Talk:Christianity

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png
! Part of this article was copied from Citizendium and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 09:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Contents

Jesus the Savior

Just one, purely linguistic, remark: the article states that Christianity derives its name from Jesus Christ, which is Greek for "Jesus the Savior" or "Jesus the Anointed One". Now, according to what I know, "Christ" comes from the greek Χριστός, meaning "anointed". Therefore, although Christ is of course the Savior to all Christians (I am not disputing that), literally "Christ" does not mean "the Savior". If you want to keep "Savior" in, perhaps a rewording would be necessary, to avoid giving the impression that Χριστός in ancient greek literally means "Savior". --MarcoT2 08:43, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Fascinating point. Please edit as you think best. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 09:02, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Catholicism

While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --Luke-Jr 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just deleted the descriptors after Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Church. Why I did this: The descriptor for Catholic Church used the word original. There would be huge arguments over the use of that word. All of the ancient churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Non-Chalcedonians lay claim to that word. The Descriptors for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches made them seem like different branches of the same church, which of course, is not true. They are not in communion with one another and hold very different ideas about soteriology and ecclessiology.--Mattk 05:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --Orion Blastar 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --Luke-Jr 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations. Whether or not someone "argues that there are more than one Christian Church" is a non-issue. People can argue whatever they want--that does not mean their points are grounded in truth. The study of the doctrine of the Church, Ecclesiology, is based upon what does Scripture say about who believers are, and what the Body of Christ is. All orthodox (meaning non-heretical)denominiations officially believe there is only one Christian church, one Body of Christ, because that is the Scriptural position. This Body is composed of all those who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead for them, justifying them before the Father and giving them eternal life. "Catholic" has two meanings: with a small "c" means universal; "C" refers to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity, ruled by the Pope and Magesterium. Christians in the Nicene creed claim to believe "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", meaning one universal body of believers, founded upon the Apostles' teachings we have in the New Testament. This is not a confession believing in Rome's positions, but in the Biblical position of there being only one body of Christ.

Quite honestly, they are widely accepted as Christian. Just because they don't fit your theology doesn't change that. --Adon 03:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons are not widely accepted as Christians. For example, The Orthodox Church (2nd largest Christian church) accepts the baptisms of almost every church (e.g. baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.) but requires Mormons to be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy.

Beliefs

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect, or incomplete. Not all Christian denominations have the "born again" stance. In some branches of Calvinism, for example, everything is predetermined. No need to be "born again". The Catholic church has also a different interpretation. I guess the orthodox too. What the article describes here is just an anabaptist view, by no means the mainstream view. -- Order 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

--You are inaccurate. Calvinism does believe in the need for regeneration and being born again. Calvinism is inconsistent, however, and is a good example of what happens when we arrive at a wrong understanding of doctrine, and then try to develop a system of belief around that concept. It would be a natural consequence that if everything is predetermined, there would be no need to be born-again, as you say. Calvinism sees that would be contrary to Scripture, and tries to work around this, but is not able to do so and still arrive at correct doctrine. We should be willing to reject those teachings of our leaders which prove to contradict Holy Scripture. It is inspired by God and inerrant; we are sinful humans,and easily err.

If a denomination does not "have the born-again stance", it is not a Christian denomination, at least on that doctrine. All believers are born-again, regenerated by God at the moment of their belief in Jesus. The sole place of revelation about these issues is in Scripture, and the data must be interpreted correctly, or we arrive at false conclusions, which are un-orthodox and heretical.--PD Popejoy 14:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You have a very evangelical view of the Christianity. But is not the only one. In Catholic church you indeed become a new person when you are baptized, but this can happen as an infant. No need to be "born-again" at later age. Also, Scripture is in Catholic Church only one of the sources, the Cathechism is also important. The Scripture can not be freely interpreted, but the Vatican has an important say in how to live the faith. You position is very protestant or evangelical, but it is just part of the picture. -- Order 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

The previous few versions were build on PD Popejoy view on Christianity. These view were by no means inclusive. If bible study leads you to a certin conclusion, then it good for for the individual, but its quite a stretch to claim that others are misled, or mistaken. This entry should include all denominations. -- Order 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

Where does a Christian denomination end and a non-Christian sect feigning Christianity (i.e., a cult) begin? Are Mormons Christians on your view? They stretch a LOT of things, but it is just a matter of degree, right? This is a slippery slope I don't think we should risk traipsing on. If Conservapedia is to live up to its name, it can't be "inclusive" of everyone who calls themselves Christian. The Bible clearly states that the only way to God and Heaven is through belief in the sacrifice of Christ. There will always be those who attempt to take passages out of context (Romans 2:14-16 is a popular victim of this) but that shouldn't get in our way of reporting plain truths. SavedByGrace 18:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Mormons are Christian, if you like it or not. Catholics could also claim that you should all adhere to what the pope says and stop interpreting the scripture as you like. But it doesn't belong here either, because it divisive. The current entry clearly states that different denominations have different views. If you want to put forward the views of your particular denomination, create a new entry on it, put your stuff there, and add a link it to the list of denominations on the Christianity page. If you want to criticize Mormons, create an entry on Mormons, describe them neutrlly, and add a section on criticism on Mormon teachings. But let this page be as inclusive as possible. -- Order 15 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

"the only way to God."

In Romans 2:14-16 we read "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" You have Paul saying that those people who have not heard the law will still be allowed into heaven (and to God) if their life is sufficiently good. One need not only go through Jesus. I will also point to a more controversial translation of Acts 16:17. Young's Literal translation reads "she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'" The word hodos is literaly translated as 'a way' - a course of conduct, a way of thinking, feeling, deciding, a travelled way, road. To say that the Bible is the only way contradicts what was written by Paul. --Mtur 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to be cute with words and without intent to make things even murkier, perhaps it is better to say that Biblical Christianity is the only way of God to man and the way of man to God, narrow, indeed.Bert Schlossberg 01:59, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Twisting facts

This article is very one sided with its representation of the statistics given by the Harris poll that is sourced. Having looked through the source it is clear that only the stats that praise Christianity. For example the article states that "99% of all American Christians believe in God". but fails to mention that the source informs us that just 90% of Americans believe in God. All of the stats given are of the percentage of people that believe in God, which is very bias, as it doesnt show the full picture. Jennisuk 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is about Christians and their beliefs. Therefore, only the numbers from the poll on the beliefs of Christians are of interest here. The numbers for non-Christians and average Americans are still interesting, but if you think they are important, add them to the appropriate articles on "Americans" or "Non-Christians". This has nothing to with bias, but just that the article should stick to its subject Christianity, and not wander off in all kinds of directions.

Are Evangelicals the only Christians?

I just noticed that the artcile on Christianity turned into an evangelical sermon. The Nicean creed is the smallest common demoniator, therefore useful to include, but there is more. The artcile has become less enceeclopedic as it used to be, and omits the little fact that, for example, Catholics do not share the evangelical view on salvation and atonement. User:Order 30 March 10:35 (AEST)

Revert

I think a revert is needed. This article has become less informative more a call to christians to a particularly baptist position. I think it needs to be slimmed down and made less opinion based. I'm quite partial to my last edit. --Adon 03:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my changes have made the article's tone more neutral and factual. I still read a distinctly protestant, southern baptist tone, however. It still rambles a bit, but after my changes it still rambles less. There should also be mention of "fringe" denominations like LDS, Jehova's witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists.--Adon 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Anglican

Is Anglican Communion part of Protestant Christianity? I think they are not Protestant. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the answer.

--Joaquín Martínez 14:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah they be protestants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholl (talk)

History

Um... Why doesn't the article include ANYTHING on Christian history?--Elamdri 02:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Etymology

"Jesus Christ" is not actually Jesus's name. Both "Christ" and "Christianity" come from the Greek word "Christos", meaning "Savior" --Noam Samuel

See Yeshua File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:45, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

It may not be his name but it is his title. He is called Jesus Christ for the same reason that George Bush is called President Bush. --Ben Talk 08:31, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


Of course, because Jesus was an official elected in a tighly run and controvercial American Election. No, but seriously he was called "Jesus the Christ", over time the "the" was judged useless and gotten rid of. "Christ" may have been part of his title but it wasn't a surname like smith or ali, he was jesus the saviour and that's the name he carried (well during early christianity anyway).

--Scholl 07:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Murder

Why shouldn't the Christianity page get a part devoted to how it is connected to murder? Perhaps one similar to that that is on the page about atheism would be in order. --Batista 23:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I completely agree, considering how prominently is is displayed on the Atheism page. Evidently, witch burning, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition have no relevence to Christianity according to Conservapedia.

Certainly a section on the actions of the church would be appropriate. Murder though has a specific meaning of unlawful killing. Were the actions of the church unlawful at the time they occurred ? Markr 20:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Origins

This article is missing an important fact about christianity. It is the only religion entirely based around denying that someones mum and dad ever had sex.

Actually it isn't. Virgin birth was already known in ancient times. Take as example the Persian god Mithra. He was coincidentally also believed to be born on December 25. And there are a number of other figures that had a virgin mother, too. Order 00:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

More info and copyedits -if you have edit rights please add! done, with a minor addition

Could someone with edit rights add the first part of the following to the intro of the article (at top of page). Underneath is an edited version of the See also section which shows the denominations in chronological order as they are described in the introduction.


Christianity is a religion taking its name from Jesus Christ. Adherents are called Christians. It seems that at first the religion was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of Nazareth where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in Antioch in the first century A. D. and its use spread. The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

  • the Orthodox Church (approx. 300 million baptized members) which holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity itself. The Orthodox Church finally broke from the Roman Catholic Church after the Pope, during the Fourth Crusade, had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered, including both the city itself, and the Church of Holy Wisdom . Many valuable holy relics, riches, and numerous other items were stolen by Roman Catholics.
  • Protestantism, the largest Communion being the Anglicans (approx. 77 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European Reformation and its rejection of the doctrines and malpractices within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of indulgences, the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic corruption, devotion to Mary and the saints rather than inward devotion to faith and God, and rejection of the authority of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the Bible.


"See also"

Denominations

Thanks WKirkwood 18:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)


I am very surprised to see some of the information that has been requested for inclusion -- and then put into the article. I fear we are doing a great disservice.

"the Pope, during the Fourth Crusade, had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered"

The Pope DID NOT do that! The Crusade on the Holy Land was called by the Pope at the request of the Byzantine Empire. The Crusaders took it upon themselves to sack Constantinople when they didn't have the funds to secure passage from Constantinople to the Holy Land. The Pope threatened to Excommunicate them! Also the Great Schism that caused the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church to part company occurred in 1054 A.D. -- 150 years earlier. While the actions of Catholic Crusaders caused a further deterioration, let's not emphasize that over the actual issues that caused the Schism long before the Crusade.

"Protestantism has its origins in the European Reformation and its rejection of the doctrines and malpractices within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of indulgences, the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic corruption, devotion to Mary and the saints rather than inward devotion to faith and God, and rejection of the authority of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the Bible."

Since when do we take a flagrant position of attack on another Christian group? -- Malpractice? Corruption? Catholics don't believe in inward devotion to faith and God? May I suggest the following:

Protestantism has its origins in the European Reformation. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under Martin Luther when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of salvation could not be adequately reconciled as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

Please note I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I AM PROTESTANT. But I have deep respect for the many devout Catholic contributors that we have and what is written is disrespectful to their traditions and history.

Thank you

Learn together 19:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

LT, could you copyedit the contentious sections and put up a revision here? Then we can make the alterations. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Here is what I would recommend:
  • the Roman Catholic Church (approx. 1 billion baptized members, tracing their roots back to Saint Peter who they believed established the Church and the succession of the Popes as the spiritual authority of the Christian body of believers.)
  • the Orthodox Church (approx. 300 million baptized members) which also holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity, but does not believe in the primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the Great Schism with the Catholic Church in A.D. 1054.
Thanks for jumping on this right away Fox. You don't waste any time. ;-) Learn together 20:03, 17 January 2008 (EST)
The middle church history (my term: I referring at the moment to the time of the crusades, etc.) is not my strong point, so I won't dispute your claims of factual inaccuracies.
However, I don't agree with you on your comment on "attack[ing]... another Christian group". It's not an attack to simply tell the facts, unless of course you tell them selectively. I would think that the part that was removed about the Catholics was true and correct (if you can tell me that any was factually wrong, then that's a different matter) and relevant, and we shouldn't be hiding or glossing over that.
On a different matter, you've introduced an inconsistency, in claiming that the Orthodox church has its origins with the beginnings of Christianity, despite breaking away from Catholicism in 1054, but the Protestant churches, which broke away later, apparently can't trace their origins back to the beginning of Christianity, but only to the point at which they broke away.
Philip J. Rayment 00:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)
They are somewhat selective, but it is also placement and emphasis. This is a general article on Christianity. Under Luther or Lutheranism if specific details wished to be fleshed out from what Luther felt and what he saw, that would be more appropriate. Those accusations are not universally accepted as being an accurate representation of the position of the Catholic Church, at least as was previously written, and especially among Catholics. There are rebuttals. I doubt we would want this page to go down that path. Learn together 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)
The Orthodox patriarchs existed in the major enclaves where Christianity formed from the early roots of Christianity just as the Church at Rome existed. The difference was in perspective. Remember that at that time being a Christian could cause you to lose your head, so the Christian enclaves didn't come together as a unit. It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity legal and called together prominent Christian leaders to figure out Christian theology that you had your first gathering. Notice, he called the council of Nicea to find out Christian thought - he didn't just ask the Pope. Over time the barbarians in the west became Christianized and converted to the western way of thinking, which had developed that the Pope had final authority in matters of Christian doctrine. The East believed all of the patriarchs were equal. Both groups continued to exist and continued to have their individual viewpoints until it came to a head in 1054 and they made their formal pronouncement of a split. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics trace their beginnings to the preaching of the original Disciples. The Orthodox and Catholics actually have much more in common than either group has with the Protestants. If you go to their services, you will find many similarities between them. Learn together 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, I'm happy with that explanation. Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

More

In the opening paragraph where we mention that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch, perhaps we should give the Bible verse as well (Acts 11:26). Learn together 02:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

See here. Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Tweeking

I've added the reference to the first mention of Christians. I also changed the number of baptized Catholics to be in line with the article we have in Catholicism. By changing Denominations to Denominations and Branches, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity fit in without extra commentary. The information was unclear as written since Catholicism accepts priestly rites performed by the Orthodox as do the Orthodox with Catholics and, at least in more recent Catholic history, they have referred to Protestants as their "brethren". Learn together 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The tweaking looks good, but one I question is the removal of Amish. I'm not disputing that they are Mennonite (I wouldn't actually know), but the list is a list of other articles on various groups, and as the Amish have their own article, they should be there, I would think (although you could list them on the same line as Mennonite or as a next-level indent under Mennonite, I guess). I had previously wondered why the Episcopalians were listed separately to the Anglicans, but figured that this is why: it's actually a see also list arranged by group. Philip J. Rayment 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Strictly speaking they are Anabaptists, as are the Mennonites, but they are sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Who's really a Christian?

I'm not trying to stir up a controversy here, but I realize that not every church in the list is considered to be truly "Christian" by every other church on the list. Can we just agree to let the status quo be, or what? --Ed Poor Talk 21:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm not 100% on the Unification Church's doctrine, Ed, so feel free to wade in and correct. As I understand it, the UC denies the deity of Jesus Christ; teaches He was the illegitimate offspring of Zechariah and Mary; that He failed in His earthly mission; that His purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that; that a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying and producing the sinless race; that Rev. Moon is the "third Adam" (paraphrased from Unification Church - Christian or Cult?). Individually, each of those doctrines would render the UC non-Christian.
As for the LDS, I think this has been thrashed out, unsuccessfully, several times at CP. See here. Again, the doctrine renders them non-Christian. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I should probably write an article on Unification Church doctrine, but here's a quick summary based on the points above:

  1. yes, Jesus's purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that
    • The UC teaches that Jesus did not come to die; that he had authority to forgive sins even while he was alive
  2. yes, a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying
    • but he and his wife alone will not produce the sinless race; the people alive on the earth need to be "grafted" into the heavenly lineage
  3. yes, he was the offspring of Zechariah and Mary
  4. yes, Rev. Moon is the "third Adam"
    • The first Adam was not supposed to fall; Jesus came as the second Adam
    • And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[a] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (New King James Version)
    • Because he was executed by the Romans before he could complete his mission, he must "come again". In UC doctrine, the second coming will be fulfilled by another man, "third Adam"
  5. No, UC doctrine does not deny the divinity of Jesus, although it does declare that Jesus is a human being; see Unification Church doctrine#The Trinity

None of these revisions to the Unification Church - Christian or Cult? paraphrase really changes the essential point, which is that mainstream Christianity has rejected the Unification Church due to these doctrinal differences. --Ed Poor Talk 08:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Recent Changes

Please use the talk section to discuss recent changes. For instance why was the statement that the Orthodox Church does not accept the primacy of the Pope removed? And why was Evangelical Christianity moved from Protestant to Reformed?

There may be good answers for these changes, but discussion is needed to understand the reasoning. Learn together 13:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, please use the talk pages. You have yet to discuss your credentials or sources, and you are not choosing to work with others. My understanding of the Orthodox faith is that it does not accept the Pope as first among equals -- all patriarchs are considered equals, as according to an Orthodox friend of mine. Now of course I could be mistaken, but the method to let me know is dicussion. Thank you. Learn together 14:08, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Passover Seder

As of right now, Passover Seder has no mention of Jesus and is written in a form that would be hard to understand what it is saying, or the tie-in, when approached from Christianity; many churches see Jesus in the Passover and talk about the connection. Perhaps an article showing this connection would be more appropriate for a See Also at this time. Learn together 04:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

O.K see your point and think you're right. I am more disposed to see the present article amplified making the connection with Jesus and Christianity with the Passover Seder, rather than making a new article with the connection. What do you think?BertSchlossberg 07:20, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

It sounds good to me Bert. Thanks for being understanding. Learn together 11:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I know not of Passover Cedars. I'm guessing they'd be trees you plant during Passover. Anyway, I fixed the typos. BFKelleher 18:17, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Picture of God the Father

Feel funny making this request but it just doesn't sit right to see a picture of the Father. I don't feel this way to see a picture of Jesus, whom I believe, indeed, to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, but to see a picture of God the Father?, I don't knowBert Schlossberg

I've removed it, but for a different reason. First, I tend to agree with you where there is no qualification that the picture is purely artistic imagination and fictitious in that God is not a physical being anyway. However, the reason for removal is that this is not an appropriate use of a "fair use" picture. Philip J. Rayment 11:09, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow! that was fast. Well, for whatever reason, thanks!Bert Schlossberg 12:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Satire

Please can an administrator upload this pic "http://i33.tinypic.com/2celpqo.jpg" and inline link it to this article? I think it would make it feel more balanced with the Atheism article this way, same style of image as on the other.

CP prefers images no bigger than 150kb --Jpatt 15:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Compressed down to 120 kb: http://i34.tinypic.com/2qjj6ef.jpg

I will put that image into the article shortly. Bradology 10:33, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Terrorism

The article on Islam has many references to extremism and links to terrorism. Why no such section in this article? There are many examples of people committing violence in the name of Christianity, just as there are in the name Islam. Pro-Christian bias? Something to be sorted? I am suggesting this on here because I feel sure that if I even mention terrorism without consultation on this holiest and remarkably uncritical of pages then I would be shouted down instantly... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anpeplow (talk)

"many examples of people committing violence in the name of Christianity"??? Oh please. I haven't heard of a single suicide Christian bomber, or mass young murderers. And if you can find one or two aberrations, they hardly stack up against non-Christian examples. I know some think the truth is relative, but here we stick to the absolute truth. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--aschlafly 18:00, 25 December 2008 (EST)
Maybe it would behoove you, then, Andrew, to learn that Muslim extremism is also uncommon to Muslims. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims actually would rather see world peace than rampant terrorism, just as the vast majority of Christians want world peace, not war.--सफ़ेद-बाघ 18:03, 25 December 2008 (EST)
Surely the Crusades (and the many massacres that occured during it) was one big act of violence by Christianity (as they were the invaders). At first it was a normal war between two countries, until the Byzantine Emperor asked for help and the Pope responded with a crusade. ETrundel 18:38, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I have not the slightest implulse to exonerate the Crusades, misguided as I believe it to have been, but something in me wishes to called it Christendom or something similar rather than Christianity. Conservapedia, I think, tends to see things in the same way - rather tending to reserve the term Christianity to either the sources in the Bible or the "follow through" through the ages, that has been faithful to its Founder. But Muhammad and the sources in the Koran, really did conquer through the sword as well as persuasion, and the Jihad,the Struggle, was quite physical and violent in the sources as it was in the time of Muhammad himself. There is something quite violent in the sources themselves which do not appear in the New Tewtament and in Jesus.

I live on a street in Jewish North Jerusalem, and what I say now does not detract or diminish from the the sufferings of the Arab population due to current political realities. Two houses down, Danny was blown up by a suicide bomber buying something at the kiosk, Next to him, Mordichai lies paralyzed with an inoperable bullet in the Spine having been shot riding in the territories. Across from him, is a another young man, recuperated, thank God, from a bullet in the back from a terrorist. When 9/11 occurred, I hung out the American Flag. Passerbyers looked up to our patio then hung their heads, in silent identification and appreciation. Living here let's you recognize these things. Arabs walk freely in Jewish malls and towns. Jews do not dare to walk in an Arab town or village. When the bombing began. These Arabs are not inferior human beings or somehow not as good as Israelis or any other person. It is the sources that hold them in the thrall which strikes Jews and, yes, other Arabs, with fear and apprehension. Is that woman with the veil and the large bulging black garment, besides leading the child by the side, also concealing a bomb? It has happened before, and sometimes now, and can happen again. Every Arab Muslim here, and I will not speak of elsewhere, knows that in the name of Jihad, and of Allah, Paradise awaits those who struggle in the name of Jihad and Allah, who take the infidel with him. I do not say that desperation does not play a part, but the sources support. Not so the New TestamentBert Schlossberg 09:14, 26 December 2008 (EST).

'They did it, so we can do it too' is not an excuse; 'turn the other cheek' etc. Christianity also expanded by the sword; the Teutonic Knights fought (as complete aggressors) in Eastern Europe too to bring Christianity to the pagans in the areas around Poland and current day Ukraine. Also, I forgot to mention this earlier, but what about the Lollards? Or the Cathars? Or, for that matter, the early Protestants? Practically every religion except Shinto and Buddhism have a history of inflicting violence upon other religions and themselves. I do not argue with the danger and utter immorality of Islamic extremeism; I just reject the notion that violence can only exist in religions other than Christianity. ETrundel 12:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, it is true, violence can exist in Christianity as well as other relgions. In doing so, it goes against what it's founder lived and died for, what He was about, and what our sources teach. This is why I am so hesitant in saying uniquivocally that what Christendom has practiced is Christianity. Perhaps its quibbling about wordsBert Schlossberg 14:28, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Christ"

The Word "Christ" (a Greek translation of the Hebrew "Mashiach") a title and then a name for Jesus, means only "Annointed One". It doesn't mean "Savior". A similar Hebrew word in the ears of English speakers means "Savior" - "moshi'a". I edited the stub to reflect thisBert Schlossberg 01:43, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Anglican contradiction

The article explicitly states that the Anglican Communion is the largest Protestant denomination whilst the link to Protestantism explicitly states that the Anglicans are not Protestants. This is an unacceptable contradiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tpleighton (talk)

The prolbem lies mainly with the self understanding within the Episcopal Church. I think that the official name of the Church is the Protesant Episcopal Church, at least it used to be that way, but there are parishes and dioceses which see themselves as a contination of the Catholic Church, but, of course, not the Roman Catholic Church. There are even seminaries, the most notable being Nashotah House Seminary in Wisconsin, that view themselves as Catholic or "Anglo Catholic" and view themselves as being for historical reasons part of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Yet there are very protestant parishes and dioceses as well. For this reason, it is difficult to stick to one terminology. Probably, there needs to be some kind of note about this.Bert Schlossberg 18:52, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Establishing a fact

Can we include that Christianity is the correct religion somewhere in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Palin4thefuture (talk)

I don't think that's necessary. The article is written, unlike it is on Wikipedia, in a manner which denotes everything as factual and correct, which it is. Jinxmchue 20:58, 11 February 2009 (EST)

personal theology

I suggest that people's personal theology be posted to essay pages where they belong. This has to be an encyclopedia that looks at the many different versions of Christian beliefs. It is pretty deficient in that at the present time. It misses people like Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther, for example, not to mention the theologians of the last few centuries. It barely mentions Paul and his role. There is a lot about the life of Jesus, which belongs in its own article, and little about Christianity.RJJensen 15:10, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

"Christ" does mean "Annointed One" but not "Savior"

Regarding the beginning of the article -

This has come up before, not sure where. Christ is the Greek for "annointed" in Hebrew. The Hebrew sounds like "Mashiach" which most often makes it into English as "Messiah". So far all is well. But neither "Mashiach" nor "Christ" mean "Savior", though He is. It just happens that there is another Hebrew word which to "English ears" sounds similar to "Mashiach" and does mean Savior, and maybe that's where the confusion originally came from. The word is "Moshi'a". The basic meaning of the root of this latter word is "to widen out" or "causes expanse" (The cognate in Arabic means that today). A savior is one who widens out for others . The word is used for the Judges who were not primarily judicial figures but who gave breathing room for the Israelites - they pushed away the oPRESSors ( A common word for "enemy" in the Hebrew Bible is "tsar" = narrower). Jesus was called the Savior, widening it out for all of us, pushing back the Enemy, and the results of our sins, which do have a choking effect. For this purpose He was annointed. The Moshi'a was mashiach for this purpose. The Church also is annointed for this reason - to bring out into the open space and freedom those that have been enclosed and trapped in the castle of the Evil One. That castle (really ancient city), called Hades (see [[1]], ex. 5), has gates keeping in its captives which can not withstand the rock thrown (a la the book of Daniel) against them. That is the gates shall not "prevail" the onslaught of the Church, and the captives of this time will be freed. Just as at the beginning, Jesus descent into Hades freed the captives of the past, leading them out to space and freedom. It is good to keep the Moshi'a and the Mashiach separate in thought, though united in one Person Jesus, as each is rich and developed richly in the Old and in the New Testament.Bert Schlossberg 22:54, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Can be unlocked?

Can the article be unlocked for and edit?Bert Schlossberg 15:24, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Done. Thanks!Bert Schlossberg 16:21, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Personal tools