be Catholic, nor have married one, and be willing to enter into communion with the Church of England. I don't believe any restrictions on the Prime Minister have survived into the present. At present, the Queen's "power" to appoint bishops is pretty much limited to the power of saying "yes" to what the Prime Minister directs her to do<G>. The British have always had a sort of "improvisational" law, so if a "ticklish" situation were to arise (a Muslim PM and a need for a new Archbishop of Canterbury), they would simply improvise. I agree that I don't see any sense in mentioning Thatcher or Blair, or especially both. - Nunh-huh 01:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, there is no point, so I have 'been bold' and cut it out. If it is really that important to be included in *this particular* article, somebody will revert it back in. WLD 11:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, there can't really be any injunction against the Prime Minister being anything other than an Anglican Christian. Wasn't James Callaghan a (nominal) Catholic? And Michael Howard, the contender for the office in the last General Election, was Jewish. I don't remember hearing anything about a potential constitutional crisis in the event of him winning.

I'm sure there are loads of completely mad old laws on the British statute books, most of them anti-Catholic, and most of them are ignored. The only time anyone pays those old laws any intention is when it relates to a mad old institution like the monarchy. And even then, they make up new rules- as with the recent marriage of the Prince of Wales to a divorcee. seanjw 217.196.239.189 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, PM James Callaghan was a Baptist, but you've proved your point! 67.8.201.227 02:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Student 5 November 2006

Diametrically Opposed Beliefs

I will make some edits to the following paragraph:

The term "Christian" has been used by various groups of diametrically opposed beliefs to describe themselves. Some groups, such as Born Again Christians and others, use a very strict definition of "Christian". They believe to be Christian one must agree with the doctrines and creeds begun in 325 CE which they believe elucidate the essentials of the Christian faith. Other groups, particularly those classified as Restorationist reject these creeds as the doctrines of men.

I would interpret diametrically opposed beliefs to be one group believes Christ is the Son of God and the other group believes Christ was the son of Satan. That is diametrically opposed beliefs. I think what the editor intended was that groups within Christianity disagree with each other to the point of accusing others to be heretical. However, I think they have exaggerated and misrepresented the actual status. Storm Rider 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Born-again def. of Christian

I'm troubled by this paragraph that has been undergoing so much edit lately. I don't doubt that there are Christians who use this definition of who else is Christian, but I'm not sure that "Born again" is a good description of who holds that definition. For example, two famous left-of-center Americans, President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore, identify as born-again Christians, but I suspect that both have an inclusive view of who gets to call themselves Christian. Can we say that some born-again Christians use that definition? --Allen 02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

although 'born again' is often connected with the religious right, the phrase has nothing to do with politics at all as many socialists, liberals and left-leaning people have claimed to be born again. From a biblical perspective one cannot claim to be Christian and not born again, simply because Jesus said that a man cannot enter heaven unless they are born again. To be a non-born again Christian is as logical as a Christian atheist or a meat-eating vegetarian.--62.31.62.229 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit it; currently it seems to attempting to accomplish several things that may be in conflict. Fundamentally, I don't think it is accurate. Most BAC's seem to also be advocates of sola scriptura...which will then bring one to a specific interpretation of scripture. I don't think they are dogmatic regarding the Trinity as a creed, but certainly support it as their interpretation of scripture. Also, BAC's are found in many different denominations so it is difficult to describe a specific belief. Is that a correct understanding? Storm Rider 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I doubt that there should be such a statement in there at all. Concurring with a commonly held definition of who a Christian is is not a pre-requisite to being a born-again Christian. I don't think we can paint this diverse group with such a broad brush. I'll take a look-see at that sentence and see what I can come up with. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm Rider and Matt. Matt, I think the edit you made makes it a lot better. --Allen 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To IP 66.55.54.242

66.55.54.242, the changes you made on this article is destructive and unwanted. If you are keen on editing and want to try out, use the Wikipedia:Sandbox to do so. Keep wikipedia tidy and useful, okay? inky 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the unsourced tag for?

inky 09:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)What needs to be sourced, anyway?

Moved section

It should be noted as a point of contention that historical revisionism presents a view of this period of Christian history in which Roman Catholicism is precedential to any other 'division' of Christianity, and is indeed considered synonymous with Christianity. However, this history, for reason of either neglect, or political correctness, fails to make mention of the fact that the Catholic Church was persecuting, torturing and executing, particularly by burning, Christians who rejected the doctrines of the Vatican and adhered exclusively to the direct adoption of the Bible, particularly the New Testament as a source of the earliest and most pure Christian doctrines and indeed the most faithful model for church government. The Catholic Church was observed to materially violate the Biblical doctrines that the church claimed to be founded upon, and rigorously oppressed any and all criticism in this vein, as well as imposing a 'dark age' by insisting that the Bible must be accessible only to priests and in Latin, could not be owned privately, and that the translation of the Bible into accessible languages (English) was punishable by death.

During the period it was the diametrical opposition of Biblical christianity or the 'early-church' doctrinal model of Pauline and Petrine influence, and Roman Catholicism which claimed the place of universal (the meaning of the term 'catholic') dominion over Christianity, which resulted in the theological basis of Protestantism and ultimately the Reformation, having formed much of the basis of the objections of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and their contemporaries, to the Catholic doctrine.

Academic historical analysis tends to exclude the doctrinal issues of the Protestant movement and the Reformation, and tends to consign these profound changes to issues of ownership and governance, taxation, and of course the inevitable mention of Henry VIII and his divorces. This, of course, turns the Protestant debate into a mere peevish power struggle and does no justice to the legacy of the theologians tortured, abused and burned alive directly over the issue of Catholic doctrinal authority at the expense of Biblical doctrine. Such Christians died rightfully believing that Christ-ianity was to be exclusively consistant with the Bible which Christ Himself commented upon and advocated, upon his teachings, and with precedence for the doctrines formed by his friends, followers, the eyewitnesses and the earliest and most authoritative converts of the early church, and as such followed the New Testament as the doctrinal model, as opposed to the ecumenically-derived and imperially-adapted revisions of a church organisation of vested interest which originated over three centuries later and fell under, literally, state control by being in control of the state, ultimately.

Catholic history tends to apply a revisionism which rarely mentions Biblical Christianity, or the early church, except to paint a picture of compatibility with early church doctrine, not least the posthumous elevation of the apostle Peter to the role of 'pope', a distinction which Peter himself never adopted and never accepted, which is a dubious and tenuous revision to say the least, given that the role of 'Pope' has more foundation in paganism than it does in New Testament Christianity. The Catholic Church has been seen to present its various 'Councils' as the result of general consensus across the sects of Christianity, although this is an increasingly dishonest view. Formerly, it is historically noted, the councils were hotbeds of contention, but 'minutes' of the discourses were not kept, and neither were notes on the nature of discussion and indeed objection, and ultimately the findings of the council were published under imperial agenda, eventually Vatican agenda, as the 'final verdict.' Additionally the implication of council-defined 'Christianity' is one of uniformity and agreement, which is a fallacious concept considering that a significant number of well-established and influential Christian traditions, groups and personalities refused to even recognise much of what Catholicism tried to acheive based not only on doctrinal objections, but also upon the fact that a massive mistrust existed, following centuries of violent persecution, that the rush to embrace Christianity was a ruse. During the Middle Ages the Vatican applied this exclusive revisionist view to militantly enforce it's own authority as the originator and custodian of Christian doctrine, which promoted the exclusion and elimination of dissenters and those who advocated the restoration of the Bible as the sole source of doctrine, including Protestant martyrs like Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley.

Latterly this history has been interpreted by Protestants (and many ex-Catholics) as a clear hallmark of a profound and fundamental doctrinal schism between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, and as a full understanding of the inherent meaning of the various Papal Bulls and Edicts confirm, lends support to the controversial ideas of Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons, which is now considered a staple, if slightly flawed by virtue of being somewhat preemptive of the expanding science of archaeology, of Protestant Apologetics. In this respect, Hislop traces the roots of Catholicism, it's doctrinal and ceremonial values, and it's anti-Biblical incorporation of iconography, Marian worship, and patron saints to pre-existing pagan cultism which, he claims, originates in Ancient Babylon with the dark cultism established, according to speculation, by Semiramis following the reign of Nimrod and continued into the legends of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, indeed ultimately throughout the world in a recurrent pagan themality, through Isis and latterly Marian worship which is at worst anti-Biblical and at best extra-Biblical.

While the Catholic-dominated 'Ecumenical' movement continues to claim broad 'Christian' compatibility and consensus, there are many Biblical christians who continue to be unhappy with the generic association of nomenclature between the most faithful adherence of the Biblical Christian doctrine, and what is seen as cultism deviant from the Bible as the authoritative source of 'Christian' religion.

This is, without question, a controversial subject.

I removed the above addition from the article as I think this is in the wrong place. It's well written and interesting but bloats the section and stops it flowing. Christianity is probably not the place either as that article is already too long - can anyone suggest the correct article for this so it can be placed on the talk page there and discussed (maybe History of Christianity)? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also heavily biased and inaccurate. No one can seriously claim that doctrinal issues of the Reformation are some how glossed over in historical scholarship. The use of Alexander Hislop also indicates a certain tendency, and the use of "Vatican" as a synonym for the Holy See also denotes a lack of actual historical knowledge (the Vatican became the residence of the Pope only in the 15th century). Thanks, Sophia, for stepping in. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Cults?

Just a question: Should anything be included about what many Protestant Christians consider "Christian cults?" The late Dr. Walter Martin (as I assume many Christians) considers Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Unification Church members, and Seventh-Day Adventists as "cults" in his work, The Kingdom of the Cults. Maybe this could be placed in a subsection or in the cult article...--Mikepope 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is already covered in the cults article. It may even be better in his own personal article. I don't have a problem with it as long as we precisely define "cult". If one reads the cult article, it is readily apparent there is no definition that is universal. One thing to remember, if you open this door on which churches are viewed as cults by others, I suspect you will also open the door for appropriate responses and comments on all Christian churches. Sounds like an excellent way to have a mud fight! Interested? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One man's cult is another man's True christianity. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and one man's "True Christianity" is another man's "cult" all the still. When we're looking into this article we want to cover Historical Christianity, not cults and groups which formed within 400 years.--NWalterstorf 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose adding definitions of groups considered cults, especially by "Dr." Martin. Huge POV problems. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I checked the cult articles. I agree. There's no place for it here.--Mikepope 13:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also got rid of Misc Wierdness becuase it was nonsense and personally offensive.--Mikepope 16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pentecostal/Charismatic

I just want to point out this statement... "Some Christians devote themselves to active participation in prophetic communication and miraculous healing, as represented in the early church and the pre-Christ prophets. They are categorized as Charismatic or Pentecostal, but can be found in other denominations, as well." I feel this is inaccurate, a Pentecostal church is one of a specific denomination (like an Anglican church or Methodist etc) however it is true that they are well known for having such 'charasmatic' beliefs (which are the beliefs in the ability to practise such 'gifts'). I have included in the article what I think it should be, but though I would post here as well as I am knew to this 'wiki' thing and wanted to explain what/why I am doing it. --[guest:Tim] 02:00 26 May 2006 (GMT)

I read the edit. Maybe we should create a stub/internal link on "charismatic Christians." I wonder how in-depth we should go with "charismatic Christians" on the Christian article...If we take time/effort in fleshing out charismatic Christians in this article, then we would, in effect, be taking on the task of describing Reformed Christians, Catholic Christians, Gnostic Christians, etc...--Mikepope 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also added "Great Commission" phrase under "Christian mission".--Mikepope 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it may be worth having an article on the debate between charismatic and sensationalist viewpoints to the holy-spirit power...but then as you said it would in effect be tring to describe all the denominational differences (if we werent careful)...perhaps a brief section on some 'common differences' would be in order.. briefly stating a charismatic 'type' of view, and a sensationalist 'type' of view.. then allow room for other issues such as calvanism and (the other one that doesnt allow pre-destination), but only with a brief summary. Then have links to specific denominations/churches/types of churches which hold versions of these views....

--TM-77 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC) (formerly known as guest:Tim]

Just wanted to note, I seem to have lost my source/can't find it again, that said 'the "charismatic movemant" started in the "high-church" first'. I have already stated that such beliefs were around before the protestants split from catholicism, so to an extent this is true, but the term charismatic movemant is normally refering to a very specific event in N.America. I shall continue to try and re-find this source (and then post some kind of link so I don't loose it again, but in the mean time if anyone wants to remove the phrase "Indeed the so called 'charismatic movement' began in high churches first, despite being attributed to more low-church style of worship." I won't contest it ... (for now).. --TM-77 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

What happened to me edits? Thank you. 203.158.34.114 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They were reverted as they did not conform to WP:NPOV. Have a read of this policy as it helps you to format information that you feel could enrich the article. It's always a good idea to suggest changes here first if they so other editors can give their input. Sophia 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

umm... "Christians maintain that Jesus " should be changed to "Christians believe that Jesus ". This isn't really something disputed by Christians. believe: "1. to have a firm religious faith" maintain: "2 : to sustain against opposition or danger : uphold and defend " The word is more appropriate think the wording is better because maintain seems to suggest that they are considering changing or changed at some point in time, while the word believe seems a better fit as it is more specific. Wordsmiter 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the format seems a bit bloated for an introduction with a christian is this but there are those who claim to be christian and believe otherwise. I don't how exactly to go about it, but perhaps using the intro "in general" and then seperating the rest into another section might improve flow though I'll leave that to someone else.

Simple solution to that situation. They wouldn't be a Christian if they don't believe in Jesus. Kinda' defeats the entire term "Christ - ians", or "Followers of Christ" (coined in Antioc).

A bypasser's viewpoint

Hi

I arrived here through the sandbox, but it's still tooooo difficult for me (as an IT numpty) to get to grips with how to engage in the Wki community generally. Therefore, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended.

I read the article from top to bottom and was appalled to find "criticisms of Christianity" relegated to an associated link. Yes, I need to declare my colours - all religion is a bit bonkers in my book (do they have a Wiki for "bonkers"?) - but the point of view is *not* neutral if the balancing points are made a link away.

Anyway, I have resisted the temptation (sooooooo naughty, but soooooo nice) to scribble my own views into the published article but thought you might want to consider a more truly balanced presentation. Something that addresses the interplay between the desperate need we have, as humans, for something to rationalise and contextualise our lives, and the fundamental absurdity of the solution we have concocted (in its many forms).

Generally, I think Wiki is an amazing, and often (*often*) definitive source, so keep up the good work. If anyone has an issue with these comments, please feel free to contact me directly on [personal email removed] my talk page.

JJ

• Opposing criticisms are minimised in this article, because this article is an explanation of what Christians are, not what people believe is wrong with Christianity. Both subjects are given attention, but they don't need to invade each other's article. Djcartwright 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merging into Christianity

I very strongly oppose merging this article into the Christianity article. I think there is a big difference on what it means to be a Christian as opposed to Christianity as a whole.—Who123 03:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I came here for a good definition of Christian. I'm already a Christian and a member of Christianity, and those are two different subjects. --Mrcolj 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I too oppose. Since there are no "agree" comments, and since this has been up for a few months, I'm removing the merge tag. Akradecki 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging the whole document. But merging the section on the history of the church makses sense to me. (Just nigel 05:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Merging the history makes logical sense. Unfortunately, there has been vandalism in the "Christianity" article which may make it somewhat harder to work on.67.8.201.227 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Student 11/5/2006

Christian is what one is Christianity is what one practises. While there are areas that merge together, I would suggest that keeping them apart gives a section to discuss the individual (Christian) and a section to discuss the group (Christianity) --phalcon 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - it still contains separate information. SparrowsWing 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Albeit, these topics are similar in tone and there is some overlap in content, this still is separate information; focusing on the individual rather than the whole. Also, the topic of "Christianity" itself is getting quite lengthy... Adding this rather long article to it may make it unmanageable, in the sense that it will be more difficult to retain the same focus. Schwenkstar 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I used to wonder why this article wasn't already in the Christianity article. But looking at it now, I realize that the difference is that Christianity is the belief, and a Christian is the one who follows that belief. So they really are two different things. Christknight 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Christians are the people, Christianity is the belief. DebateKid 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Disturbingly POV

First off, I am 100% Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for my sins. That being said, this article is disturbingly POV. It makes broad statements of what "Christians believe," every one of which I can name you Christian churches which do not believe. It even goes so far as to say "Not all churches believe the above, see Liberal Christianity!" As discussed earlier, it defines "Christian" beyond how Jesus or the Bible have defined it. If you ask me, we can't write off or minimize anyone who considers themselves Christian as being non-Christian. I've read the Bible more times than many of you, and between my wife and I have read it in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; and yet there are many who would not consider me Christian. Those people have a right to their views, but not in an encyclopedic work. --Mrcolj 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 15 minutes later I've changed my mind. That's what sundays afternoons are for. I think most everything I want the article to say is in the article, but the logical order is all backwards. It gives a strict non-general definition of Christianity, and then gives all the statistically normal churches as exceptions below. (It really is inappropriate to in any way define Catholicism and other non-Protestant-ism as an exception, when they define 90% of the population. Ditto with Mormons--any sociologist calls them the 4th largest organized Christian religion in America, but they somehow don't even deserve a mention here.) The first paragraph is pretty good, but the second starts to get both too specific and therefore too defensive. So I'm not saying anyone should rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but that someone should outline the existing paragraph, reorder the points of the outline, and then reorder the sentences accordingly taking care not to change too much of the content of individual sentences. Also, the sentences need to be less hypotactic--it's colloquial and has unnecessary subordination of clauses etc. for the presumed purpose of retaining mysticism so no one questions them. --Mrcolj 19:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a very broad subject, and must be approached as such. If one were to go into great detail in every page, then the resulting article would be exceedingly long. Bear in mind that for folks who are not familiar with Christians or even Christianity will most likely use this as a jumping off point, not as a conclusion. Whenever you talk about Politics or Religion, it can very easily polarize, it's best to keep a broad view on broad articles, and leave the fine tooth comb for more specific articles. Throughthelens 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I agree that Mormons should NOT be defined as christians as most 'large' christian churches (if not all), i.e. catholics, orthodox etc consider them to not be christians due to the divergent beliefs the have. Having said that it might be fair to have a note along the lines of 'some people define mormons as christians too'. --TM-77 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that's relevant. If we go with what is commonly believed, then the page for pencil should mention risks from lead intake. =)

Are There False Christians?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%207:21-23&version=31 please allow this to remain on the page

It's not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article suddenly to have a question in the heading, and to answer it with a link to an external site. It seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well. It might be appropriate to quote and report some reputable scholars who have argued about this question. ElinorD (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is very reputable and he says there are many.Kljenni 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

False christians? Christians who dont really belive? Well thats nearly all of them! Any person who claims to be christian, but trys to delay going to heaven, or trys to delay their own child from going to heaven, odviously dont belive and therefore not christian.

Why would a christian try and avoid going to heaven, thats the whole point of being christian. Life on each is irrelivant. It just shows they dont really believe!--Polygamistx4 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given your sincere interest, you might want to read the Apostle Paul on this subject in Philippians 1:20–26. But it is an interesting point: more Christian prayers seem directed on keeping Christians out of heaven than on getting other people in!

Please note that this Talk page is meant for discussions to improve the article. For any other replies, please use my talk page. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I find is strange that so many people think Christians should either be super-human beings who just want to die, or dead... Christians are still people, who love other people, and would like to see them stay a bit longer. Jesus wept over a death (John 11:35).

Yes, there are false Christians. The Bible teaches so in multiple places. (ApJ (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

wiki weirdness

if a person states a fact that he can back up without having to find a book that some "intellectual" has written about it then why must he produce someone elses research? the fact is that Jesus told us there would be apostates and even sincere persons who were not truly doing Gods will though believing themselves to be. watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees Kljenni 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that won't work according to Wikipedia policy. Not everybody accepts that Jesus is God or that the Bible is true. When we write a neutral article, we just quote what people said, and let the reader decide. ElinorD (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The history of the creation of Christianity is in the Bible. The Definition of Christian is in the Bible. Jesus is commonly known to be the founder of Christianity, and that is in the Bible so deny it but the Bible and Christianity are inextricably linked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kljenni (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 February 2007.

Obviously, we can quote the Bible in an article about Christianity. But according to Wikipedia policy, we don't assert that it's true. ElinorD (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am asserting that Jesus is quoted in the Bible as making a definite distinction between christians in faith and actions and christians in name only. obviously i cant prove he said it.no one can. I can't prove anything. I can't prove men walked on the moon and there are those who doubt.Kljenni 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We understand your beliefs and your commitment to those beliefs, but this is a public encyclopedia. It is used by Muslims, Hindus, and every other major religion in the world. Each feels just as strongly about their religion as you do about yours. Wikipedia has guiding principle's, one of which is to remain neutral. We do not state what is true because we do not take a position. Experts take a position and we quote them.

Also, you might consider that there are over 26,000 different Christian groups in the world. Each uses the New Testament, yet each teaches something slightly different than the other; were it not so there would be no need for another church. There are as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. Best learn to work within the system; otherwise your edits will only be reverted for being POV. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

and all the muslims hindus buddists atheists christianoids and the like will all agree that it does not matter in this case whether the Bible is true or not. what we are talking about is the historical founder of christianity, the record of the words he spoke and the unleavened meaning of it.I am not adding to it or taking away. again the Bible is the ONLY record of the the establishment of the original christian congregation by Christ himself. What could possibly be more neutral?Kljenni 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to be tiresome. Klejenni, do you think you have the single, perfect interpretation of that scripture? Pray tell, how does the rest of the world know that what you say the Bible says is the one true path? Unfortunately, Catholics, Baptists, Jehovah's Witness', and Mormons woul all say they believe what they believe because the Bible says so. Also, what translation of which Bible is the right one? Unleavened? Does it have all the books? Who says so? There are many other books that were once in the Bible, but are no longer. How about the translation? Are you aware of which words are the actual words of Jesus and not the interpretation of a later scribe?

Wikipedia evades all these issues by following rules that all follow; the ones that have the truth and the ones who only think they do. We quote an expert or a reputable source on what they say the scripture says. If it was really as easy as you think it is there would only be one Christian church. That is obviously not the case. Happy editing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you you have completed the circle. there is one christian congregation. its funny how you never respond to what i say but to what you think i said. I never said there is only one true religion though i believe there is but one. I never said the Bible is true though I believe it is. I did say that Jesus founded Christianity and he is Quoted in the Bible (which is widely accepted as the mauual on how to be a christian).Do you disagree? thats fine if you do, I am not going to try to force my opinion on you. so I quoted Christ, the founder of the Christian congregation and this is not neutral enough, but if I were to quote an "expert" that would be ok?Kljenni 03:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's used in the right context, the Bible is an appropriate source. However, just pasting a link to a bible verse, as you did here, is neither providing context nor encyclopedic. For the record, I agree with your reply here on all counts. However, Wikipedia is intended to be an unbiased, neutral, authoritative source of information. This article is supposed to be an encyclopedic definition of what it is to be a Christian, within an historical and cultural context, not a theological definition. Not wanting to include a verse from Matthew doesn't make me any less of a Christian, do you agree? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is on my vandal watch list, so I've been lurking and following this thread, and have to say that you just hit the nail on the head...you've ennunciated the core of the matter excellently. Akradecki 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, the truth is made difficult to find with 26,000 groups claiming to have it and all in disagreement on the fundamentals. yes, wikipedia was not created to be a place to promote worship of the true God. but can one be neutral on the issue of what it means to be a Christian, while also being on the side of Christ?Kljenni 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one can - by citing multiple authoritative sources that provide multiple definitions while not providing bias towards any one definition, we're editing the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. In presenting information that pertains to our faith in a way that's not intended to push an agenda, we're acting on the side of Christ as well, I would argue. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Kljenni, I also do not disagree with what you say, but with how you say here on Wikipedia. I have been editing for quite some time now and have learned by making a multitude of errors. I have seen countless edits reverted (I expect that very few of my edits exist today in their original form) because of something not quite right or frankly, a better edit was made. My intention was never to disagree with you, but to prod you to consider the wisdom of not speaking/writing from a specific POV here. In personal formats we would have much on which to agree and praise, but here it is a different matter. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

perhaps neutral editing of a topic i feel passionately about is not possible.Kljenni 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you may be correct. Don't worry - you're not the first editor here to feel that way, and it's a noble thing to realize that you believe strongly in something and therefore can't remove that bias from your work. It doesn't make you any less of a Wikipedian - in fact, I would argue that knowing when to take a step back to avoid violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy is one of the highest standards around here. There's just so much to do around here, anyway! :-) — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kljenni, I would also suggest that in cases where you are inclined to quote the Bible to support something, it's almost always to find some notable (by Wikipedia standards) Christian somewhere in the course of church history who has used that verse the same way, in some published material. It's generally better to say that this or that author says there will be apostates (to use your example), and that they cite this or that passage in support, than to make the case for that interpretation directly. Wikipedia's readers can judge not only whether they agree with the way the Bible is interpreted, but whether they're inclined to view the reference as a trustworthy (or even representative) interpreter of the Bible. Hope this helps you understand how you might fit in to Wikipedia without feeling you have to compromise your beliefs. Wesley 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lede

The introduction is kind of problematic in my view. The second sentance is not only run-on, but also a bit unenclyclopedic. (Ex: "who lived a life befitting that of the Creator of the universe") The second paragraph is particularly troubling. It takes a definative position in the works v. faith debate and totally discounts such positions as those taken by Liberal Christianity. The third paragraph seems to be more or less on track to me. The closing statement is extremely problematic as it only refers to one opposition group ignoring liberal theology, Quakers, Pentecostals and other such groups, which are more significant in terms of population. Really, it seems to me the lede needs an extensive rewrite. Before I dig in, what are other editors' thoughts? Vassyana 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a first swipe at the intro paragraphs. Sometimes articles morph into a rather narrrow view. It happens slowly, but then eventually it must be reigned in and made more in keeping with WP:NPOV. Thanks for taking the time to read the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Types of Christians?

Justin, "branches of Christendom" is not a Jehovahs Witness expression. It is a kinder way of referring of humans than "'types' of Christians" most humans I know get resentful of being 'typed' please remain neutral despite of our religious differences thank you Kljenni 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kljenni, I am not objecting to the change of "types to branches." My objection is the change from Christians to Christendom. "Christendom" in Jehovah's Witness doctrine refers to the false, apostatized church that Jehovah's Witnesses claim have "betrayed God and the Bible." (see citation) That is the POV you are attempting to portray, and such POV statements are not permitted on Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

justin please see the definition of 'christendom' at dictionary.com a secular resource. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christendom Kljenni 14:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the definition of Christendom that secular resources use. I have also seen the definition that Jehovah's Witnesses use. And I am aware of the differences in connotation, even within the secular realm. Please do not attempt to equivocate between the secular definition and the JW definition, Kljenni--such equivocations are not precisely honest nor accurate, and strain the good faith that I am doing my best to assume. Justin Eiler 16:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your logic has failed me, or I have failed it. How is it that I, because of being of a certain faith can redefine words? I am a spec of dust. If I edit in one secular place (wiki) can I not reference another (dictionary.com) perhaps not if I might be of a certain religious faith. so then what can I do? If you know of another definition for Christendom please lets hear it and source it please. my source I gave you. is the internet dictionary not a valid source? I cannot be more neutral than this, I have not said that anyone is a Christian and I have not said that anyone is not.Kljenni 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In the context of Jehovah's Witness doctrine, Christendom is not a neutral term--it specifically refers to those associations descended from the Great Apostasy. "Types of Christians" or "Branches of Christianity" are both neutral terms--"Branches of Christendom," coming from a Jehovah's Witness, is not neutral.

As for your argument of "How is it that I, because of being of a certain faith can redefine words?" I am not accusing you of redefining words, but of using the word in the definition given by the Watchtower Society. Justin Eiler 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would "branches of Christianity" be an acceptable compromise? Wesley 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

it is fine, for the wiki, to call a member of christendom a christian. and to set matters straight this is the definition of Christendom found at the end of Justins link which is somehow objectionable..... http://www.watchtower.org/e/pr/article_04.htm paragraph 3 line 2. Still I fail to see the objection to the use of the word.

The title of the Watchtower article, "Christendom Has Betrayed God and the Bible," is the basis of my objection. This is the connotation of the word "Christendom" as you are using it--and as such, using the word with that connotation is completely and unacceptably POV. Justin Eiler 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

please show me where i used the word christendom with that connotation Kljenni 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not examining the connotation based on your usage--that would require mindreading, and would not be verifiable. The definition of "Christendom" used by the Watchtower Society and in Jehovah's Witness doctrine is verifiable, and the connotation prvided by that context is unacceptably POV. Justin Eiler 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

thats funny, it almost sounds like your disputing my editing because you believe me to be one of Jehovahs Witnesses Kljenni 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have made several arguments that fall in line with JW doctrine--including asserting that Jesus is not God Almighty (deleted article), and asserting that most Christians are not Trinitarian [6]. You cite publications from the Watchtower Society in some of your arguments. [7][8]

But in truth, I am not objecting to your edits because I believe you may be a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses--I am objecting to your edit because it gives a connotation that will be confusing at best, and POV at worst. Justin Eiler 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i did not understand then the way wikipedia works. now i am really trying to edit from a position of neutrality. in order for me to do this i must use verifiable references and be very careful not to be promoting my own beliefs. This word here Christendom is linked internally to wikipedia. the only definition being given is from wikipedia. if wikipedia is confusing to people then I cannot help that. if wikipedias internal link to christendom is POV then go fix it. Kljenni 12:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of Christendom is not POV (though it is also wrong for the usage you propose, as it is speaking of a territorial phenomenon, not a religion). Justin Eiler 17:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ok you win congratulations Kljenni 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To understand who a Christian is, you have to understand who the biblical Christ is. Once you understand who Christ is, you will understand who is a Christian and who is not. (ApJ (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Merger

You know, this article really should be merged into Christianity. There's nothing in this article that's unique to Christian and not Christianity: Usage of the word, History, Persecution, Groupings: they all pertain the same to Christianity as much as Christian. Part Deux 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Just like Muslim and Islam are two different things that are inseparably connected, the same goes for Christian and Christianity. Christianity is the religion, the word Christian describes an individual in the religion. (ApJ (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Edits

Oh, I see Richard and I have been trying to edit at the same time. I'll just leave you to it, and come back later to review your final version. StAnselm 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of article

There is a discussion over on Talk:Christianity on the proposed merger of this article with that one. Right now there are no supporters of keeping the version of this article that existed this morning. One camp wants to just merge/delete this article with a redirect to Christianity. If you look at the edit history of this article, you will see that User:Part Deux was bold and jumped the gun by redirecting this title to Christianity earlier today. I reverted that redirect in favor of my rewrite which represents the other camp in the proposed merge debate. This camp asserts that there is worthwhile content about the word "Christian" which is not and should not be in the article "Christianity". I'm not convinced that this is true but I'm taking a stab at writing an article which will fit this description. As a result, I have deleted anything which would reasonably fit in the Christianity article.

I know this is bold but, considering the current trend over at Talk:Christianity, this article is destined to become a redirect to Christianity unless some radical changes are made.

User:StAnselm reverted my rewrite on the premise to restore the deleted content. I reverted his revert on the assumption that he was unaware of the proposed merge discussion.

--Richard 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I was aware of the merge discussion - it was the mass deletion here that bothered me. But particularly the "usage of the term" info - the history didn't seem to fit, anyway. But now that it's back in, I think we're back on track - though currently the article contradicts itself in the "earliest use of the term"! Thanks for your work. StAnselm 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text

I have reviewed the version of the article that existed before I took a machete to it. There were two sections "Usage of the word" and "History". I have restored the "Usage of the word" section as it fits nicely with what I wrote. The "History" section was a mess and did not describe the history of the word "Christian" or the concept "Christian". It kind of talked about the history of the word "church" and kind of talked about the history of Christianity. All of that section belongs elsewhere. There's an article Church where the stuff about the word "church" could go. Most of the rest of the "History" section belongs in either the Christianity article or the History of Christianity article but, frankly, those articles cover the topic much better than this one does.

--Richard 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I moved the text that discussed the word "church" to the Church article. --Richard 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

History should start with the Bible of course, and then we can expand from there. Bytebear 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better focus for this article

This is a much better focus on the definition of the term, its history and usage in various cultures. Much improved. Thought you should know. Bytebear 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is a huge improvement over the POV fork it was previously. I'll put in my two cents shortly. One minor quibble: My understanding was that Tacitus never uses the term "Christian," rather he used the term "Chrestus" as a proper name, blaming his followers for the disturbances in Rome. Fishhead64 06:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Tacitus uses "Christian" in describing Nero's blaming the Christians for the fire. Suetonius uses "Chrestus" to describe the reason that Claudius expelled the Jews (either 45 or 55 ce, its not in front of me). Something to the effect of Claudius expelled the Jews because of a conflict over a certain "Chrestus" -- it has never been clear if these were the first Christians in Rome and Suetonius got the name confused, or if this was caused by an unrelated person named Chrestus (as that was, I believe, a Latin name). -- Pastordavid 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Sadly, I'm not an expert on modern church history (ie., post-100). Fishhead64 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good clarifying footnote to me. Bytebear 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like what's been done with it (I was the one who re-opened the merger debate). I think it shows that a merger was unnecessary. Fishal 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger (redux)

I know I'm beating a dead horse from reading the discussions above but I'll throw in my two cents.

The article as it stands now is more of a dictionary article with a detailed etymology and various examples of how it is used in different contexts. Dictionary entries, of course, violate Wikipedia policies and the detailed etymologies do not make this more legitimate. The question here is "what is the topic?". The topic hear seems to be the definition and usage of a word which is inappropriate. Various people in this discussion forum have argued that there is a difference between "a Christian" and "Christianity" (the topics, not the words) nobody has made a good showing of what this difference is that justifies two articles. The argument that "Christian" discusses "an individual" is not strictly correct in the sense that this is a general term for a group. The only legitimate argument for having an article with this title is if it actually described characteristics of the individuals that were independent of the religion itself (e.g. "Christians only blow their noses on Sundays which is different from what most non-Christians do and is not specifically prescribed by Christianity"). Certainly this is not what the article is currently about and I'm not sure that one could credibly say that any such characteristics exist (and arguing that, say, Christians in the U.S. tend to act a certain way is POV in that the Christians of any particular community cannot be legitimately called the only "real" Christians).

This article should not exist. Most of its material can be merged with the Christianity article. I don't believe anybody would be confused by doing so (I'd argue confusion would be lessened by linking this to Christianity).

--Mcorazao 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

CHRISTIANITY VS. MORMONISM (DEBATE)

Moved to Mmirachi^(talk). Please join us.

Usuage in the Muslim World... August 11, 2007

That is not the usuage of the word Christian in the Muslim world...or in the Arab world. Please remember not all Arabs are Muslim many of them are Christians. Muslims view Christians are the people of Christ, in Arabic Christians are Messiehiye which comes from Issa El Messieh; this mean Jesus the Messiah. Muslims recognize Jesus as the Messiah. I keep trying to correct this but Im not being allowed. Why give out false information??

The mainstream Christian view of who the Messiah is and what He had to do is different than the view of Islam. Most Christians view the Messiah as God Himself, I don't know of many (if any at all) Muslims that hold this belief.(ApJ (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

The Christian Week

In Christianity, does the week begin on Monday or Sunday? In the United Kingdom, the week officially begins on Monday.--98.195.141.44 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no real 'Christian' view on the subject. With the exception of the Seventh Day Adventists who hold strongly that Sunday is the first day of the week. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

United States as a "Christian" nation

I deleted this section because the article is about the term "Christian" as a noun, and not as an adjective.ChristophMartel 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be reinstated. This article is about how the term "Christian" is used and the history of its usage, including "Christian nation". Bytebear 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the United States of America was founded on Christian principles, but now, many people deny that we were ever a Christian nation. -Yancyfry 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Most of our Founding Fathers were Deists. 206.66.66.1 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Find references to both the usage and the denial and add all that information to the article. Bytebear 06:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian

I think we should add the controversy and complete hate that this religion has actually caused Solidpilot 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just think that christianity and many similar religions cause a lot of hate and I think that should be added to the article Solidpilot 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not Christianity. It is about the term "Christian" and how it is applied and used. Your issues are covered in the article Criticism of Christianity. Bytebear 06:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants define a Christian as one who is a member of the Church, which one enters through the sacrament of baptism". I'm not sure that this is actually the case. Most denominations, Catholics included, are comfortable with the idea that one may be a Christian without being a member of their church, or indeed any church. Does anyone have a cite to the contrary? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. As I read the introduction it first tells the reader that a Christian is one who adheres to teachings of Jesus Christ. However, when you go to the section "Who is a Christian", it is then redefined as someone who partakes of the Sacraments. This is confusing. The first seems to be a definition of a follower of Jesus Christ and the second denotes membership in a church or organization. Is there a way to improve this contradiction or confusion? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me. The opening paragraph rightly sets out the broad position, then that section starts The definition of who is a "Christian" varies among different Christian groups and goes into detail, stating which branches of the church define by sacrament/ membership/etc. I'm sorry that we Christians don't all agree on everything, as that would be less confusing for all of us; but taking things as they are, I think the explanations here are about right for an encyclopedia article. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Later) OK, you've improved it - well done! The section could do with some references, though. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

After your comment I went back and read it and I think you were right there was not significant confusion. However, I did try to make improvements. When I was editing it I came to the same conclusion as you; we need to references that whole section. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unverified claims, personal research

Christians believe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian&oldid=188394476

This is driving me nutty. There are no citations, no references, no sources. It's all biased personal research, and while I agree with most (if not all) of it, it's not meeting the standards or the style of Wikipedia. Why is this being kept? (ApJ (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

You're clearly right, Joe. Even if that section did meet the standards of Wikipedia, it does not belong in this article, as it is a Content Fork from the main article Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sweet relief. xD

I know it was good intentioned, and a lot of it is true (didn't read all of it) of what many, or most, Christians believe. I just didn't understand why I got scolded for removing it. But, it's all good now, and I can sleep well tonight. ;) (ApJ (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC))