Talk:Christianity/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Heresy coming from Orthodoxy or vice versa

It's a matter of grammar..... the subject is heresy in the sentence, so you have to say that heresy is defined in opposition to orthodoxy..... otherwise the sentence is incorrect and hard to read.

KV 16:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Str's last rv, "KV, grammatical errors cannot be fixed by turning the meaning of sentence around by 180° - this now should work grammatically too, oi?"

The sentence was not of correct grammatical structure..... and the meaning doesn't make a difference seeing as it's not a literal sentence...... Tom Harrison asks if one was defined in opposition to the other, and the answer is no.... I quote dictionary.com

"[Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, a choosing, faction, from haireisthai, to choose, middle voice of hairein, to take.]"

Heresy does not mean in opposition to orthodoxy in it's original form.

Then we have to look to Orthodox, not Orthodoxy for a root: "[Middle English orthodoxe, from Old French, from Late Latin orthodoxus, from Late Greek orthodoxos : Greek ortho-, ortho- + Greek doxa, opinion (from dokein, to think. See dek- in Indo-European Roots).]"

Orthodoxy does not mean opposition to heresy in it's original form.

There is merely an opposition in the words, and so we look at grammar and readability. This suggests that we DO NOT CHANGE SENTENCE SUBJECTS. The alternative, to keep it in the order you want, is to make it longer and break it up into smaller sentences. Which is fine with me, but I know people act as the Pans when they found Osiris's dead body, and pan-ic, whenever more space is taken.

KV 16:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My question is not about the etymology of the words, it's about the facts of what the councils and bishops did, and how they determined what was heretical and what orthodox. Whether grammatically expressed or not, did they in fact define either in terms of the other? and does anybody have a citation we can verify? Did they carefully craft a definition of heresy, and then define anything not fitting that definition as orthodoxy? Or did they judge particular doctrines to be orthodox or heretical on an individual basis? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we use the English definitions:

her·e·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hr-s)

n. pl. her·e·sies

An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.

Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.

A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.

Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

Heresy is defined in modern English as in opposition to Orthodoxy, as I have in my version.

or·tho·dox·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrth-dks)

n. pl. or·tho·dox·ies

The quality or state of being orthodox.

Orthodox practice, custom, or belief.

Orthodoxy

The beliefs and practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Judaism.

orthodoxy

n 1: the quality of being orthodox (especially in religion) [ant: unorthodoxy] 2: a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards [ant: unorthodoxy]

Orthodoxy is not defined in opposition to heresy, but in unorthodoxy, in which case unorthodoxy really did come after orthodoxy

or·tho·dox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrth-dks)

adj.

Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

Orthodox

Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.

Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.

Orthodox is also not defined in opposition to heresy

The conclusion we can draw is that, if we don't look at roots, but the definitions in English of the actual words, my version is not only more grammatically correct, but more factually correct. Though I don't know what the early bishops defined everything, we're not saying that they defined it, but explaining what heresy is. Unless we specifically said that a certain group of bishops defined one in opposition to the other, we do not use their terminology over basic English terminology (which is likely to be based upon said bishops anyways).

KV 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, each bishop or group of bishops defined the "truth" and condemned anything too divergent as heretical. "Orthodoxy" was thus, locally and de facto, the doctrine of whoever had the upper hand (i.e. was Bishop of Rome or Bishop of Constantinople) until such time as a Church Council met, at which point it was defined as the majority position reached by the council. (I think they didn't say "such and such a doctrine is heretical", they said "anyone who teaches this doctrine, let him be anathema".) The idea that "the church authorities" defined orthodoxy and heresy perhaps gives too authoritarian and too centralized a picture of how the church worked. (The Bishop of Rome could say what he liked, I bet they took no notice in Armenia or Ethiopia.) Myopic Bookworm 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

PS The only way to solve this dispute, now that it's got to the stage of pasting great indigestible chunks of dictionary, seems to be to rewrite the section to say it in a different way, so that's what I've done. Myopic Bookworm 18:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better Myopic..... I didn't want to rewrite it, and I would say the rewriting is much clearer and entertaining than the original, keeping it NPOV and all.

KV 07:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Myopic. As always, I found very little that needed to be changed or could be improved upon from your work. I only maee small changes, mostly with just dividing the larger paragraph into two smaller ones, and moving a passage within the paragraph for better flow. One section I moved into its own paraprah and expanded it, as follows (which might need a little work as it was just a first draft. I hope I captured the idea accurately):

"Various forms of monasticism developed, with the organization of the first monastic communities being attributed to the hermit St Anthony of Egypt in around 300 and spread to many parts of the Christian empire during the 4th and 5th centuries in large part as a reaction to the state favored religion which made it easier to be a Christian than not to be one, and caused a perception that standards of Christian conduct were being lowered. Thus, the fleeing of the society, and church, was an attempt to try to regain a sense of its perceived declining moral imperatives." Giovanni33 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, St. Anthony..... the man who did away with mummification by example because Christ would give him a new body.... odd that Christians still try to improve embalming and mimic mummification. But this is just remeniscing, not a comment on the article. KV 08:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say that KV is running wild in a very conceited way (to avoid harsher terms). He claims grammatical errors (in which he probably was right) to change the meaning of a sentence to its opposite. Inconceivable but unfortunately true. Then he comes up with some etymologies irrelevant to the issue. Let me explain it again: the development of doctrine occurs throughout history as a defense against heresies. Theological discussion leads to different views, some of these views were seen as unacceptable and hence were condemned as heresies. To safeguard against the heresy in question, a dogma was defined (as in the Nicene Creed against Arianism). These definitions make up orthodoxy. Hence, orthodoxy is defined, step by step, in contrast to heresy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand that better now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Str, there was no conceit at all. You admit that I was probably right about the grammatical manner, and if you ask me, that's the only difference between our two versions, grammar. The two are opposites (though not the official opposites), and essentially heresy is to unorthodoxy as shit is to crap, only a harsher way of saying it. If you ask me, up is defined in opposition to down, and vice versa.... two opposites are defined in opposite of each other. The only way I can see any difference is if you see heresy in the way that we have tried hard not to attach to these movements: wrongful doctrine that is a sin against God. Surely then I could see orthodoxy being some sort of proper doctrine holding out against sinful heresy, if we also changed "defined in opposition to" into "formed in opposition to"..... But lacking this, there was no difference in meaning between the two.

Of course... until there is an orthodoxy, there cannot be heresy, in the NPOV meaning we are trying to give it. You cannot have something without its opposite..... without up, down has no meaning, without hot, cold is meaningless, without orthodoxy, unorthodoxy or heresy is meaningless. Perhaps the doctrination of beliefs was created because of beliefs that many disagreed with and wanted out of the teachings, but they were merely a reflection of the already existant but unnamed orthodoxy..... and these beliefs were surely the same beliefs that went against this unnamed orthodoxy, but were equally heresies that were not yet called heresies.

This is why I do not think you understand NPOV Str. My only interest in this article is to make it NPOV, for the simple reason that my POV is that every single one of Christianity's beliefs, orthodox or unorthodox, is very wrong, and the few right parts are heavily misunderstood. Certainly, I have not added any remarks, or suggested that remarks be added that would push my own personal POV. I mention all of this in preparation for what could be said when I accuse you of POV, the same can be thrown back at me if I don't lay out the evidence beforehand. We need to make sure that all of Christianity is represented, fairly, in this article; from those that are modernly popular to those branches that died out centuries ago.

KV 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977's sentence as it stood, was grammatically correct. There are two clauses in "Church authorities condemned some theologians as heretics, defining orthodoxy in contrast to heresy." The subject is the one who carries out the action, and it is the same in both clauses. The Church authorities condemned theologians, and the Church authorities defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. As long as the meaning isn't changed — and there was a subtle change in this case — putting heresy before or after orthodoxy would be a matter of style, not of grammar. I wonder also was it really necessary to put in your edit summary "reverting Str's grammatically incorrect change....... heresy is the subject, and thus you do not change subject in the middle of a sentence!" Apart from a harmless joke that KHM03 made when he caught me out in a "to" instead of "too" (and which he certainly knew I wouldn't mind), it would seem preferable just to correct an error, if you think you've found one, without naming other editors.

Regarding which came first, it's my understanding that the Church came to a greater understanding of things like the Trinity, the two natures of Christ etc. by reflecting on them in response to heresies. So, while orthodoxy existed before heresy, it was defined in response to heresy. I imagine we wouldn't have the Nicene Creed today if it hadn't been for the Arian heresy all those centuries ago. So when a teaching is questioned, challenged, or rejected (by some), the Church reflects on it more deeply, and comes to a fuller understanding of it. So the Church did define orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. Dogmatic definitions were usually made in response to particular heresies.

Heretical is a technical term for something that has a religious context. Unorthodox is used more in non-religious subjects. I did a mini corpus search, and found no uses of the word in a religious context, but there weren't were only five examples of the word altogether, so I couldn't generalize from that. However, my own feeling is that unorthodox collocates more with things like behaviour and alternative medicines than with religious beliefs. I'm not at all sure that it would be neutral to replace a standard, "technical" religious term with one that is used more with secular nouns. If there are strong objections to heretical, I would prefer heterodox to unorthodox. In any case, I have just searched the Christianity article, for words containing here (to ensure that I got heresy, heretic(s), and heretical, though I had to reject things like adhere and there). Every occurrence of the word except for one is in the context of a quotation or of something like "was considered heretical by the Church". That seems perfectly NPOV to me. The only unqualified appearance of the word is in Other early heresies included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism, Gnosticism and Montanism. That comes just after "are considered heretical or even non-Christian by many of the mainstream Christian groups" and "which the council regarded as heretical." I feel that since it comes so closely after two qualified uses of the word, the qualifications ("are considered as" and "regarded as") carry through, and it would only make it awkward if we tried to qualify that particular one as well. AnnH ♫ 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I assure you that the change was not made because of anything to do with POV. I honestly see no difference in the two wordings, other than when I was reading it over, I had to read it again, because the way it read. When you change subjects in a sentence, I thought you had to use "and," "or," or "but." with a slight exception for semi-colons. There was none of these, and so it seemed to me that we would have to break it up into different sentences or reword it. I thought it least controversial to simply switch the two words thinking that we were talking merely about their english meanings.... strongly felt by the word "is." If it were the word "was" which would signify an actual event, suggesting that the word "orthodoxy" was defined to differentiate itself from "heresy," coming up shortly after the development of the word "heresy." Being used as is, it suggests that it is happening in the present and logically does not apply to any event, but simply the relationship between "orthodox" and "heresy." With you being a linguist, as you claim, surely you can follow me here. The sentence must have been incorrect in one way or another.

KV 03:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith revert.

The epitotome of the bad faith revert is the sort that comes from a person unwilling to come to Talk to discuss the issues that caused their suggestions to be rejected in the first place. I am calling you out right now, Str1977: come here and talk about your changes before you try to insert them again. Alienus 09:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you not call out Giovanni, when he inserted his POV pushing without discussion, or rather misrepresenting them here and in his edit summaries as "I only maee small changes, mostly with just dividing the larger paragraph into two smaller ones ...". I will move my reply to you down here:

This is not true, Str1977. And I dont understand the hostility in your tone (also to KV, above). I am not "POV pushing" and I did discuss my changes above for my most recent edits, which were quite minor as I explained. Your blind revert undoes the work of Myopic Bookworms good work which solves almost all of the remaining issues, back to your older version of last week. I note that you apparently did it in haste and introduced some sloppy grammer and other basic errors. I have to agree with Alienus. I will assume you are just having a bad day and will not take your hostile, combatting tone personally, ofcourse. I would like if you would point out what changes I made you have a problem with so I can undertand them and work to solve them. Thanks. Giovanni33 09:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, Gio, assuming good faith I will look again into who did which revert. I will get back to you with my comments, and also with a justification of my reverts (which I stand by regardless of who inserted the POV changes). As for KV, I think you should be able to understand. If you post something that's accurate but contains a grammatical error you would expect other editors to fix the grammatical error without turning a sentence into its opposite, at least the second time around. Or else justify their change by content dispute and not by grammar. But this is what KV has done. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Str1977. You know Im happy to work with you and see to it that you are happy also. That is an important goal of mine. Just explain here which issues you have an issue with and talk about it first, in a back and forth to get both sides, and maybe some additional feedback from others. I really liked the changes by Myopic Bookworm, and I hope that you see his changes as also worthy of keeping. You will find me amicable to reason given the Wiki guildelines that we all pledge to abide by. About KV, yes, I see your point, but I think that your tone was uncesssarily quarrelsome (for example calling him "conceited"). Its just not helpful. Stick to the argument and lets all try to be extra nice and civil. Assume good faith. We all have bad days but lets not bring negativity here, and above all lets avoid edit waring. Giovanni33 10:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, Gio, that I was quite harsh in my words (but believe me, what I said was even harsher). I only attacked KV that way after he repeatedly (!) changed the content of the sentence while claiming grammar as a reason.

Having now reviewed again who posted what and when, however I must say that it was indeed you, Gio, who include all these terrible wording into the tex, calling them "various minor changes" [1] and [2]. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you have enough Wp experience to know about such things, about weasel words like "claimed" and what they imply. My changes reverted a whole series of this pov pushing. To only mention the highlights: Christianity did not start with the followers of Christ but with those claimining to be followers of Christ - the Communist regimes are not really Communist (probably because Communist means good) but only claim to be such.

But maybe we should preface any sentence with it is claimed, it is said, how about:

Christianity is claimed to be a so-called religion which is deeemed monotheistic relating in what could be described as a centring way to what is purported to be the life and thought to be the actions of a man called Jesus from a town dubbed Nazareth, a man of which some people say that those known as Christians call him Jesus Christ, in such a way as it is recounted in a book that it sometimes alled a Testament which is though to be New. Would that suit your purposes? If I did this over at another page (not that I am planning on doing this) you would be appalled and you'd be right in that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is funny. My word additions are not POV pushing. To say "claimed" is NPOV pushing, and its accurate. Look at any other encyclopeadia entry and you will find the same NPOV treatment in the language. For instance, see Encarta's Encylopedia's main entry on Christianity. Its history section reads: [3] "III History. Almost all the information about Jesus himself and about early Christianity comes from those who claimed to be his followers. Because they wrote to persuade believers rather than to satisfy historical curiosity, this information often raises more questions than it answers, and no one has ever succeeded in harmonizing all of it into a coherent and completely satisfying chronological account. Because of the nature of these sources, it is impossible, except in a highly tentative way, to distinguish between the original teachings of Jesus and the developing teachings about Jesus in early Christian communities."

That is an accurate and NPOV version. But to YOUR Pov it seems like pov pushing because it dose NOT push your POV. We don't know for a fact that Jesus even existed, but we do know who and who claimed to be followers. This is about NPOV reporting and accuracy in language. Other encyopedias do that, and this place is no different. The same thing for "communist states.' This is not an accepted fact so not to self "self described" which reports the reality is to push a POV that it really is a communist state. I certainly disagree as do many Marxists. And, no, it does not say if "communism" is good or bad. Where do you get that idea? No value statment is given one way or another. It seems you want to push a POV that communism is bad. Your following caricature just creates a straw-man fallacy since that is not what the texts reads, and nor is it representative of the point. Giovanni33 09:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Words to avoid deal with "claimed". We are supposed to avoid that word. AnnH ♫ 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did read that guideline, Anne. Thanks for pointing it out. However, it doesnt say one is supposed to avoid these words---this word comes under the section "Words which can advance a point of view." It says that some of these words like "claimed" can be abused and used to promote a POV, if not used correctly. However, there is a correct, legitimate usage of the word that is called forth by NPOV. It gives examples of this favored use of this word, and I quote: "Acceptable use: "George Bush claimed...that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks." I'm perfectly happy to consider not using the word and I will abide by consensus among my fellow editors. I do point out that other references use the word in exactly this context as I show above, and seems apropos given that all we really know is what is claimed by followers, and infact their being followers of someone is what largely defines the religion. Since this historcitiy is a debatable question it seems "claimed" is appropriate not to push the POV of assuming a true existence of Jesus. At least this is my argument and understanding for NPOV language here. Giovanni33 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I can justify all my changes here, if you insist. Don't blindly revert to a more than strange mess. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And further bad faith reverts followed!

As we're discussing precisely what's wrong with his changes, he keeps trying to reinsert them. Take a hint: they're disputed. You have to answer to these objections BEFORE you get to reinsert. Otherwise, you create an edit war.

I'm not playing that game. You have 24 hours to fix your text or I will revert a will. Alienus 09:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, stop your unfounded attacks. There's nothing bad faith about what I have done. Maybe you will examine the goodness or badness of faith behind Gio's edit summary/talk page talk.

Secondly: Who is this "we" - Alienus hasn't been involved here since March 2 and now he claims to have discussed "what's wrong with his (my) changes".

"BEFORE you get to reinsert"? Why didn't you take Giovanni to task for his wrongly explained changes?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"We" means you and me. Bringing Gio into this as a red herring is a further example of bad faith.

The moment I reverted your POV injection with an explanatory comment, you should have left the article alone until AFTER you had justified the changes. By reverting unjustified changes, you tried to start an edit war. Alienus 09:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, could you be a little less eager to hurl insults around. Unless you're trying to copy a stereotype of self-righteous, bigoted, narrow-minded Christians, please be less quick to decide about someone else's bad faith. Especially when it's based simply on a revert, and when reverting on this article is by no means carried out exclusively by the Christians. Is it really that difficult to imagine that he reverted because he sincerely believed (even if you don't believe) that his version was more neutral and that it used fewer weasel words? Generally, when someone reverts to a very POV version which I find objectionable, I assume that he sincerely believes it's more neutral. I don't agree with your edits or reverts, or with Giovanni's but I don't call them "bad faith"; it would be quite rude to do so. In any case, the stuff about "claimed to be followers" of Jesus goes against the NPOV policy and weaselword guideline. We are supposed to avoid such words. I'm also very puzzled at your insinuation that Str1977 isn't justifying his changes. This page is full of his very detailed contributions; there are hardly any from you. And if you have been looking through this talk page and the history of the article, you'll know that Str1977 has considerable support. AnnH ♫ 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I suggest you take another look at that guideline, as it doesn't quite say what you are making it out to say. It certainly is not "going against NPOV policy" either. Its a good guideline only and one that doesnt say its a word to avoid. It comes under the section "Words which can advance a point of view." It says that some of these words like "claimed" can be abused and used to promote a POV, if not used correctly. However, there is a correct, legitimate usage of the word that is called forth by NPOV. It gives examples of this favored use of this word, and I quote: "Acceptable use: "George Bush claimed...that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks." I'm perfectly happy to consider not using the word and I will abide by consensus among my fellow editors. I do point out that other references use the word in exactly this context as I show above, and seems apropos given that all we really know is what is claimed by followers, and infact their being followers of someone is what largely defines the religion. Since this historcitiy is a debatable question it seems "claimed" is appropriate not to push the POV of assuming a true existence of Jesus. At least this is my argument and understanding for NPOV language here.Giovanni33 10:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history, and I'll tell you what I found: a 3RR violation by Str1977. I'm reporting him immediately and demanding a ban. Christians are not immune to the rules. Alienus 10:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As a token of good will I'd not to report Str1977. I'm sure he didn't mean to and we can all get carried away. I also do not think he wants to edit war, either. A ban is also premature in this case, and Str1977 can be worked with. I do think Str1977 is in the wrong and is objectively statring what could end of as an edit war, but he did pledge to use the talk page to explain his edits and Ill work with him. Giovanni33 10:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. Alienus 10:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, digging up old stuff is hardly called for, especially since you are probably referring to the alleged 3RR violation we have already discussed twice, my seven reverts most of which alwere countering vandalism. I did not violate 3RR here today or elsewhere. I know I was getting close at another page, but that was another situation which involved another editor just as it did involve me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe he's doing it again.

Once again, Str1977 launches an edit war, right on the heels of the last one. Has he learned NOTHING?! I'm disgusted. Alienus 10:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand - I thought a very important point was raised above with the dictionary definitions - the opposite of orthodox is of course unorthodox - that is how we use it in everyday language. It only becomes heresy when defined as so by a religious group. So these people were not just left as unothodox Christians they were deemed heretics by the group who were writing the records. To not use relativistic language when describing these early definitions is definitely POV as you are presenting the "victors" case as fact.

Actually in this specific case you are presenting the RC view of Christian history as established fact as the key aspect for RC's is the authority granted to them by direct apostolic succession. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done some work on the monasticism and geographical spread paragraphs. If someone undoes these changes by reverting the entire section over some futile squabbling about orthodoxy and heresy, I shall be very cross. Myopic Bookworm 12:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with your changes, Myopic Bookworm. Thank you for improving on my edit. Giovanni33 13:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I reject the attacks launched by Alienus against me, and the incorrect (or should I say "unorthodox") definitions given by Sophia. There correct antonym would be "heterodox" (see below for more).

However, I am content with the Myopic edit [4] on monasticism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my issues and my edit this morning

As I promised this morning, I will explain my edit this morning. I will not discuss into who posted what and how far the reaction towards my edit was uncalled for (at least not now and not here). I also will not get into the dispute with KV about orthodoxy being defined "in contrast to heresy" (and not vice versa), as I have written about this above. So I will explain point for point:

• "Christianity began within the Jewish religion among those who claimed to be the followers of Jesus of Nazareth."

Though there are instances where we have to use the word claim, it is countd as one of the weasel words implying a certain POV. In this case it implies uncertainity or controversy where there is none. Even the most extravagant Gnostics, even scholars like Elain Pagels, and Pseudo-Scholars like Baigent/Leigh or Eisenman, consider the followers/disciples to be the starting point of Christianity, though they think it was corrupted at one point. THe only people that don't think so are those denying the historicity of Jesus, but that is because if Jesus didn't exist he couldn't have followers. But a) these are a fringe groups, b) including these into our wording gives undue weight to them, and c) even they view Jesus' followers as the origin of Christianity, though in their view these people were following a myth.

• "in which there also existed great diversity 'of beliefs"

This is a minor point. IMHO it is needlessly restricting diversity in beliefs while also unduly highlighting the same.

• I reposted the paragraph about "Theological disputes". There has been no justificaton for its removal or move. This is the proper chronological place, as theological disputes and condemnation for heresy started in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, way before Constantine. The other version suggests that disputes and condemnations were something brought up by Constantine etc., laying the basis for the widespread but nonetheless unhistorical views about Constantine "making Christianity". I also retain my preference for the word heresy, which is, if properly used not POV but merely reporting historical reality.In contrast to what has been argued above, the antonym of "Orthodox" is not "unorthodox" (a word that shouldn't exist in the first place (like ungood) but which has a definitely positive connotation (hence POV) and is mostly used in expressions like "unorhtodox methods") but "heterodox". I am willing to employ this term, though we cannot avoid "heresy" alltogether, but "unorthodox" will not do ever.
• The other version also talked about state authorities "establishing" orthodoxy - that suggests again that the state started orthodoxy which is at least POV. I have included a proper treamtment of the issue in my version.
• I also didn't like some ungrammatical or unfortunate wordings, such as:

• "the condemnation of some theologians as heretics resulted." - resulted in what? It also inaccurate to say that making heresy a crime (and not elevating it to crimes against hte state - are there other crimes?) resulte in the condemnation of theologians as heretics. Such condemnations existed way before Constantine and very few theologians were tried by state courts or punished by the state for heresy.
• "dissented from the decisions of particular councils (especially the Council of Chalcedon" - I don't think it was intentional but "particular" is ambiguous in this case: meaning either individual or pertaining to a part of the world. This is problematic as the Council of Chalcedon was an Ecumenical council, in fact the biggest council until Vatican I.

• I approve of the expansion of the "Monaticism" passage, as it always seemed a bit lost, but we shouldn't take it too far and indulge into speculative or too short explanations. This can be done in another article, where there is more space.
• "restrictions on Christian practices" seems quite soft, given especially current news.
• "self proclaimed Communist states" - this is the pinnacle of pov pushing, I must say: why should we used preface like this? Some Christians employ a tactic posthumusly excommunicating every "evil-doer" from our history, sometimes using such a preface "Self proclaimed Christian Constantine" (not saying he was such a bad man, just giving an example) etc. Secularists oppose this and so would I, unless there is clear evidence that someone only claimed to be Christian while holding contrary beliefs otherwise. In what way are the regimes in question not Communists, i.e. adhering to the various branches of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.
• "allows only government-regulated churches and has regularly enforced restrictions against house churches or underground Catholics" - I replaced the bolded words with suppressed. Why use the more circumstantial and downplaying wording. If I restrict something, there is still room for its existence. House churches however are not restricted in China, they are banned, "cracked down" to use another term. The term is colloquial and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia - replacing it was called for, but it should be replaced by an adequate word and not by downplaying.

Now, that wasn't all that much. That's the reason for my revert this morning and I stand by it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 -- re: the "among those who claimed" bit...I agree with you. Scholars are virtually unanimous (hard to believe we have to argue this, it's so self-evident) that Jesus' followers started the whole ball of wax. No reason to give undue weight to the "Jesus myth" theory, which barely registers on the academic radar (mention it in an "other views" section or something, but don't use it as a major scholarly viewpoint...it isn't). KHM03 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel we may go too far in the direction of saying that state authorities established orthodoxy...eccesiastical and theological authorities had at least as much to do with that as the politicians. Can't we clarify that? KHM03 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add I edited to the text to take into account that there was religous freedom under Constantine. As much as any ancient ruler could enforce anything, there probably was religous freedom for centuries in the Mediterranean. But at any rate, the official laws against other beliefs did not start until he was dead - I'm using the same Catholic encyclopedia that is referenced later in the article, though I knew this well from my college classes. Constantine, while he did host meetings to tie down 'official' beliefs, did not adhere as strictly to Christianity as the authors of this article believe. I don't think we need a lot of detail about religous freedom here, since it WAS relatively short-lived, but it's only fair, when the church fathers discussed religous freedom themselves. solomonrex 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The communism issue

I also didn't get the "self-proclaimed Communist states" bit...what was the point of that? Is there a dispute as to whether or not the USSR, China, et al were/are communist? KHM03 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, KM03, there is. Infact, very few would call it "communist." Some would call it "socialist" still (what they call themselves), but a majority would describe them as a form of capitalism knowns as state-capitalism.Giovanni33 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM, I obviously don't know what Gio tried to achieve by it and the following doesn't seek to impugn motives to him. But for your benefit, KHM, once in a while you will encounter those that insist on defining Communism as "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability", as Communist ideology saw this as the end point of human history and called it by the name of "Communism", which was preceded by things like the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "socialism". Of course, that is highlighting one meaning of the term and rejecting the other, more obvious definition pertaining to the Communist ideology or movement. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true Str1977. I've never read any Marxist work that describes communism as an end point in history. Its simply the end point of class structures that have characterized previous systems of production, along with the corresponding political and social systems based on it. The problem with commnunist state is that its a logical impossiblity (a contradiction in terms) but also it does not do what you claim it does here: emphasis the trasitionary phase of socialism; the term has nothing to do with that and only, in political science jargon, means a stated that is governed by a single Communist Party. It doesnt mean that the party is really following or trying to be communist, only that it calls itself that. This is not clear from the short handed version of the term as its used in this context. Giovanni33 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison's latest edits have solved some of the problems, especially the extremely POV wordings/weasel words. What remains of my issues is:

• (1) the current fusing of theological debate and and establishment of Christianity is not accurate but misleading. There also has been no argument put forth as of yet why my version is rejected.
• (2) the "developing institutional church" at the end of the monasticism paragraph. I think what is meant is the growing respectability of bishops, and not a supposedly new instituionalising. I find the current wording misleading.
• (3) China's "regularly enforced restrictions" (for the argument see above)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I can answer point 2 above: the earlier version spoke of monks 'fleeing society and the church' (I paraphrase), which implied (inaccurately) that monasticism originates as a counter-church movement: hermits and monks of course took the Church with them, since the Church is the body of all believers :-) but they were trying to get away from the hurly burly of argumentative bishops and hypocritical lay people. But since by then 'society' was 'Christian society', and hence 'society' included the 'church', the phrase is superfluous and I would be happy to see it removed. Myopic Bookworm 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I've removed it. I've also responded to the valid points (1 above, and KHM03) that leaving the discussion of heresy until we get to Constantine gives a false impression of the chronology. In support of this, I have not only moved the piece on heresy a bit earlier, but also (much higher up) mentioned Simon Magus, the arch-heretic. I've tried to bring out points like (a) orthodoxy (or 'true Christian teaching') is a concept that goes back practically to the New Testament, and (b) that although official status after Constantine didn't initiate the concept of orthodoxy versus heresy, it was a major factor in establishing what became the orthodox position, by putting the weight of secular authority behind religious dictates. Myopic Bookworm 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how can "heresy" not be a POV term? The first sense of "heretic" in most dictionaries refers to "the Roman Catholic Church" [5]. "Unorthodox" means "not conforming to established doctrine," and most dictionaries will say "not orthodox", so it is the opposite. Unorthodox is much more neutral than heretic, which most certainly has a negative connotation, which you prefer. The meaning of heterodox is similar to unorthodox, though some dictionaries/thesauruses link it to "heretical" as well. Usage of the word "heresy" is ok in most circumstances, I suppose (after all, many are happy to be considered "heretics" to mainstream Christianity), but should be done carefully, ensuring that it is clear where that opinion comes from, and that it's in relation to a certain group, even if that group is mainstream. --Oscillate 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the last issue that remains is point 1 above. Can someone please point out what was wrong with the general outline of the version I included. It seemed to flow better to me. The current version seems to jump back and forth a bit too often. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) the current fusing of theological debate and and establishment of Christianity is not accurate but misleading. There also has been no argument put forth as of yet why my version is rejected. At present, heresy is mentioned in three successive paragraphs. I'd be happy to leave it out of the first one (apostolic age). But at least one previous version (sorry I'm losing track of which one) discussed heresy in such a way (especially in terms of where it came in the timeline) as to imply that it was the official recognition of the church that led to the definition of orthodoxy. In fact, the legalization of Christianity did have a significant effect on the way in which orthodoxy was discussed and imposed (see quot. below), but it would be wrong to imply that the development of orthodoxy was somehow a direct effect of legalization. My version, mentioning heresy in before Constantine, then noting how the state church was newly enabled to suppress it, attempts to address this objection.

In a general reading of Church history, a different impression is gained from the Christian controversies of the first three centuries than from those which succeeded them. In those first three centuries, Christian teachers and their schools seem to be searching, in their various ways, for the true meaning of their religion and for the way to practise it. Later, the use of words and logic assumed greater importance. The break-point appears to come at the time when Christianity ws accepted as an offical religion in the Roman Empire. Joan O'Grady "Heresy: heretical truth or orthodox error?" (Element Books, Dorset: 1985), p. 148.

I agree with Str1977's small but significant edit regarding China: if some churches in China are banned, that is not "restriction" but suppression. Myopic Bookworm 10:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Bookworm.

My intention was to explain the field of "theological disputes, heresy, condemnation" immediately after the origins of theology, with that pertains to the church procedures existing to this day. Then, in comes Constantine and legalizes the whole thing, which leaves us two options:

• one talk about the intensifying after Constantine (chronologically correct, but leading to repitions)
• or to include the intensifying in the "theological disputes" passage, with a note saying "after the legalisation" (which will be fully dealt with in the following paragraph.

Definitely after Constantine should come the purely legal consequences of heresy after Christianity had been made state religion: heresy as a capital crime, supression of pagan cults etc.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain how these "Communist" states aren't really communist....... first we have the fact that, according to Marx, communism is ushered in with the dissolution of the state. There is no political state at all under communism. This is possible because scarcity ends as everything is automatically produced with nothing more than a push of the button. Obviously neither of these two requisites were created.

Then, we have the whole progression of stages thing. You go from Primitive Society to Feudalism to Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. Both the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, hell, even Fidel Castro's Cuba were still in Feudalism at the time they brought in this Communist Party. The Soviet Union's plan to skip capitalism and go straight to socialism was clear enough, if they get Western Europe to revolt then they can help build up the Soviet Union's industry, but the population in 1917 was still 95% serfs. China, led by Mao Tse Tung, didnt' even care about anything Marx said, and their first concern was simply listening to Mao and controlling the people. They really are having a free market at this point, holding on only to the part they actually cared about. Seeing as Marx said you cannot skip a stage of development, most Marxist scholars not in one of those nations call it state capitalism, where a single giant corporation runs everything. Without the democracy to suffice "collectively controlled by the people," they amount to essentially a giant corporation with a monopoly, that can have full employment because there's no one else to get a job from.

And really, it should be said "Self Proclaimed Communists" because, I can say for the Soviet Union at least, they only claimed to be in a socialist state, wrongfully so.

KV 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think any "editor" would have the guts to actually justify the addition of self-proclaimed. KV, you have proven me wrong, and I marvel again. All what you said is an accurate rendition of Communist thought. Still, all these countries were ruled by Communist parties (sometimes called Socialist), by which everyone means Bolshevik/Marxist-Leninist parties. Granted that Leninism is already a heresy from orthodox Marxism, but still, that's the way the word is used. Regimes ruled by Communist parties based on Communist ideology are properly called Communist. If you are a strictly Marxist Communist you may cry your heart out over this wrong usage of language, but that's the way of the world. And that's the terms we used here at WP. Anything else would be POV or OR, to which WP says N. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that made that edit re "communist states" and I've been meaning to get around to answering you (athough I did already defend my edit earlier--maybe you missed my comments above). I am amused but really have no idea what you mean by not having the "guts" to justify it. !?!? In anycase I don't think it was a bad edit and the way it currently stands does have problems with NPOV, in that it could mislead readers and with accuracy. To address what you said, it's true the word/phrase is used this way, but that is no excuse to use it here in this way, at least not without qualification. It should be noted that this is a western term that pushes a certain POV; its ideologically loaded in a similar way that "totalitarianism" is, and its pushed by anti-communists ideologues. At best misleading as used in this abbreviated form, and technically speaking, KV its is inaccurate because technically it’s an oxymoron. Communism's by definition is without a state, existing only on a world scale with common abundance. As communism entails the abolition of the state (withers away along with classes per Marx), a "communist state" is a logical impossibility.

But, ofcourse the term is defended because it isnt supposed to refer to communism, in political science jargon, nor does it mean a society that is even employing Marxist principals--only that it (a country) run by a single party that calls itself a "communist party." That is the term "Communist State" is short hand for and defined as a State run by a Communist Party, and hence it doesn't mean Communism is implemented in such a country, or do these communist parties even need to apply any form of marxism or communsim, just that they claim the mantle, no matter how grotesque such a pretense is. However, this nuanced understanding is not at all clear to all readers unless they are political scientists,and this is the POV problem with using it in this short hand form for "Communist Party-run state." On a side note most analysts who look at these societies, esp. Marxian scholars decidedly identify them as "state-capitalism," btw. Using the abbreviated terms does push a POV, and should not be used without some qualification or certainly not in this short-handed version because brevity is not a justification of incorrectness, or misleading readers.

This can be fixed to NPOV by language such as "certain regimes ruled by Communist Parties" that still links to "communist states" where that article explains what it means. If we fail to do that it becomes a loaded word. I'd even like to add in "so-called" because there has been so much changes in there that these "communist parties" for these state-capitalist countries like China that it can hardly be argued seriously that countries like China have anything to do with communism other than some empty symbols. Ofcourse, we need not deal with here as I'd hope that readers would realize that a state governed by a single political party called a "communist party" does not mean it follows the principles of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Thus, to be accurate a country ruled by a Communist party is not automatically a "Communist state" in so far as the terms leads a reader to think that state is following a road to try to achieve communism. So, again, the problem is that with the term 'Communist State' is that people will usually think that means there's Communism in such a country.

Just a few words about your treatment of Marxism, which I think you characterize wrongly, as you would a religion, "orthodox, heresy, etc". Marxism can be treated that way, and has been, but such is contrary to the nature of Marxism, a violation of its method. Instead it should be treated along scientific lines within the social sciences where they have been very influential in developing different schools of thought within the academic disciplines esp. history and sociology. Ofcourse there are different schools and branches within what comprises Marxism-- methodology which stems from the philosophical outlook of dialectical materialism, its economic theory (the labor theory of value, base and superstructure), and its politics (class analysis, humanism)--and different strains of its development, esp. in regards to politics and building "communism," known as revolutionary socialism. My point is that Marxism, if treated like a science (which is what Marx insisted on), must be dynamic and its a matter of debate what is "revisionism" (violating principals inherent to Marxism) and what is simply development, applying its method to the concrete conditions (as, say, Leninism or later Maoism’s), at least in one direction, which formed distinct schools in political revolutionary Marxism/communism that exist in parties around the world. Btw, virtually every modern day Maoist party does describe China as a state-capitalism, including non-Marxist academics to describe its clearly profit-driven economy.Giovanni33 00:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

<irony>"...some self-professed Communist-party ruled regimes" - Can these really be said to be 'regimes' in any meaningful sense? I'm also dubious about the extent to which they 'ruled.' Don't words like 'regieme' and 'ruled' carry with them a lot of connotative baggage about how we in the so-called "west" think things ought to work? (I use the term 'work' advisedly, without meaning to imply any kind of preference for active government over passive.) I'm not sure we are justified in crafting the discourse in such loaded terms. As it now stands, we seem to be implying that the 'party' (whatever that is supposed to be) ruled the 'regieme', with all the Eurocentric assumptions those words carry. Do they describe themselves as 'regimes' that 'rule,' or do they see themselves in far different terms, perhaps as a stage in human development rather than as a government in the western authoritarian sense? Maybe they thought they were an autonomous collective.</irony>

Or maybe we should just call them communist states. Since I can't find a Deconstructo-bot, see the Chomskybot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about "ruled" instead of "governed", as well as "regime" instead of "government." Although the later terms are fit for more authoritarian political systems, I'll make the changes. However, worst of all is simply to leave it at "communist states" for the afore mentioned reasons. A "communist state" simply short hand for is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, wheate true or not. It doesnt not make it communist any more than a shriners club that holds parades with red flags. Also, yes, the "commuist party" does govern all important levels down to the police even, of the society (thinking of modern day China). Also, if you buy the propaganda these states use to legitimize themselves with along the lines of Marxian concepts (while in practice they violate them), they do see themselves as governments through the Party that are ruling, which is a fact that is not mutually excluive to a claim of being in a trasitionary stage along Marxist lines. The two go hand in hand in fact.

Here are a few relevant quotes from Marx about this transitionary stage, which is the "dictatorship of the proletarian." "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

When the more important functions of the state are reduced to such accounting and control by the workers themselves, it will cease to be a "political state" and "public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions."

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is thus the transitionary stage, and it's not describing an dictatorship along western terms, meaning opposed to democracy, but simply the state assuming and dictating the interests of the working class above the capitalists class (hence class dictatorship, which always exists in any class system, the state not being neutral); this is descrbied by Marx as "winning the battle for democracy," the class struggle being for greater democratic gains as part of its goals. Giovanni33 03:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking of "guts" because, quite frankly, this edit was low-point of edits on this page (at least until the rather strange edit series this morning). You don't need to lecture me about the ins and outs of Marxist ideology, I know them well enough. Only, we write this encyclopedia in English and not in Marxese. And in the real world, "communist state" is as NPOV as it can get. It is funny that you vehemently insisted the other day on using the term Fascist for a regime that didn't call itself that, while here you are trying to dissociate Marxism (and frankly, Communism is already Marxism-Leninism) from the Soviet Union and similar states. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am writing in English, to explain Marxist terms, including terms originating from other ideologies to show their limitations in how to use them in a NPOV manner, such as "communist state." You simply say that it is as NPOV as you can get but actually you fail to make any argument countering my specific arguments above. Therefore my arguments still stand. If you can show me any objection to the misleading manner it is being used, and how my concerns are not valid, then you'd have an argument at least.

Your bring up the point about another argument in another article we've had, but I dont see the connection or anything funny about it and this. If anything it shows I'm very consistent to use terms according to academic consensus, not according to what a particular leader would prefer to call himself through assertion alone. Hitler's regime is considered a varient of fascism, even if Hitler chooses to call himself only a good Christian (which he does). This is just not my opinion its scholary consensus according to experts on fasicsm studies. Likewise state-capitalist regimes like China can call themselves whatever they want, it doesnt mean we have to accept what they say at face value as if it were an undisputed fact. We only should accurately reflect the issues according to fair representation and scholarly consensus giving a voice to different POV's. That is what NPOV is about in my mind. Again, this is also slightly besides the point and my above arguments still stand until I see what the objections to them are. And, lastly no, Marxism-Leninsim is not the same thing as communism, and what a state practices can be looked at objectively independantly of what they may call thesmselves as well. Lets try to be more accurate with the terms so as to avoid POV pushing. Giovanni33 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire argument is a nominalist debate, Giovanni. China is referred to in common usage as Communist, and so it should be referred to here. We don't need a scholarly consensus, because an encyclopedia entry about Christianity does not need paragraphs of discussion about whether China is really communist. This is only a relevant discussion on the China page, Cuba page, Marx page, etc.solomonrex 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I don't want to refight the whole Fascism-Totalitarianism debate again (especially not here), but even if I accepted what you call the scholars' consensus (which isn't that universal as you imply), we would have to be consistent and use the terms common for the Communist regimes, even if they are in conflict with Marxist ideology. Hence my remark about speaking English and not Marxese. Re ML - once upon a time, in the days of Karl Marx, the terms Communist, Socialist, Socialdemocratic were synonyms - until the term Communism was taken by the followers of Lenin. Henceforth, Communism described the Marxist-Leninist ideology/movements/parties, and all their offspring, later separated by disagreements, in China, Albania. (Yugoslavia is a bit ambiguous). So, please stop your Quixotery. (editor who calls himself) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree this issue here has nothing to do with the argument about Nazism being a form of fascism. or even that Marxism-Leninsim is the dominant and accepted form of Marxism, with other divisions and developments (major ones like Maoisms), or minor political line differences and tendencies of more subble natures among different parties (including non-Leninist varieties). Again, all this is besides the point because no one argues that these nations have communism, but only are goverend by Communist Parties. "Communist State simply means a nation that is ruled by a self-proclaimed single Communist Party. No one disputes that. This is all that the term is supposed to mean. The real issue here is that not everyone knows this, and to use this term in this context is misleading at best. The term itself is problematic for other reasons as well. That is the issue and that is the problem I attmpted to fix. Giovanni33 07:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I agree with what you presume about readers' ignorance. However, Communist state wikilinks to the explanations you'd like (which has the advantage of giving more space for the discussion, without the dissociating character of the changing the wording here). Also, if you argue from the readers' ignorance, you should keep in mind that for these same readers "communism" means one political ideology and all that pertains to it, including parties, states etc., so your issue is no issue for them. The rest is dealt with through the wiki-link. (editor who calls himself) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why I kept the wiki link, but used a wording for what is meant in clear terms so as to avoid confusion that could also be interpreted and lead to pushing a POV through presentation of something in a way that easily misleads readers. Im not impugning anyones intentions here, either.Giovanni33 08:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole argument is completely ridiculous, since it concerns an issue entirely peripheral to the topic of the article. The English phrase "Communist state" is generally accepted to mean "state run by a government that calls itself Communist but is actually some sort of authoritarian tyranny", and if you really mean "state run on genuine communist principles" then you have to put it in some other way. If the Wiki article on Communist makes this clear, then I do not consider that it needs circumlocution around here. By the way "self-professed" would mean that they are Communist and acknowledge it: I think what you mean is "self-styled" (claim to be Communist but may not be). Myopic Bookworm 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite uncomfortable with these "self-professed", "self-proclaimed" qualifications. Such additions draw attention to themselves, and carry an insinuation that these states were not really communist, but were pretending to be so. Remember how the NPOV policy doesn't really like "claimed", but prefers words like "said", which don't carry the same hint that something may not really be so (but don't imply that it is so either). It's also hard to understand, given Giovanni's insistence that the Hitler article should say that he was a Catholic (and even should categorize him as a Catholic politician) on the grounds that he didn't formally renounce Catholicism and was never excommunicated), when we're dealing there with a lapsed Catholic, who did not attend Mass or frequent the sacraments as an adult, who rejected and lived in violation of Catholic teaching, and who persecuted and martyred Catholics. Hitler "was a Catholic" (no "claimed to be"), but the communist states were "self-professed" or "self-proclaimed" communist states? I agree with Myopic Bookworm that the phrase "Communist state" is generally accepted to mean "state run by a government that calls itself Communist." I don't see a need for any other clarification, other than a wiki-link. And this has nothing to do with my POV, since I have never given much thought as to whether communists really are communists or not — it's just a question of writing in ordinary English that doesn't draw attention to itself. AnnH ♫ 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue was already solved, but to help you explain the difference between Hitler being a Catholic, and these countries not being communist, its not hard to understand, really. Its not simply based on what each call themselves. That is only one factor (and that factor's weight depends on the nature of the subject matter that is being professed. Religion is more a matter of professed beliefs than the objective nature of a society which is detrmined more by measurable actions, hence a case of apples and organges). We also have to look at all the evidence and scholarly consensus. In anycase, I relented to using the terms you prefer there, ie. only saying Hitler "claimed" he was a Christian and Catholic, instead of stating it as a fact, even though its pretty clear he was by most standards of the use of the term, if we are to be fair and apply the same criteria/standars that we do to all other Christians historically. I won't repeat the arguments here as they are being made on the Hitler page. Giovanni33 04:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem: you are considering "religion" as something subjective and hence any self-identification paramount. The thing is, however, that you cannot generalize - some religions are quite subjective while others are more clearly defined. Catholicisim is among the latter; Protestantism among the former. Finally, I cannot understand how an ideology like Communism (only not a religion because of a lack of transcendence) can be more objective than (other) religions. Despite Marxist claims, Marxism was not a science. But you are right - the issue is settled, maybe not in the most elegant of ways but I am willing to accept the current wording (though I still think the objection to the former wording completely ridiculous). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Knowledge Base could use your help!

For those of you interested in christianity, a new wiki has been started over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. It will include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. The site could use your help to build a resource that would really enrich the lives of Christians. nsandwich 06:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of all dissenting views from Beliefs section

As per my earlier discussion with Str1977, and edit skirmish, where I was turned down in Talk:Christianity#Jesus as God "While this is true, it does not actually belong into the beliefs section, for the reasons set out above."

Since we are not mentioning the significant breakages, I removed all such references to maintain consistency. If these are reinstated, in order to be NPOV, the sentence on Arianism must be reinserted as well, "Now a sound part of Christianity, this idea was highly debated in the early days of the Church. Many sects, declared heretical by the mainstream Church, such as the Arians, disagreed with this stance."

KV 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

KV, see the following page WP:POINT. Then, don't quote me out of context. You wanted to include Arians and Gnostics and I said that these are off topic in the section, as it is no history section. The section is about what mainstream Christianity agree on. We can argue about how far we should delve into disagreements within the mainstream, but your recent edits are not attempts at discussing them (take them here if you will) but merely trying to make a point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, I'm creating consistency. I said in the earlier discussion that I would accept it not being in if the rest was taken out, no one dissented. This article, as I said, is not Modern Christianity, it is Christianity, that includes all beliefs down from Jesus' ministry to today. The disagreement with Jesus being fully man and God is disagreed with by Arian Christians which were the only ones in the sentence, I did not mention Gnostics in any form of the sentence, only in elaborating in talk. But, if we include one, we have to include the other. So I'm reverting until we come to consensus on if all go in or all don't go in. NPOV is non-negotiable as per Jimmy Wales.

KV 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:Point says: Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work.

There is no rule that I'm trying to prove doesn't work, I'm enforcing uniform treatment of the Beliefs section mixed in with the non-negotiable NPOV. I am fine either way, but NPOV is non-negotiable.

KV 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being awfully dense, but, having looked at the diffs in the history of the article, and having read the comments here and in the "Jesus as God" section, I cannot see how a disagreement between two editors over the relevance of a paragraph on Arianism could justify removing the information about Purgatory etc. I have reinstated it. AnnH ♫ 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann -- For reinstating that bit, you've earned another year in Purgatory!  ;) KHM03 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Have I? Oh dear, I'll have to buy a few indulgences! ;-) AnnH ♫ 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For the benefit of those who mightn't get it, that's a joke! AnnH ♫ 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone who says, "I am not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, I'm creating consistency," has pretty much convicted himself of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be left in, can we reword it to leave out the orthodox..... that's what consensus seemed to not want in, discussing those who differ, and leaving that to the next section. The wording prior suggested that Purgatory was specifically Catholic, which is why I removed it.

Also, Tom. Consensus was that the Beliefs section was for those beliefs that are generally Christian and not to discuss any differences, major or minor. To break that consensus for any sect is POV if it is not done for any other sect of similar prominence. I lost out on that consensus, but let us follow through then. Personally, I think the two beliefs sections should be one and all of this information should be in, but the consensus is otherwise. And remember, you're the one who invited me to continue participating on this page.

KV 05:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Any Help Would Be Wonderful!

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. Empty2005 03:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bowing Out

I've spent enough time trying to NPOV this article, and it's not what I'm looking to add to. My activity here has left me not paying attention to other articles that mean much more to me than Christianity. I see the main problem as it being too biased towards, not Christianity, but the victorious streams thereof over the squashed out streams. And that is my last word before unwatching this.

KV 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

In an an attempt to get the history section of this article and Early Christianity out of dispute for the first time in months I have listed and RfC. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe and be saved?

A few days ago, Scorpionman inserted into the article, [6]

and the Bible clearly indicates that all one has to do is to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).

This was removed by Str1977 ten minutes later with the edit summary "it isn't all that clear, and it is POV".[7]

I saw a message on Str1977's talk page a few minutes ago.[8] I'll quote briefly from it:

You said in the summary that it isn't all that clear, and is POV. It is clear, and is not POV! It's not POV that the Bible says in Acts 16:31 that "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved"! That's exactly what it says!

Scorpionman, I don't think Str977 was denying that the Bible says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." I imagine he meant that it's not clear that the Bible teaches that that's all you have to do. After all, doesn't the Bible say elsewhere that the devils believe, and tremble? The Bible, in fact, has many passages that deal with the question of what one has to do to be saved — keep the commandments, be baptized, sell everything you own and give it to the poor, etc. An article talk page is not the place to discuss different interpretations of the Bible, however, but rather to discuss what should or shouldn't go in the article.

Anyway, the question isn't whether the Bible says what you say it says. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is if the Bible teaches clearly that that's all you have to do in order to be saved. Just believe in Jesus, but don't bother to repent of your sins or be baptized or follow the commandments? Catholics, by the way, don't believe that they're saved by their good works, contrary to what you may think.

Anyway, I'm sure you think your interpretation of Acts is the "true" one, but Wikipedia goes by neutrality, rather than truth. Of course, truth is better, but the problem would be that each editor could think his beliefs were true. I'll give you two statements:

• Lindy Chamberlain murdered her baby.
• Lindy Chamberlain was innocent of murdering her baby.

One of those statements is true. I don't know which, but I'm personally convinced that it's the second one. However, both statements are POV, and therefore neither is acceptable on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we say that she was accused of killing her baby, that she was convicted and imprisoned, and that she was released and finally exonerated.

So regardless of how true it may be that the Bible clearly teaches something, if a significant number of people interpret it differently, it's POV, even if it's true.

And by the way, if you have a dispute over one sentence, don't revert to the your own version if it was several days ago. You undid over fifty edits that had been made since then.[9] If you really thought it necessary to reinsert that bit, you should have done it manually.

I hope that helps. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may chip in, there is a difference between believing in or on someone than simply believing someone....I think Scorpionman is on the right track though, don't see how it's POV at all unless you mean the POV of showing correctness, the only part probably does need some more explanation though. Because being born again is a bit synonymous with that and well, it could use some elaboration. Homestarmy 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain again. There is no POV in stating, "the Bible says", followed by a quotation. There is a POV in stating "the Bible clearly teaches that . . ." I could say that the Bible teaches that contraception is wrong, that the bread and wine really become the Flesh and Blood of Jesus, that Jesus instituted Confession, and that women can't be ordained. Every one of those statements would be true, according to my POV; and every one of those statements would be POV. If Christians disagree over the interpretation of a particular verse, then it's not acceptable, under Wikipedia policy, to state that that verse teaches a particular thing. And not all Christians believe that the Bible teaches that the ONLY thing necessary for salvation is to believe in Jesus. I don't think we need discuss whether or not they should believe that, since that's not what article discussion pages are for. But I think it's a fact that they don't all believe that. Therefore, it shouldn't be asserted in the article. AnnH ♫ 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I removed the addition in the first place, just a quick comment from me.

Scorpion's addition was: and the Bible clearly indicates that all one has to do is to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).

That is, first of all, not what Act 16:30-31 says:

and brought them out and said, "Men, what must I do to be saved?"

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."'

There is no "all" stated here, at least not clearly. You may infer it from the fact that this is Paul's entire answer. But then you must take into account that there are other verses, e.g. this one:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ(1 Peter 3,21)

If I took this verse on its own, I could argue that the Bible clearly states that all one has to do is to be baptized.

Both onesided interpretations however are wrong, IMHO, as one cannot separate baptism from the belief in Christ, and on the other hand, Acts 16,31 is followed by 16,33:

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

So, Scorpion and Homes, no one here disparages the importance of faith, the essential value of believing, but Scorpion's original addition was way too strong. And BTW, Scorpion , I agree with you about the "dark mystery". That should be changed. (editor who calls himself) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I get it now. Well, are these parts from the Bible mentioned in the article? Their pretty important heh. Homestarmy 13:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Epistle of James also says faith without works is dead. Martin Luther even highlighted the fact and pointed out that it contradicted the above statements (for which reason he regarded the Epistle of James as dubious). Clinkophonist 12:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's only a contradiction if one negates the possibility of the other, Jesus says that we are saved through faith in Him, while James is mostly talking (In context) about indications of salvation, not actually being saved through works. It's like turning on a light, if I clicked the "on" switch and the light did not give off light, I would assume the light is broken. This is somewhat analogous here, whereas faith is the turning on of the light, and works are the light shining, the shining doesn't cause the light to come on, the light (works) is merely an expected result which indicates correct function. Homestarmy 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Crisis Of Christian Identity in America

Princeton Professor Cornel West [Class of 1943 University Professor of Religion at Princeton University. He has held positions at Union Theological Seminary, Yale University, Harvard University, and the University of Paris. He has written numerous books, including Race Matters: The American Evasion of Philosophy, Beyond Eurocentrism and Multiculturalism (two Volumes), and The Cornel West Reader.) , published a book in 2004 entitled Democracy Matters: Winning The Fight Against Imperialism. [2004; Penguin Group; ISBN 1-59420-029-7 and ISBN 01430.35835)

As the title suggests, the book discusses the issue of the fight between the concepts of American Imperialism and American Democratic principles. Chapter 5, which runs 27 pages in the paperback edition, is entitled The Crisis Of Christian Identity In America. In this chapter, he discuses the long battle between so-called Prophetic Christians, which he identifies with Christ, Paul, Martin Luther King, William Sloan Coffin, and the Separation of Church and State; and the so-called Constantinian Christians, which he identifies with Emporor Constantin, Jerry Falwell and the institutional connection between Church and State in political society. Professor West traces the history of the fight between these two concepts, including the struggle between them in the American Constitutional Period where the result was specific language that protected the freedom of worship, the freedom from institutional worship, and the Separation of Church and State in the body of the Constitution, and explains how it is the Constantinians who are in power now in America, as evidenced by the amount of influence the group we call Fundamentalist Christians have in the government of the United States. He outlines the religious threat to democratic practices, both domestically in the USA, and abroad, and explains the developmental link between the Constantinians and the Fundamentalist Jews and Muslims throughout the world, and their effect on the nations they are dominant in. His complaint is that the Constantinians have an undue influence over governmental policies through the justification of three Dogmas: Free Market Fundamentalism; Aggressive Militarism; and Escalating Authoritarianism. This justification is achieved through their religious rhetoric, and he feels that this is ironic and sad, in that "this fundamentalism is subverting the most profound, seminal teachings of Christianity, those being that we should live with humility, love our neighbors, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

I notice that there is absolutely nothing on this topic in this article, and I would recommend someone in your group reading this book, and then writing a section on it. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt mention of this would be allowed here by the majority of editors who defend a more conservative approach. This material would certainly be allowed and good for part of the discussion on another article, titled Christian fascism.Giovanni33 07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

At first sight I think it would be inappropriate, not because of conservatism (most Christians would regard me as strongly liberal) but because it is totally focused on the USA and has no international relevance. This article is about a world religion, not about domestic US politics. (I wonder if this author acknowledges the much more general thread in comparative religion between what are sometimes called 'soteriological religion' (focus on individual salvation) and 'community religion' (focus on social cohesion).) I think Gio is quite right that there is material here for a separate article on American Christianity and politics (fascist or otherwise). Myopic Bookworm 08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a conservative Christian argument against this, Christians aren't the only people who argue against separation of church and state, if there was a fight over this information it might get far more political than religious, and I dunno if anyone wants to mess with that. I know I don't, politics can be so annoying....Homestarmy 13:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Persecution

This should be handled more maturely. The initial persecution of Christians by Rome is often cited as helping spread Christianity, but this isn't really discussed. Rather, you use the opportunity to whine about "Christians" persecuting others, though these are isolated events that belong on other pages. For example, the Crusades are cited, even though it describes "Christian on Christian" violence, which should mean that it's not really persecution. It has to be systematic to be persecution, not war. And about the Crusades, Muslims had been raiding the Christian West for a while, and no one wants to mention that. Just bring up persecution as it relates to Christianity's history and development. IT IS important to explain persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages, and the witch hunts, I agree. But currently, it's like a Festivus airing of grievances, a bit unbalanced. Most Christians never did these things, and it isn't acceptable by most current doctrine - including everyone's favorite punching bag, Roman Catholicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.186.241 (talk • contribs)

The Christians started the crusades, and even had crusades against other Christians - Albigensian crusade. The first recorded suicide bombing in history was a christian attack (via manned fireboat) against the muslims during one of the crusades. Christian persecution has some 1700 year history, Roman persecution of christians has about 200 years, so really there is an 8:1 ratio here - Christian persecution of others should be 8 times more prominent in the article because it is 8 times more prominent in history. Clinkophonist 12:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't the Chinese currently persecute Christians and restrict them from freedom of worship? Did not the communists persecute Christians during their period of governing in other coutries? Yes, we should have balance in our articles, but then we must resist being selective in recounting that history. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Even from a purely ok-I-won't-start-ranting-and-raving-against-skepticism perspective, if the "persecution" was 8 times worse than the romans, then we have to start getting into degrees of persecution. Therefore, because Wikipedia often considers anyone who claims to be a Christian to actually be a Christian, we must address the holocost, which persecuted Jehovah's witnesses, and due to its 20th century systematic extermination campaign, easily trumps all of the "1700 years of persecution by Christians". Somehow, I don't think a "suicide bombing" with a fireboat on the high seas in pretty much the middle of a war against a clearly defined enemy who wants you dead possibly as much as you want them dead quite compares to gas chambers and death camps against a peaceful, mostly non-belligerant minority. We must also examine the purges of Stalin, which probably hit quite a number of Christians, and by pure numbers, were several (I think like 20) times worse than the holocost, which would deserve far more length in this article than the crusades or whatever. Then like Storm said, China would definitly deserve an honorable mention, which easily has on its own right now far more population than I assume all of the western world had put together during the crusades. The article would become almost nothing but bloat on "Look who's killing who!", that does not inform the reader about Christianity.

Then you have to examine the issue of what article persecution information belongs in. Does the vast majority of persecution by supposed Christians actually describe Christianity, or a ridiculously and obviously incorrect denial of scripture by the medieval church? If the latter, then it doesn't belong in an article about Christianity, at most, it would belong to a "History of Christianity" article, and at least, a "History of persecution by people who claimed to be Christians, but it looks like it was unlikely" article. An article on Christianity should not somehow attempt to reflect the "most popularily practiced" examples of "Christianity", when it suddenly got violent, because then it would also become an enormous bloat of history over what majority believed what then and why and how it affected so and so and then 100 years later there was a new "consensus" of the "church" which said so and so and persecuted these people and those people and blah. the point is, the article shouldn't have an "8 times larger section on persecution by Christians" or even a section that attempts to claim "This is Christianity's face forever and ever" because some of the time some parts of the church didn't even fit the real concept of Christianity, and the other times the persecution by christians is easily overwhelmed by persection to Christians. If the article is merely a who-persecutes-who debate, very few people will learn about the topic I daresay, and will simply leave feeling "Wow.....that was a whole lot of pointless information.". I hope I got that all out right..... Homestarmy 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus can go to hell he promoted more wars than any others fellow in history and promoted bs i tell you may a sword go upon his house of the devil for all who do idolatry destroy pagan idols repent for i declare a jihad on the religion of hate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.114.156 (talk • contribs)

He most certainly did not. Humans have misused, misrepresented and twisted, but you will not find this promotion in anything Jesus taught. The hate you find in much religion and many religious people is not from Jesus or God, but rather from people taking advantage of others. --Oscillate 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Jesus never said, for instance, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." in Matthew 10:34, did he? Oh, wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.39.12 (talk • contribs)

And yet he told everyone to put away their swords, even when used against his enemies. Bring the sword and the talk of division was the result of some people believing in him, as many would, and others who did not. His words have been twisted by humans intent on their own agenda, and your statements are a fine example of that. --Oscillate 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mysterious reversion on April 1st

For some reason an anon IP address reverted the whole history section to a very old version--the one with Beowulf still there!, as well as the persecution section back to the now solved "communist state" issue. Not sure why this was done but did not even have an edit summary--just an anon. IP address (listed below), which apparently is a public IP. I restored the carefully worked out consensus version back. I only bring this it up here because others might want to look at the changes that this user introduced. The major reversion in question was: 23:15, 1 April 2006 129.2.238.216 Giovanni33 09:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Giovanni, that you have frequently in the past referred to your preferred version as the "consensus version", when it was no such thing. Your edit summary[10] simply says "for some reason an anon IP address reverted the whole history section to a very old version (the one with Beowulf still there). Not sure why but had no edit summary even. Restoring consensus version", but you give no indication of which version you consider to be the "consensus version". The logical thing, if your objection is to the anon edit, would be to revert to Edwy's version of 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC), which was the last version before the anon's edit. But I'm not even able to find which version you're reverting to, so I think you're either reverting to a favourite of yours, with no regard for subsequent modifications made by established editors, or undoing the anon change while putting in things that you want. In future, when you're reverting, unless it's a revert of the previous edit to the one before that, could you make it clear in the edit summary which version you are reverting to. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I didnt want to simply revert blindly because I didn't want to undo any good changes that have taken place afterwards by other editors. I do give indication what I think the consensus version is--you only need to look at what I restored. That gives a pretty good idea. Ofcourse, I made clar that the consensus version is the one right before that anon edit I speak of which inserted a very old version for both the history and persecution section. and possibly other parts of the article. The version I restored was not "mine," nor my favorite, other than the sense that I accepted and repsect the conensus that was worked out by all editors active on the talk pages involved in it. I credit Myopic Bookworm with getting both sides passed a lot of the stopping points, and crafiting much of the final language, putting to ended the edit wars back and forth. If you simply look before the Anon editor on April 1st I listed above, you will see its that version I restored, too, without many any of my changes, which I would not do without coming to the talk page to address the issue I felt needed to be addressed (since I want to avoid edit wars). Giovanni33 11:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Ann, I see you did revert back to the one before the Anon. editor I speak of, and you will notice that this is identical to my edits for both the history and persecution section (since that is exactly what I restored). But, I'm afraid that your edit may have un-did many good edits that took place afterwards. That is why I did not do what you did. Looking at the differences (in other parts of the article I don't pay close attention to), it looks like some of those edits (now undone) were good, valid edits. I'd just ask for others to look over the changes to the rest of the article to see if any of these edits are good. This was the only reason I brought it up to the talk pages attention, btw. Giovanni33 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you say "Ofcourse, I made clar that the consensus version is the one right before that anon edit I speak of which inserted a very old version for both the history and persecution section. and possibly other parts of the article." In that case, the diff for your version and Edwy's would be identical. Edwy's version at 16:19 on 1 April (UTC) was the last one before the anonymous edit from User:129.2.238.216 Here is the diff for Edwy's version and your so-called "revert to consensus version". There are enormous differences. Despite what you say, you obviously did not revert to "the one right before that anon edit [you] speak of". Even if you incorporated the changes made since then, there wouldn't be such a contrast between your version and Edwy's. Here is the diff where you can see, side by side, the changes that were made between the version from User:129.2.238.216 and the version from Jose77 (which was six minutes before your revert). The changes are minor, and are easily identified, since they don't make paragraphs tip into new sections.

So, contrary to what you say, Giovanni, you reverted to something which was not the version just before the anonymous one; nor was it that version with the more recent changes incorporated into it. I did revert to the version just before the anonymous version, but I took the time to open up the history of the article in a separate browser window, and then go through each recent diff, one by one, so that I could, where appropriate insert the other edits manually (or parts of them) one by one, before I pressed the "save" button.[11] I did not incorporate this edit, as there's some controversy over whether or not JW should be included as "Christians", but I'm happy to have that discussed on the talk page. I then checked the next edit, and went through the version I was reverting to, to ensure that the {{Christian theology}} template was there. If it had not been, I would have added it. I went to the one after that, which seemed to be a correction of a semi-vandalism version that Str1977 reverted earlier, and pasted into my revert a slightly modified version. Now that I come to think of it, it's probably better to leave it more or less at it was with Edwy, so I might semi-revert myself in a minute. The next version changed discontentment to discontent. Well, discontent was in Edwy's version, and is correct, so I left that alone. The next edit inserted [[nrm:Chrêtchienneté]], so I put that in manually before I pressed "save". The one after that inserted [[nds-nl:Kristendom]]. I checked the version I was reverting to, and it was there, so I left it there. The next version was yours. Your revert, incidentally, removed [[mo:Крештинизм]] and [[sh:Hrišćanstvo]] from Edwy's version, in addition to all the other changes. My revert restored them. I still do not know which version you reverted to, or in what way you reverted (by going to the history and clicking on the version you wanted, then opening "edit" and pressing "save", or by editing the then current version but pasting some sections from an earlier version into it), but it was certainly not a revert to the one before the anon edit, with or without the more recent changes.

In short, since your revert is so different from Edwy's version, and since it lost some good material, for example the links to other-language wikis, and since I opened up Edwy's version to edit it, and then took the trouble to go through all subsequent edits one by one in order to incorporate them manually, wherever appropriate, so that the good edits would not be lost, I'm completely baffled at your claim that you reverted to the version before the anon edit, that you didn't revert blindly because you didn't want to undo any good changes that had taken place afterwards, that I undid many good edits that took place afterwards, and that that was why you didn't do what I did. Quite frankly, I can't understand this at all. AnnH ♫ 12:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am as equally baffled as you seem to be. I stand by what I said and I have no idea where you are getting this from. I read word for word, line by line, and what I say is true: it's identical. The only exception is one word (I restored "converted" (which was lost ealier) from "prevailed." That is not a biggie. The rest is identical. What you reverted to, is identical to what I re-inserted. No difference. The only difference between what you did and what I did, was that I only affected the two main sections that the anon IP clearly put in that I knew to be old versions, but I did not bother alter any of the rest of the article (the reason why I bought it to the talk page's attention for others to look at), whereas you reverted the whole article to the prior version (the conensus version, and same as mine), and then went back and incorporated the edits you saw were legitimate or worthy that affected other parts of the article. The way I reverted was to go to Edwy's version and copy both the history persecution sections (after carefully looking at the differences), and then pasting them into the main articles section, in effect replacing and restoring the consensus version of Edwy's--the same that you reverted to in whole. That was all I did. So, I have no idea about why you are saying that I affected anything else. Thats not true. If it shows there then it must be due to some system glitch on the Wikipedia software, or you are simply mistaken on the matter. I did exactly what I said I did and I stand by that. The thing it seems to have affected is space due to the POV tag difference. The text, and the words are all exactly the same. I just have no idea where you get the claim of a vast difference between my version and Edwy's. There's no difference! Giovanni33 13:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There may be no difference between your version and Edwy's in the history section and the persecution section (it's hard to tell as they tip into different sections when you look at the diff, but I'm sure you're right). But the two versions are very different in other ways. See for example how your version does not have the [[mo:Крештинизм]] and [[sh:Hrišćanstvo]] that were in Edwy's version. But that's fully explained if you did a partial revert. The problem was that you (unintentionally) misled people by reverting a section, and writing an edit summary that suggested that you were reverting the whole page to a particular version, but not saying which. When I looked, I couldn't find any recent version that was identical to your revert. You then said on the talk page that you had reverted to the version before the anon version, and when I clicked on the diff I could see a big contrast between the two. You then said that I had undone all the good edits, and that you had avoided doing what I did. I protested at that because I had gone through the edits one by one, whereas you had lost the [[mo:Крештинизм]] and [[sh:Hrišćanstvo]] as well as other changes (not the recent ones, but changes from before that anon edit, since you only partially reverted it).

I don't have a problem with the way you reverted, alhough I think my way was better. (My way was also more troublesome, but I will certainly never accuse you of laziness!) And by the way, my incorporation of recent changes didn't mean that I endorsed them; it's just that I didn't want to undo a lot of work without being able to justify it. I have now looked more closely, and feel doubtful about the "athlete rubbed in oil". I'm going to ask a Wikipedian who knows Greek about that, but in the meantime, I've undone my incorporation of that edit.)

Anyway, it's hardly worth squabbling about. It was just a misleading edit summary. By the way, this one doesn't make it clear that you're removing the {{TotallyDisputed-section}} template. I sometimes find that I can't account for every change I make within an edit summary, as the box will only hold a certain number of characters, but with something like removing a tag, it's best to say so if there's room, as people may wonder if it's unintentional and caused by the software bug, and mightn't be sure whether or not to put it back, if they didn't want to edit war. AnnH ♫ 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Remaining issue on history

Gio, you asked for my remaing issues: it is point 1 mentioned in the section (later) titled "The Communism issue" - the jumbled and somewhat misleading state of the history section, especially in the field of theology - disputes - condemnation - state religion. BTW, I am still waiting for your reference regarding the death penalty for heretics under Theodosius I. I have no objection re the words "capital crime" (though "against the state" is redundant) or gainst the CE quotation, but for executions we need a reference (and I mean a serious reference, not a dubious time line of some atheist website). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? You are rehashing issues I thought were already resolved. I thought you accepted the Catholic source for the dealth penalty. What do you think "capital crime" means? It means the death penalty. Same goes for "Capital punishment," or capital offence," or capital crime." Type any of those in Wikipeadia and you get the death penalty. So, I don't see what the issue is.

The communism issue was solved by simply giving examples of the govts in question, i.e. N. Korea and China, doing away with the controversy about how to label them fairly. What is the problem with this solution?

Can you be specific about the "jumbled, misleading state of the history section." The changes that were effected, esp. to chronoogical order (contary to what I wanted, as I thought that jumped back and forth needlessly) was done on your insistence, to address points you argued for. MyopicBookworm then addressed your points by making these refrences early on and then later to heresies. Giovanni33 14:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, Gio,

• the communism issue is settled, in a less than optimal way but it is settled (the label was fair before you objected), hence I don't want to discuss this. It has been debated much too long anyway.
• re "death penalty" - I accept the CE quote and capital crime in this general sense. However, until you provide reliable reference to actual executed heretics under Theodosius I object to the extra mentioning of the death penalty.
• re my other objections I will quote myself:

"the current fusing of theological debate and and establishment of Christianity is not accurate but misleading. There also has been no argument put forth as of yet why my version is rejected"

My previous version can be detected in this diff (scroll down to history) [12].

I propose(d) this structure: 1. contact with Hellenism - philosophy; 2. beginning of theology; 3. theological disputes and condemnations/definitions with a preview to intensification after legalisation; 4. Constantine & Theodosius - government policies against groups deemed heretical (process covered under 3.), additionally mentioning of the government's interest in solving these issues (wish for unifying factor)

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion:

Christianity began within the Jewish religion among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul it welcomed Gentiles, gradually separating from Rabbinical Judaism. Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church, in which there also existed great diversity. Professor Bentley Layton writes, 'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion.' A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3, Titus 1), and was certainly formalized by the 4th century ⁷.

Christianity spread across the Mediterranean Basin, enduring persecution by the Roman Emperors. As Christianity expanded beyond Palestine, it also came into increased contact with Hellenistic culture; Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, became a significant influence on Christian thought through theologians such as Origen. Elements of Mystery religions such as Mithraism may have been incorporated into Christianity, although scholars differ on the extent to which the developing Christian faith adopted identifiably pagan beliefs.

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; Church authorities condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy, Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils.

Early in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity and granted privileges to the church. In 391 Theodosius I established orthodox Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. From Constantine onwards the history of Christianity becomes difficult to untangle from the history of Europe. The Church took over some of the political and cultural roles of the pagan Roman institutions. The Imperial authorities, seeking unity through the new state religion, acted to suppress the old pagan cults and groups deemed heretical by the Church, most notably Arianism. The 'Catholic Encyclopedia' notes, "from the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime." [13]

Various forms of Christian monasticism developed, with the organization of the first monastic communities being attributed to the hermit St Anthony of Egypt in around 300. The monastic life spread to many parts of the Christian empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as many felt that the Christian moral and spiritual life was compromised by the change from a persecuted minority cult to an established majority religion, and sought to regain the purity of early faith by fleeing society.

The Christian Church of the Roman Empire divided ...

Please post any specific problems with this. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no specific problems with this. It is more concise than the current version, but does not omit anything that seems important. (In fact, I would trim it still further by removing the potted motivation for the monastic movement: leave that to the article on monasticism.)

I agree that it is overkill to mention in quick succession that heresy (a) deserved the death penalty and (b) was a capital crime. I suspect that although heresy was on the statue books as a capital crime, the penalty was rarely enforceable; the execution of heretics seems more notably a feature of the Reformation and Inquisition periods than of the Roman imperial church. Myopic Bookworm 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I have personally never come across any case from the Roman Empire of someone executed for heresy - except for Priscillian, but he was a special case (before Thedosius' edict, against the protest of the most prominent bishops, and actually under the accusation of having used black magic - a crime under Roman law since centuries). The execution of heretics (actually of stubborn or of fall-back heretics) by the Inquisition was completely different in legal basis, procedure (the possibility to repent, the existence of an prosecuting attorney, the trial being entirely before a church tribunal). Only the actual execution was in the hands of secular authorities during the Inquisition, whereas in Theodosius case, if the actually made heresy a capital crime and if that provision was ever implemented, the whole proceeding would have been a matter of secular judges.

As for the Monaticism, I can live with either the longer or the shorter version - I put in the longer to avoid being again wrongly accused of wanting to hide stuff.

Since no one objects, I will post the version quoted above.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should put in your version until Giovanni has had a chance to comment about it. I looked over both just briefly and in some cases the language is better and improved over your version. The practice of the death pentalty, widely used or not, I think, is besides the point. What is noteworthy was that it was under Theod. that the crimes of "heresy" was made punishable by death--a crime against the state. I want to give Giovanni a chance to comment on your version before you replace the other one. 206.61.48.22 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the suggested version that Str1977 listed above, which I'm basically fine with also, was not what he put in the article. At least the first opening paragraph was missing. I guess this is an oversight, so I restored it. MikaM 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't notice it was missing. Giovanni33 09:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts anon user. Str1977 was good to bring up his changes here firs and I did look at it and didn't see anything that jumped out at me as objectionable on the surface of it. So, my lack of a response can be interpreted positively. What I intended to do was look over both and suggest an incorporation of the best from both versions, which is mostly linguistic. But, as of late, I've been extra busy with work and other projects. Giovanni33 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I gave him some time and he still migh comment. There is always room for further linguistic improvements but we don't need to jumble the structure for that. The "death penalty" issue however has taken a different turn, as shown by the discussion below - and no, the practice of the death penalty is what matters. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with Str1977's changes. Also, he waited nearly two days. I don't think Giovanni has ever waited that long between posting a suggestion on a talk page and implementing it on the article page, so I'm sure he won't complain. As Str says, he might still comment. AnnH ♫ 11:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deceptive quotes

Note: The word "Deceptive" in this case should be understood as a description of the effect the quote had on me and has presumably readers - no accusation of intention is intended. Now read on.

I just learned a lesson - one has to be careful and check any quote someone provides. The article quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to say: "The 'Catholic Encyclopedia' notes, "from the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime." I wanted to find out which Theodosius the CE was referring to, so I followed the link only to find out that the text actually read:

"From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned." ( Vide "Codex Theodosianus", lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis".)"

Technically all that was missing were three dots to indicate that something has been left out in the quote. However, this "something" (which I put in bold type) actually provided a number of penalties and restrictions on heretics, with the death penalty being reserved for a few, extreme cases and only seldomly exectuted. The actual contents of what "Theodosius ... pronounced" are also ommitted.

Finally, to return to my initial reason for checking the source, I am quite convinced that the Theodosius in question is not Theodosius I (lived 347-395) but his grandson Theodosius II (lived 401-450). He was the originator of the great legislative work called "Codex Theodosianus", published in 438). The CE is a bit careless with not giving numerals to the various Theodosii. The first instance is clearly Theodosius I. The second mentions a Theodosius alongside of Valentinian III it is most plausible to think of his contemporary Theodosius II. Also, Theodosius and Valentinian are seen as end points in a development starting with Cosntantine. Penal laws were enacted, CE says, ... until all these different laws were codified under Thedosius II. Now, the third instance, we cannot tell for certain which Theo is correct but given that the preceding Theo was No. 2 I think it more plausible to identify him with Theodosius II. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree; the text states that someone called Theodosius promulgated 'this law' about heresy in 382: that must have been Theodosius I. So we are not talking about the Theodosian Code of 438, but some component of the Theodosian Decrees of 389-392 or thereabouts. What it also says, though, is that it was a law against particular 'heretical' groups (though the list includes Manichaeans who were more pagan than heretical in modern terms). Not against heresy in general (so perhaps not operative against Arians, for example). If this is ther case, it is not made clear enough at the moment in the Wikipedia article. Myopic Bookworm 16:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, now that you say it I see it too. I overread it. The second Theo however is clearl No. 2. Someone should admonish the writers of the CE, but they are all dead by now. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I was the provider of the original; quote and although I gave the link so people could check for themselves I should have made it clear there was a lot of skipped over text covered by the" ...". I was trying to summarise the salient point but see now that this could misrepresent them and give then "undue weight". I'll be clearer next time. Myopic Bookworm does have a point about the dates and the different Theodosius' though. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbed in oil

Since this is brought up frequently, let me comment on this addition. I don't know ancient Greek except for a few words, but I can positively state that the addition is wrong. Maybe ancient Greeks used the word "Christos" to refer to an athlete in the annointed state (or maybe not) - but that's hardly relevant to this article. For the early Christians, Christos (someone male who is annointed) was the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Machshiach, which meant annointed as well. In Hebrew of course it does not refer to athlethes rubbed in oil as the Jews were not as sport crazy as the Greeks (see 1 Maccabees for that). The passage in question is about the belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah and any statements about Greek athletes are irrelevant, if the etymological remark is true after all (Paul in his letters refers to athletes but he never draws a connection to the term Christos). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Sam Korn about this. Here's my question with his answer, moved from my talk page:

Hi, Sam. I've noticed the Greek babel box on your user page, and I wonder if you'd have time to take a look at this? I don't know Greek, unfortunately, but since I know that the English word athlete comes from a very similar Greek word, and since the English word chrism comes from a Greek word meaning something to do with oil or anointing, it seems unlikely that the relatively short word Christos could have the meanings "athlete" and " rubbed in oil" incorporated into it. Thanks. And by the way, last time I looked at your user page, you were sixteen, so Happy Birthday! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Greek root is the verb χριειν (chriein or khriein) meaning "to rub on" or "to anoint". χριστος (christos with a small c) means anointed, and Χριστος (Christos with a large C) is therefore taken as Christ. It is a precise translation of the Hebrew "Messiah". They both mean "anointed one". The comment on that diff stems from the fact that Greek athletes were rubbed with oil at games, and the verb here would also have been χριειν and χριστος in an athletics context would therefore have come to mean "athlete" by understanding. However, χριειν in itself was not specific to athletics, and neither was χριστος. I hope that helps, and thanks for the birthday wishes! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH ♫ 17:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already removed this curious piece of folk etymology from the Messiah entry some days ago, and there I actually cited Liddell & Scott's Greek lexicon as support. As far as I know, it is rubbish: there is no inherent connection between 'christos' and athletes and it is irrelvant to the meaning of the religious term. (I wonder if someone has picked it up from some well-meaning but ill-informed preacher.) In ancient Greece, everyone who bathed used oils afterwards, whether they were athletes or not. Myopic Bookworm 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Old version used in CD release

We have thought a bit about including this article, whose subject is very important, in the CD release. Unfortunately it isn't nearly as good as it used to be. So we took an old copy for Christianity in the CD version, although with a newer version of the figure. Why don't you revert the article 18 months? --BozMo talk 13:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The old version has some definite plus points, and I hope to read it over more carefully soon. But it has some pretty dicey bits: in several places it skates over issues in a manner too glib and superficial even for a general oversight, and I'm not very surprised that it got heavily edited. Myopic Bookworm 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of looking over this past version and suggesting the incorporation of any plus points that missing from the current version. For instance, the general decline of Christianity as an accepted mythology corresponding to greater education, should be mentioned in this article. Giovanni33 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So, Gio, you are suggested that we stamp the article with a certain POV - or in fact a POV trias (decline, mythology, education)?

Quickly looking over the CD version I cannot see that it is better than the current one. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this POV is factually established and should be reported, ie. the negative correlation of education and superstions (like Christianity), and thus its general decline with the advent of education among the masses and hence an abandonment of various superstitions, which science has proven as such, i.e. proven that the claims of Christianity are simply false. Giovanni33 08:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you put that kind of rubbish in it is certainly never finding its way onto this CV version, but I guess you are just enjoying a wind up. Most people when they are aged 14/15 hit the "science disproves christianity" concept but within a couple of years realise that if this logic were valid science would also disprove "conscious people". Then in late teens they master "reductio ad absurdem" and realise that the whole scientific process is based on a premise of a conscious person, and so the logic falls over. Even Bertie Russell got that bit right--BozMo talk 09:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any rubbish by Giovanni. I'm not sure what "concious people" has to do with the totally discredited and refuted as total nonesnse the many claims that the Bible makes. That is why I think he is correct that education has done a lot to cure people of this superstion, and others. You seem not to know much about Science, which is sad. Its not based on the premise of a "concious person" whatever that is---its a method and outlook that has proven itself as the best we have to find out about reality. 206.61.48.22 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't. However you don't seem to understand what I said. You should read about implicit assumptions in science somewhere. If you want to understand my view (which is not original, just consensus) on scientific truth, which seems unlikely (and I have some scientific knowledge as I was post-doctoral research fellow at Cambridge) is explained a little more here: truth --BozMo talk 10:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

Maybe I just read through it too quickly, but I didn't see Gio's claims in the old version...in fact, the word "myth" never appears. Gio, again, your claims are backed by a very small segment of society which is at odds with most scholars; according to the scientific method, the claims of Christianity can't be proven false...until we invent a time machine and see what really happened on the first Easter Sunday. But I digress...the current version is and has been a tangled mess of bizarre POVs and claims for a while now. The old version has one thing going for it...it's relatively concise, whereas the current version is bloated in order to accomodate every little POV, whether it's accurate or not. Too, too bad. KHM03 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You just be joking KHM03. Science proves the claims of Christianity wrong all the time. The history of science is the history of proving the bible wrong. For example, take the great flood. Science has proven it as simply false. There was no such great flood. There is no question about it. That is just one example. There are many.

I think he was talking about the part that talks about its decline in modern society. I agree that should be mentioned. And, I agree with Giovanni about the reasons for its decline. Christianity spread at a time of extreme ignorance. At least today people can read and afford books. 206.61.48.22 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. There is a passage that talks about Christianity being now more of a form of cultural idenfitication than people who believe and even practice according to the beliefs. Its declinig in other ways, such as Church attendence, etc. The education factor is well established, and the more education you have the less religious one tends to be. The fact that various claims of Christianity have been proven false by science is so well known its not even worthy of debate here. I can only say I marvel that there are some who can't see the giant pink elephant in the room for what it is. hehe Giovanni33 09:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly a myopic viewpoint (probably Eurocentric), and certainly false. Christianity is growing everywhere except Europe, but particularly in Asia, Africa and South America. In the United States the majority of the universities were founded by Christians, and the ones that have held their Christian ties the strongest are growing the most rapidly, mainly because of the quality of education. The claims of our skeptics would also be disputed by millions of people who have found Christianity the only personal working solution to hatreds and addictions. A friend of mine was unable to win over alcoholism, despite rehab and AA, but finally defeated it in his conversion to Christ. The turnabout was remarkable and he is living a liberated life today.

Christianity is still a very viable force in society. For those who don't have tightly closed eyes, one can see good at every level of society being done by Christians. Many of the positive movements in society originated with Christians, including abolition of slavery, consumer protection, the environmental movement, humane treatment of prisoners and mentally ill, medical care for those who cannot afford it, disaster relief, care of orphans, adoption of unwanted children, etc., due to Christian principles such as the sacredness of life, the value of the individual, and the stewardship required of humanity. The simple admonition of Christ to do good to your enemy has forestalled a lot of brutality on earth. Even the oft-misquoted "eye for an eye" is a merciful legal principle, ie. the punishment must fit the crime, ie, cuting off the hand of someone who steals a piece of fruit is not justice.

You skeptics might be able to find some criticisms of Christianity, but your tunnel vision leads you to grasp at every criticism, no matter how ridiculous. Pollinator 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have much patience for witnessing. I'm so sorry that you can't be a good person without religion, but not everyone is as deeply flawed as you are and they can get by just fine without lying to themselves about religion. Now, do you have anything to say about this Christianity article or are you going to bore us all with more witnessing? Alienus 02:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the prosecution introduces to topic, the defense has the right of response. Pollinator 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Look around you. You are not in court. There is no trial. There is no prosecution or defense; there's just a bunch of editors working on improving the article. Oh, and wait, there's also you. Come join us. Alienus 02:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes any further, I wish to remind all involved to remain civil from this point forward. Let's nip this fight in the bud. Thanks all. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, He-who-must-not-be-named. Witnessing is definitely not civil. I wish we could just stick to discussing the contents of this article. Alienus 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when is a calm, reasoned response to an attack not civil? Lord Voldemort is reminding you, Alienus, about Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which you just engaged in twice. Perhaps your POV is so intense that you should recuse yourself.

And I also wish we could just stick to discussing the contents, but that part was lost early in this section. Attacks are OK, but defense is not, Eh?

BTW, I have done some editing of the page, but as it is now, it's such a hodgepodge that it's pretty discouraging. Pollinator 03:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we both know that asking you to stick to the article and avoid claims of persecution is not a personal attack or uncivil. I'm politely requesting that you conform to required behavior for editors. Pretending to take offense is itself offensive, so you need to drop this and focus on why we're here. Our goal is to improve an article that's in pretty bad shape. If you want to discuss the article, I'll listen, although I might not agree. If you want to witness for Jesus, take it outside. This is not a blog. Alienus 03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus,

I can't see any incivility on Pollinator's side. It was you you broke civility by a personal attack: "I'm so sorry that you can't be a good person without religion, but not everyone is as deeply flawed as you are and they can get by just fine without lying to themselves about religion." It would merit deletion, but I prefer to leave your incivility visible for everyone to see (lest anyone should not understand the following interactions).

as far as straying from the aim of talk pages (improving articles), it was started by inaccurate (and spiteful) comments by Gio above.

Also, don't be overly strict in enforcing such a rule - I have seen talk pages that have been hijacked much worse (and not in response to something).

I also can't see where someone claimed "persecution"- the word was "prosecution" (and "defense") and was an analogy. If someone here posts unwarranted attacks, at least a quick rebuttal is allowed. If I posted "all atheists are evil" (which I wouldn't even think), you wouldn't sit still and you would be right to complain. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments are neither innaccurate nor spiteful. Infact, that is a personal attack itself, since you are accusing me of something that you have no way to even acertain, motive. My motive, is only to improve this article. The accurate observations I bring up are true and stem from a point that is made in the older version, and I think should be made here. Giovanni33 10:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I grant you that your comment was at least in some way related to editing this article (in contrast to Ali's post), but a reply to it was not unwarranted either

However, how can the statement "what you wrote is incorrect" be a personal attack - I didn't say anything about you, I talked about your post and Ali's post.

Ali, in contrast, called Pollinator "deeply flawed". That is as bad as it can get and I would report him, if I came upon it "in flagranti" - however, I am not into digging up old things, especially if the one attacked has already chosen to let it slide. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying that my comments are spiteful is where the attack is since you have to assume a negative motivation on my part, which you then state as a fact. I am not prompted by malice. I understand why some people react very defensively about this subject and my accurate facts about it, but that is not reason to think one is motivated by something other than an honest pursuit of the truth and an imporvement of this article. Giovanni33 10:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Giovanni, I would think that the hostility that your are being presented with is most certainly not so unforthcoming considering a few of the "accurate facts" you have proposed should seem ridiculous, absurd, and somewhat confrontational to all Christians, and the "truth" you seem to be presenting often appears, at least to me, highly up for debate. The off-hand implication that Christians are often made out of "lack of education" also seems rather harsh. You've got to understand, where you may see no reason why people should assume malice towareds your ideas, there is another side out there which feels that nobody should possibly have any reason to think the things you do, not out of mere censorship of ideas, but out of plain common sense. Simply trying to write the other side out of existance with blanket statements doesn't seem like it will resolve this issue for either side. If the statements you have made are "not open for debate", I can't think of any logical reason, even if I wasn't a Christian, to compleatly trust your intentions. Homestarmy 15:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my comment about the link between education and decline of religious beliefs is contrary to common sense, absurd, redicoulous, or other things you may call it. Rather its supported by several studies. In Explorations: An undergraduate research journal, Regan Clarke reports religious belief and behavior were negatively correlated with SAT scores in the USA.[14] In 2000, noted skeptic Michael Shermer found a negative correlation between education and religosity in the United States.

Several studies on Americans focus on the beliefs of high-IQ individuals. In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent." Another study found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.

A 1998 survey by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project surveyed opinions by nation with the question "How important is religion in your life—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?"[15] The report finds that Americans are much more religious than people living in other wealthy nations. In the U.S., 59% of people reported religion was "very important", as compared to 30% in Canada. In this way, the views of Americans are more simliar to people in developing countries than those in developed countries. The study found a correlation between the percentage of people reporting that religion was "very important" and the national per-capita GDP. It can be further stated that the nations who scored as most religious tended to have low science scores according to TIMSS.[16] Also an inverse correlation at Nationmaster can be found between mathematical literacy and church attendance[17]. Giovanni33 07:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Having fallen out big time with my mother-in-law about this one, I try not to, but do, resent posts that imply you can't be moral without God. Also claims that Christianity solved the major world problems is more than a little over reaching as there were Christians on both sides of the slavery issue and the environmental movement is virtually ignored by all the religions other than Paganism and New Age. Disaster relief is an interesting one as I thought these were classed as "acts of God". As for the humanitarian view - again it is very blinkered (and possibly offensive to other religions) to assume this flows only from Christians.

As for Gio's comments - spiteful is not a helpful way to describe them as this is a view common in the non Christian world. It seems as though Christianity is in decline in the west whilst growing in the east. Where I would disagree with Gio is that science has had anything to do with this. People are as wedded to their superstitions as ever when you see that every magazine has an astrology section with dubious predictions for the coming week. People are rejecting structure to their beliefs and constructing a "consumer pick and choose" approach to religion. My mum never set foot inside a church but always described herself as C of E and when she died we had a priest officiate as we know she would have wanted that (the rest of the family are athiests so it will be different when it's dad's turn).

I do think a couple of sentences addressing this important development are called for but as always it must be done with references and in an NPOV way. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

On the disaster thing, Sophia, have you been watching one too many sermons of John Hagee? :D. Yea, I know its a prevalent idea that somehow God is personally responsible for every single big, bad thing that's ever happened on earth, but just to point out, that sort of idea is kind of not...in...the Bible.....(cough) anyway, who implied you can't act moral to a point without God? :/ Homestarmy 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The OT is full of this stuff - the great flood, the plagues of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah etc and Revelations doesn't sound like it will be too nice either. As for morality and religion - Pollinator's post was about the good that only flows from Christianity and the problems of the world set right at the instigation of Christians. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are overreaching, Sophia. That's not what I said. See: Straw man. Pollinator 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sophia, the Bible relates that God uses natural phenomena. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is behind every disaster happening in this wrecked world. As for "acts of God" . I think you are very well able to distinguish between a theological proposition (upon which this is based, but which never was shared by all Christians, let alone all people) and some archaic expression of English common law. In German, for instance, the same thing is known as "höhere Gewalt" (higher force).

Sophia, I agree that "spiteful" wasn't "helpful". However it is an all too accurate characterisation of, I must say, all of Gio's posts (please prove me wrong next time) - posts that have also been far from being "helpful" in any way.

Getting back to the issue of decline of Christianity: I don't mind including a sentence saying that C. declined for some time in the West, especially in Europe, while it grows in Africa and Asia etc. However, Gio's correlation is an unprovable (and IMHO inaccurate) POV. That he wouldn't be typing these views (or anything, for that matter) right here, if it weren't for Christianity is of course quite another issue. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

this POV is factually established and should be reported, ie. the negative correlation of education and superstions (like Christianity), and thus its general decline with the advent of education among the masses and hence an abandonment of various superstitions, which science has proven as such, i.e. proven that the claims of Christianity are simply false. Giovanni33 I appreciate that this article is a difficult one to balance, but NPOV does not and cannot mean assuming the falsity of the religion which is being described. Nor does it always mean reporting opposing POVs: that policy could lead, for example, to including Creationist POV in all palaeontology and cosmology articles. When I consider articles on other religious viewpoints which I happen to find complete nonsense (such as Scientology or Hermeticism) I refrain from intervening until I am extremely sure of my ground. In the case of a mainstream majority religion, I think it inappropriate to lace the article with sociological analysis of its decline or otherwise: as usual with this article, there is usually something to be said, but in a different place ("Decline of Christianity") with a link from here. Some of the discussion also takes a very biased view about what Christianity is. American Biblical fundamentalists who believe in a historical six-day Creation may seem loud and influential from where you're standing, but to disprove their (manifestly absurd) position is to make very little impression on the vast bulk of Christian thought and life. Christianity is based on Jesus, not Adam or Noah. There is also a historical bias: Christianity has often been positively correlated with education, though it is clearly not positively correlated with advanced education in post-enlightenment Western thought. But that should be at "Criticism of Christianity", not here. This article should not preach Christianity, but neither should it preach against Christianity. If there is an attested fact (such as the decline of Christian belief in Europe), then it should either be mentioned as part of a wider comment which also mentions the persistence of Christian belief in other parts of the world, or omitted: not tendentiously added in isolation.

PS Discussion of the basis of atheist morality may be interesting, but it's not relevant. It is a matter of simple observation that one can hold to a moral position without belief in God. Whether such a moral position can be justified (so why should I follow your atheist morality when I could just shoot you and take your chocolate?) is another matter, quite outside the scope of the present article. Myopic Bookworm 09:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Myopic Bookworm, I do not disagree with anything you said above. My point was that one element that I found in the CD version, as an example, that might be valid to report in this version, is that modern Christianity has seen a decline. Its my POV what has led to this decline. I state my POV here in the talk page, but that doesnt mean I think it belongs in the article. My argument is responding to those who think my expressed POV is completely absurd and contrary to common sense, etc, which is why I posted some supporting studies. This is not to be meant to be an argument for inclusion into this article. The same goes about morality and God. Its a different subject but one which should be responded to by those who articulate such a false proposition. Giovanni33 09:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I must be really shallow as the one thing I really liked from the CD version was the picture box with the fish sign! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, just to respond to your comment to me, did you see the studies I quoted above that showed a negative correlation between higher education and religiosity? That even with a BA degree the religious beliefs go way down, to the point that the 90% general population that believes in "God" gets turned about to 90% who don't believe in God when we look at the population of eminent scientists. So, it does seem that good science education does have a devastating impact on religious belief. Infact, nations who scored as most religious tended to have low science scores, and vise versa. I'm not saying this is the only factor, and a correlation does not prove a cause and effect relationship, and clearly you are right that one type of faulty thinking tends to replace the other as mythologies change, but this does not negate my argument which studies I provided support. About, working with Str1977 and others, I already do so very well, I think. But, I'm not adverse to argumentation, esp. whenever I see something that is, in IMHO, not correct. This doesn’t make me dogmatic, either, just a bit feisty, I suppose. heheGiovanni33 10:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, isn't it a bit sneaky to respond to a deleted thread and then remove your answer again? You are certainly uttering statements of faith, albeit negative ones. Your question about hell, I won't answer, since you have not only shown your ignorance of the Christian faith - you are even proud of it. There's no need to talk to someone who will not listen. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, its not sneaky. Can one be sneaky here, where everything is so transparent? What I did was respond to it and realized only afterwards that it un-did it as a removed section from this talk page. So, I restored it as a removed section per MusicalLinguist. But, it seems you are continuing to try to provoke further off-topic arguments here. About not responding, yes, you have already responded and your response is to deny well known facts and reality. Hell is not part of Christianity? Hmmm Not only is that not true but even Catholic dogma accepts, if I'm not mistaken, one of your favorite books by Dante on the subject. So you can hardly pretend ignorance of the concept. It is interesting, though, that Dante, who was very intolerant (at least in his theological views about who was to go to hell) is one of your favorites. And, no I do not utter statments of faith, esp. not in a religious sense of the word, meaning, "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." I prefer facts, not faith. As far as accusing me of being proud of being ignorant, perhaps you are projecting something about your own faith on to me with that clearly false accusation? Unlike some versions of the faith, I do not regard knowlege as evil. :) Giovanni33 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not, Gio, that you have not used dubious tactics before, is it. But I am assuming good faith on this, as well on your misreading of my post: I did not say that Hell is not part of Christianity" or "Catholic dogma"! On the contrary, I am a fervent opponent of those theologians who try to explain hell away. Reread what I wrote: I will not explain the rationale of hell with you, since you are not in the vein to listen. As for Dante: "intolerant"? If you are writing a book depicting a journey through hell, purgatory and paradise you cannot avoid saying he is here and he is there - that has nothing to do with intolerance. You could learn quite a lot from him. BTW, your definition of faith is quite wrong. You are uttering statements of faith like "there is no god". This comment is no accusation - you can't help believing something and you can't help believing in the proposition that, in your situation, seems most believable to you. However, you could help trying to lecture everyone about your faith, especially since this is all you've done so far on WP. "The nothing has approached, the oracle remains silent." (or: this was hopefully my last word in this useless discussion.) (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash)In response to Gio - the problem with looking at a persons education vs their religious belief is that your sample size gets smaller and smaller so extrapolating that conclusion to the wider community is a stretch to say the least. In general people do not have higher degrees (or even batchelors degrees in the UK) - it's a bit like saying a lot of muderers are left handed therefore a lot of left handed people are murderers. There is a huge selection effect - it could be that in general people who crave education are not attracted to religion. Having said that neither of us can deny that we come across very educated people here who are also religious. Back on topic - is there a paper/thesis outlining the point you are trying to make? What proposed addition to the article do you want? I would support a few sentences about the decline of traditional church attendence, the growth in evangelistic churches (certainly in the UK - although overall numbers continue to decline here) and the growth of Christianity in eastern, former communist and african countries. I'm not sure the decline linked to education is widely accepted as you would have to show a decline in all higher power (superstition) based religions - not just Christianity. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sophia. As I tried to explain about, I'm only arguing that it perhaps is a valid addition to talk about modern Christianity and how its practice has changed among the populance since the englightenment and advances in science such as evolution and other branches, in that there has been a general decline. I do not argue a cause and effect (I think that is only one possible cause), and I do not say that we should introduce the different theories into the article. Giovanni33 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To Str1977---Dante not intolerant? I doubt my memory is failing me but I recall reading that according to Dante, even Muhammad, an important ethical leader, like Jesus and Buddha, was to go hell, clearly indicating that, according to his intolerant world view, you had to believe in his god, his religious conception, or go to hell. Infact, Dante had no doubt that Mohammed's eventual place was not only in hell but in the eighth of nine circles of hell, so close to the very bottom where Satan himself dwells--not up higher where Euclid, Ptolemy, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, are. And this is, correct me if I'm wrong, accepted dogma in Catholism? If that is not intolerance, I have to wonder what is! And, no, I don't use "dubious" tactics--whatever that means.

About faith, no, my definition is taken directly out of the dictionary and its used in exactly that manner by those making religious claims that can not be maintained by refernece to material evidence or even logical thinking. For instance, the Catholic belief that the bread and wine really do turn into flesh and blood--not just symbolic but it really does transform into that. As a Catholic you have to accept that as true, no? Despite all the material evidence to the contrary, and however illogical it is. That is faith. Same with being borne of a virgin. Illogical. Resurected from the dead? For that matter alll claims of miracles: an acceptance of the supernatural. That requires faith since it goes against material evidence (known laws of nature), and its not very logical. The faith that you identify with atheists that say God does not exist is fundamentally different in nature and not really faith because it's logical and based on the lack of evidence where there should be evidence if the proposition were true (the argument from absence). The strong atheist can operate on the assumption that there is no god (a great truth), until there is at least SOME tiny bit of evidence to suggest that that the god hypothesis is at least logical and rational, even if not probable. If there were a lot of evidence and one still denied it, esp. on supernatural grounds, then the roles would be reversed. But, to claim a God despite the total lack of either material evidence or logic in doing so, is what really requires faith (since there is nothing else to base itself on). To believe there is no god, on the other hand, is not blind, but is based on applying logic and from looking at the evidence. See the logical prinicpal of Occams Razor for example. Ofcourse, we can never be 100% sure that something doesnt exist from a lack of evidence, or from reasoned logic, but it's certainly not faith to assume that reality exists as it does without the unneeded and contradictory God hypothesis. That is just a logical ontological naturalism stemming directly from the success of methodological naturalism. And, it need not be dogmatic in nature, as it doesnt oppose evidence but stems from it. Hence, Atheists are not bound by faith, its not a religion. Think about the example of the Flying Spagetti Monster. Is it really a matter of faith to say that no such thing exists, in the same way is it is faith to believe in it? http://www.venganza.org/ Giovanni33 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may chip in, who says God absolutly has to be a contradictory hypothesis? Homestarmy 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I do. If you try to define God in a way that is consistent and not contradictory, it won't look very much like God, or at least the traditional conception of such a being. But, perhaps this kind of discussion is best continued elsewhere? Giovanni33 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be, this seems, at least to me, to appear like a very typical atheism vs. christianity debate :/. Homestarmy 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete again, but I'm just wondering who's going to be big enough to drop this first. I'm hoping it will be Str1977, as I am sure he is observing Lent. Hey, Str, leaving this unanswered might be harder than giving up chocolate, but I'm sure you can do it ;-) Or Giovanni, how about demonstrating the self-restraint practised by atheists? Let's all try to leave out anything that isn't connected to how we can improve the article. When I was a little girl, my mother would have said that the one who gives in first wins. AnnH ♫ 13:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno Ann, what Geo is saying looks veeeeery tempting to answer to in full :D. I can see it now, the creation/creator proof, things science can't answer or measure, (I.E. feelings) the 100 percent of all knowladge proof, Occam's razor supporting said creation/creator proof, turning the anti-Pascal's wager sentiment right around to our side, and the clear parody of FSM, it'd be a great response for someone to put together :D. Homestarmy 13:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

However fully you answer, Gio's answer will be even fuller. Best to keep it to your talk pages. I think what you said already may be awaiting a fuller response unless there is restraint. We'll see. 206.61.48.22 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There probably is an even fuller response, i've seen a bit about how these arguments can go, from first hand experience, I can tell you they can go on for what seems like literary miles :/. Then I get to page 43 of some forum thread and it all just gets locked! :( Homestarmy 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic thread removed

A whole thread has developed, which has nothing to do with how to improve the article. I sympathize with both editors in not wanting to leave unanswered something which they think is false or unfair, as I have sometimes felt the same way myself. However, I think it's cluttering up the talk page, so I've taken the liberty of removing the entire thread. For those who are curious, it can be seen at the bottom of [18] If you really must continue, maybe take it to your user talk pages? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the software bug, the posts that I deleted were temporarily restored by Pollinator's edit. Before I could revert to the version before Pollinator, with the intention of reinserting more recent edits by hand, Homestarmy replied to a post that is now no longer on the page. I have put it just below this, but would ask people again to try to keep article talk pages for matters relating to how the article can be improved — just within reason, not necessarily in a rigid way. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I just decided to delete it, without the background of that discussion my comment didn't have much point, plus I was just kinda throwing in my 2 cents heh. Homestarmy 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Change and Decay

As a rule, I think we should avoid formulations like "is growing" and "is declining" because they imply a prediction. It would be better to say "declined in Europe from 1800 - 1950 according to X" or "grew in Asia from...", etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable, and consistent with the 'cite facts' policy. Wesley 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Same Question Yet Again for AnnH

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what you mean by "similar IP addresses" and what significance it has. Trollwatcher 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses are Internet Protocol numbers that identify specific computers and servers on the World Wide Web. Certain areas have different numbers associated with it. So you can have different IP ranges, so IP addresses such as 202.12.45.107 would be similar and likely in the same general geographical area as 202.12.47.129. If they are making similar style of edits, more than likely they are sockpuppets. But then you have the whole issue of proxy IPs etc. and it gets a little tricky. Hope this helps some. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You've made a heading that suggests I haven't answered. Did you check first to see whether or not I had. You've been away from Wikipedia for a month, except to gather evidence for and tell a few selected editors anonymously about your website where you attack editors from this page. Regarding your question to me, see here. AnnH ♫ 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, Many thanks for your earlier comprehensive response and my apologies for missing it. Trollwatcher 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw man, nothing about the Jesus article in that report :(. Homestarmy 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for KHM03

KHM03, Reviewing your contributions I note that you have rejected a number of citatations of authorities critical of Christianity on the grounds that there are better authorities, rejected a number of books on the grounds that there are better critical books, and rejected references to external websites on the grounds that there are better critical websites. As it is not very clear what criteria you are using to dismiss sources which look perfectly good to others, and as you neglected to give examples of these "better" sources, I wonder of you would be kind enough to supply a list of the critical authorities (journalists, historians, ex-theologians, etc), critical books and critical websites that you would recommend. This will save many people wasting their time in future. Hope this does not sound an unreasonable request Trollwatcher 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not wanting to answer for KHM03 but I think it would be helpful for other editors if you gave examples of the sources that were rejected. In situations like this to avoid misunderstandings it is vitally important to be specific with any issues you have. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Troll: I've responded on your talk page. KHM03 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, Trollwatcher 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)