Portal talk:Christianity/Archive 1

Portal Page

I moved everything over to the new Wikipedia:Portal namespace and templates... that's a nail-biting experience. Hope I didn't step on anyones past edits. Sulfur 03:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories

After trying a hierarchical approach to listing the Christian denominations, I'm thinking it might be best to limit the tree to its first level branches. 72.131.44.247 03:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Australian Uniting Church from "Calvinism", since the Methodists are a part of it as well. We can restore it to a proper location...I did not since I'm not sure where would be best. KHM03 12:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to only include a link to the Christian denominations category, so that users can go from there (since listing every denomination would get unwieldy). Basically, we are aiming to get every category listed in Category:Christianity mentioned in the category list. Any takers? Also, can anyone fix the background so that it is white like the other sections and not green? Brisvegas 12:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Done! It's a long list that bleeds in to the other sections though... I'm not very familiar with the portal layout, but I might try to poke and prod a bit. 72.131.44.247 18:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Wikipedia has long held a list of the Christian prophecies (that is to say, those prophesies made by Christians) throughout hisotry that did not occur when they were predicted to. There is an ongoing debate over the name, and a vote is now taking place at Talk:Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy. Please, cast your vote and/or have your say. -Harmil 07:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Showcase Christian???

Showcasing a Christian doesn't seem very "Christian-like" to me. It sounds too prideful, rather than showing the Christian virtue of humility. What are we showcasing anyway? The best articles on a Christian person, or the best Christians? I'm not suggesting we remove this part of the portal, but maybe re-name it in a way so it doesn't contradict the Christian faith. If the purpose of this is to show the best articles, then name it "Showcase Article". If the purpose of this is to show a "model Christian", then take it down, because who are we to judge how "good" someone is. Any brothers/sisters in Christ see what I'm saying? EdGl 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Christian, but I understand the point about modesty. I've thus renamed the section to "Showcase biography".--cj | talk 05:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks cj - this was the intended spirit of the section. This was never intended to showcase a "perfect" Christian, since as EdGl pointed out, it is not for us to judge the virtues of others. This wording was in fact a relic from when having had a "featured" prefix which made slightly more sense (Featured Christian). Anyway, it's now been fixed. Brisvegas 09:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's much better now. I knew that you guys meant well. Keep up the good work. EdGl 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

We started a new policy page and need further input. Please visit Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions. Resid Gulerdem 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Help! Image disappearing

In trying to be helpful I added a width size of 100% at the top of this page. This meant that 'edit' became visible rather than half disguised ( a similar problem occurred on the Portal: University page) However in the process the picture became invisible. It is still 'there' as evidenced by clicking on the empty space you get to the orginal picture - just invisble to me. The syntax for the University image/text and the Christianity image/text appear to be the same but one I can see and I cannot. Please can someone tell me how to ensure the images don't dissapear.

It is a little confusing if you use the 'edit' tab when on the Main Portal page as when you save the edit, you are not returned to the main portal page but to a view of the sub-page that you were editing. This is particularly confusing when what you see in the Main Portal page is not the same as what you can see in the sub-page. In the end, I managed to get a picture that could be seen on Portal:Christianity/Intro but not in the view on Christianity:Portal to appear using the W:Extended image syntax. As this is now a featured portal it is good to see it looking as the original author intended. Johnmarkh

I would love your help.

For those interested in Christianity (as I am assuming you all are), I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christianity Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. This would go far beyond what is allowed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for example, there is a limit to how honorably and magnificently the Lord can be represented at WP.

Christianity Knowledge Base 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 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. nsandwich 08:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no limit to how honorably or magnificently we can represent the Lord within the scope of WikiPedia.

How are we being Salt and Light if we cloister ourselves in a Christian Wiki because we don't like the rules of a Non-Christian platform? How are we being "In" the world, but not "Of" the world if we hide ourselves away due to having to keep things neutral?

I, as a Christian and Minister, appreciate the availability of a platform like WikiPedia that keeps everything Neutral. If I were a Non-Christian searching for facts on the Christian life, I wouldn't trust an Atheist Wiki because it would only portray the negative aspects of Christianity (which I have to admit do exist), nor would I trust a Christian Wiki as it will only portray the positive aspects. I would, however, trust WikiPedia because I know it is neutral and I know that it is closely watched by all parties to ensure that no one POV is pushed.

If you are a Christian and you want to fulfill your calling to take the Gospel to the World, you cannot hide yourself away where the rules are agreeable to your POV. There are already plenty of websites out there already that are dedicated to enriching the lives of Christians (Hotel for Saints) when a much better use of our time would be the pursuit of evangelizing the World (Hospital for Sinners) through whatever means necessary including WikiPedia.

Icj tlc 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Showcase scripture

The "Showcase scripture" currently only offers one wikilink (to the King James Bible). Why don't we change this to Showcase bible article or Showcase scripture article or something similar. The current section doesn't seem to relate to any Wikipedia content. Kaldari 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) It also links to the Ten Commandments article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments Johnmarkh 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I also would say that the "Showcase scripture" is unencyclopedic, promotes POV, and is, in its current form, more or less useless. To make it useful, it should at the very least have the source (Bible version, book, ...) and preferably an introduction wich links to articles about this passage, its history, significance, different interpretations and translations, and so on. As it is, it is an uncommented primary source, and neither a good nor a rare one.--Stephan Schulz 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The scripture I just saw showcased wasn't from orthodox Christian Scriptures. It was from 3 Nephi 11 in the Book of Mormon - not considered canon for the majority of Christians. --Nhoj 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Easter Message

Throw it back up! Come on, no one needs to be the easter scrooge. michael ^talk 06:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar Graphic Template

I realise that most want to get rid of the template Template:browsebar graphic as it is too obtrusive, as per WPT:P. However, this must not be replaced with the Template:browsebar until the latter can fit on one line, since currently the latter has the Technology link alone on a second line, making it aesthetically unpleasing, when viewed in Firefox @ 600 X 800. Once this is fixed, then the latter template can replace it. Brisvegas 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Wikia

A follow up on Nsandwich's message above about the Christianity Knowledge Base at Wikia. The site has recently gone through a fork, and so is undergoing some changes. If there are any wiki editors interested in getting involved with a wiki from a Christian point of view, this is a great time to join. It's hosted by Wikia, the company set up by Jimbo Wales and Angela so it's another good place to contribute. Anyone who would like to join is welcome. Sorry if this is a repeat for those of you also in the Christianity Wikiproject. -- sannse (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Christian summer camps on AFD

Apparently, some rogue admin has gone on a stealth anti-religion summer camp crusade targeting Jewish and Christian summer camps. Please go the the cat I created for some of the articles about to be deleted that might interest you. Ultimately, make the articles N and cleanup/expand the articles. I'd agree that Camp Gilead (Florida) is currently not a legit article, but Camp Yamhill seems to have merits. I'm not trying to condone bad and non-notable articles, but the admin's motives are not in good faith (other non-religion camps have not been recommended for afd) and also abusing wp to delete first without trying to improve wp with a request for expansion. --Shuki 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-related articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Eastern Christianity...

Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church mentioned after the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East? It is the largest and most well-known, so it should be mentioned first.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Brisvegas 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, why don't we make them alphabetical so no one gets offended about the particular order they are in.Icj tlc 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but if no more concerns are raised, then perhaps it's best to leave the rest as is. A more suitable system would be listing the denominations in descending order of membership numbers. Brisvegas 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}

You can now add the selected Bible chapter from Portal:Bible to your user page using {{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. This template is set to auto-update to a new chapter each day. Enjoy! BigDT 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pillar of Fire Church

The article Pillar of Fire Church is up for deletion. I am the author, and I am not a member of church, I just live near their community and drive past Zarephath. Please read the article and express your opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC) The people who are firm in their conviction to delete the article also believe that this particular branch of Christianity does not not deserve to display the template for Christianity. Please come and read the article and help decide this important issue for Wikipedia.

This is simply not true. I am the editor who has proposed this article to be deleted. Nowhere have I said that the template for Christianity needed to be removed. I proposed the whole article to be removed because the author has consistantly failed to cite sources for the information he has put up. This violates WP:No original research and is part of the reasoning I proposed the deletion of this article. This editor is attempting to attack my character and my motives as a means to save his article which is uncited, original research. I urge anyone to go have a look at the article, but be wary of his thinly vieled attacks. They are baseless and increasingly more emotional. Regards to all, Shazbot85^Talk 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Revenues

Hello, I would lik to know something about the revenues in US or in other countries of the Roman Catholic Church. --Calgaco 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried a Google search? FOr Australia at least, I got the following info:

"The Catholic Church is almost five times larger than any other church and dominates the top 20 charities, the BRW says. It estimated the Catholic Church's gross revenue at $15 billion in 2004."[1]

Discipleship

Im cleaning up Disciple (disambiguation) links and many times I stumble upon references to "Discipleship". For example Chronological Bible Storying. It goes on to say "For this reason CBS is often used for evangelization, discipleship, and church planting." As I said, several article reference "discipleship" in same context and I feel dictionary definition at the disambiguation page ("A disciple is a follower and learner of a mentor or other wise figure.") is not enough to explain this fenomenon in modern christianity. Could someone from here create an article on Discipleship because I dont know exactly what they are talking about. Also, if you think that this word might be better replaced with some other I could do that. Shinhan 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if possible something little more than "Discipleship is a process in which one person is taught christian principles and doctrines by the exampleship and teaching of another. See disciple." which is way too small for an article. (This is from Discipleship history). Thanks Shinhan 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone @ Wikiproject Christianity could take it up? Brisvegas 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lutheranism Template

I was wondering if anyone here was interested in creating a Lutheranism template (like the Anglican one on Anglican related pages, except Lutheran). I feel it would greatly benifit the organization of the Lutheranism related articles and would aid people in finding articles. So instead of other pages listed on the bottom of the page, they could be listed at the top and organized. Please tell me what you think and your help would be much appreciated, respond on my talk page. Thank You. --Josh777 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Hi, I'm looking for some expert opinions on a source that I've seen a lot in the external links section of articles. Definitions from the NewAdvent.org site are often posted as being from a "Catholic Encylopedia" (see this example). The site itself seems to be a quick definitions site that makes money from google ads and selling a CD version of itself - which generally puts me off a site - but there are good commercial sources out there and the content is free accessible. So I wanted to find out if people who know something of Catholic thought consider this site to be a reasonably reliable and authoritiative site for a mainstream Catholic definition. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

God is an awsome God, he reins

Page Appearance

Wouldn't this page be more useful as a portal if the dynamic content were moved up and the (relatively) static information moved down? That way, when folks visit, they could see current info right away?

Demon (disambiguation)

Someone moved Demon (disambiguation) to Satans Angels. Doesn't seem to make any sense, could some admin revert that? -- Imladros 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Input needed

There is currently a dispute on the Christianity page about the use of the terms Nestorian and Jacobite to refer to the Assyrian and the Syrian churches. Please come by the talk page and give some input to the discussion. Pastordavid 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church under West Christianity and = Western Catholicism?

Please see discussion here which I copy below:

This article (Catholic Church) is categorized under Western Christianity. If the Catholic Church traces its roots to Jesus Christ and St. Peter and the twelve apostles (who were all Orientals) and if the Catholic Church covers the Syrians, the Greek Catholics, the Russian Catholics, and the Korean, Filipino, and Vietnamese Catholics, why does the Catholic Church fall under Western Christianity and is supposedly the same as Western Catholicism, a term that's not commonly used? Marax 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone else can probably fill out the detials better than me, but broadly speaking Western Christianity refers to the Latin Rite of the (Roman) Catholic Church and those traditions which split from it during the Reformation such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and the various other forms of Protestantism as against the Eastern Christianity of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Catholic Churches which although in full communion with the Pope use eastern style liturgical rites. The separation of these two streams of Christianity occurred ealier than the Reformation, with the ultimate split (of the Orthodox from Catholicism) being around the East-West Schism of 1054. The reason for the naming effectively traces back to the division of the Roman Empire into eastern (Byzantine) and western (Western Roman Empire) in the later 3rd Century AD, in the East, Greek was the main language, in the West, Latin. There are also the Oriental Orthodox churches but these split even earlier, but could also be considered to form part of Eastern Christianity. This simple historical picture is clouded by later missionary work which spread Christianity of one sort or another around the world. There would also be a case for categorising this article under Eastern Christianity as well I suppose in order to better recognise the Eastern Catholic Churches. David Underdown 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

David's "stab" at an explanation is a good one, but incomplete. It is almost true of the situation at the time of the East-West Schism. I say "almost", because the Maronites boast of never having been separated from Rome. There were also the Christians in India who knew nothing of the East-West Schism and, except for the trouble caused by Portuguese attempts to completely Latinize them, have not declared themselves in opposition to Rome. These are more truly Eastern than the Eastern Orthodox Church: I remember a conversation with one of their bishops who I found was using the phrase "the Western Church" to mean the Byzantines! But David's explanation does not fit the present situation, in which the Church in question certainly includes, as Marax says, many who are in no sense "Western Christians".

What does Marax mean by saying that this article is categorized under Western Christianity? I don't see the category "Western Christianity" given at the foot of the article. If somewhere else Wikipedia puts it in that category, I would think that it must clearly be a mistake.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as Western Christianity. There are differences in liturgical rites, traditional devotions, organization, emphases, language, etc. between the Western and the Eastern forms of Christianity, even when the faith is exactly the same. The Western form is what is called the Latin Rite in the Catholic Church, which includes both Eastern and Western Christians, and so does not completely fit into either category.

That is, at least, how I see the situation. Lima 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking the article again, I think it is the Christianity template/infobox that is being referred to, in which under "Western Christianity" appears "Western Catholicism" in bold. This should presumably instead say "Western or Latin Rite Catholicism" as it is set out in the article, and should ideally also highlight Eastern Catholicism to show that (on Wikipedia at least) Roman Catholicism as a whole includes both these strands (please let's not carry on the naming thread here...). Whether that would be technically possible iwth the make up of the infobox I don't know. David Underdown 13:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring indeed to the infobox, the Christianity Portal. I agree with you, Lima, and very much appreciate your examples and anecdotes. Quite enlightening I must say. There is a mistake in the infobox indeed. The basic problem is the existence of a division of Western and Eastern Christianity. The whole thing must be redone I believe. Marax 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An article in need of attention...

I couldn't find any relevant Wikiproject page, so I guess this portal will do...

Parable_of_the_Weeds

This article is in need of attention, and some sourced criticism/analysis/historical perspective. Blueaster 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Denomination

A user is removing "Roman Catholic Church" from the Denomination line in the Bishop template at David Beaton (a Cardinal and an Archbishop of St Andrews who died the Scottish Reformation of 1560). See Talk:David Beaton. He claims it is anachronistic. I don't tthe strength of his arguments atm, but it needs wider discussion because it could have implications across all pre-Reformation Bishop articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC

Jerusalem is featured article candidate now. Please comment there. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Divine Mercy paintings

Please help to solve sofisticated copyright problem about very important paintings. A.J. 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - generic 'Christian' naming convention

Just breezing through articles like Cyril of Alexandria and Justinian I, I noticed that they support a certain claim of a particular Church, that they are the right one, shared by all the Christian Churches (Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Orthodox, Catholic, Copt, Abyssinian, Assyrian, etc). For instance, the Justinian I article mentions something about his involvement with the Orthodox Church - though at that time the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were still one (the good ole days). And the Cyril of Alexandria article has a nice template of the Coptic Popes, counting Cyril as one of their number, though in Cyril's time, pretty much everyone was still together (the golden years). Can we find some naming convention that recognizes these periods of Christian unity, lest we forget? Obviously, this issue covers more than just these two articles. The Jackal God 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. My comments/suggestions:

• Remember that even in the period of supposed "unity" starting with Constantine's reign there were lots of Christians that were not part of this "union" (the union being the doctrines sanctioned by the councils launched by Constantine and sanctioned by the Empire in the years to come). Before Constantine's reign, there was some sense of "unity" only in that there was no official regulation of doctrine so if you and somebody else with different beliefs wanted to call yourselves Christians there was nothing to say which of your beliefs was "more Christian."
• The "united" Church after Constantine can be called the "Church of the Roman Empire" since it was the official body that became an imperial department. This is true even after the "fall of Rome" since the Empire still continued in the East and the Pope still regarded himself as a part of that empire, at least nominally (until Charlemagne's time which is where things become really murky). I think, though, using this naming to apply to the entire period of unity is confusing if not misleading.
• Remember that, aside from the capitalized terms Catholic and Orthodox, there are the lower case usages catholic and orthodox. These terms were both used to apply to the Roman imperial church (and still are used to a degree by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as others). The term "orthodox faith" is commonly used as technical jargon to refer to the version of the faith established by the ecumenical councils (but there is some confusion there because as the Church split each branch of the Church began to have its own councils). Along these lines "orthodox Church" and "catholic Church" are often used to refer to the unified Church without referring to the entire Christian body.
• I have sometimes seen "orthodox catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church" used to refer to the unified Church. This is by no means common so, without qualification, it is confusing.
• "Christian Church" is common too in referring to the united Church although obviously that term slights the Christian groups that were not part of that united Church.
• My opinion would be to use "orthodox Christian Church" and "orthodox faith" (lower case). Obviously there no absolute basis to say that this is the only logical choice but I think it is the most reasonable compromise and is somewhat consistent with a lot of (but not all) scholarly usage.

--Mcorazao 14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Three branches

To raise a thorny issue, I had a concern about this statement.

... Christianity is generally considered as being divided into three main branches; namely Catholicism ..., the Orthodox churches ..., and various Protestant denominations.

I realize this is a very common viewpoint in the West and there are a number of authoritative sources on this one. However, I do not think this is a consensus viewpoint. Regardless, it is a potentially offensive classification system so I tend to think it should not be used. The following are among the concerns:

• This classification system is as much "cultural" as "theological" (i.e. about the traditions as much as the faith). This is potentially offensive to the believers implying that they really care more about appearances than what their faith prescribes.
• "Orthodox churches" is a fairly meaningless Western convention. The Eastern Orthodox Church is much closer theologically to the Roman Catholic Church than the Oriental Orthodox Church. What the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have in common is more cultural than theological and so, from their perspective, lumping those two together in contrast to the Roman Catholics would be offensive. Also, before somebody argues that the Oriental Orthodox Church is a minor splinter group, this is in fact one of the largest and oldest Christian communions.
• The Anglican Church is debatable in terms of the classification "Protestant." It certainly did not follow in the spirit of the "Protestant Reformation." The fact that it was created during the same period is more a matter of coincidence (or convenience?) than common theology.
• Protestants like lump themselves together in one big group like this for the sake of saying "See, we're a big group just like the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox." Nevertheless, the Protestants are separate communions and many of those communions have very different doctrines.
• The AIC groups are a huge body of Christians that do not neatly fit here. In principle one can say most of these descend from Protestant Churches but that is an oversimplification since much of their faiths is very distinct. In addition some of these Churches in fact descend from Roman Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy. Treating the AIC Churches as a minor detail is illogical.
• Obviously there is the general concern about using Catholicism in an unqualified way. In formal contexts this is offensive to most non-Roman-Catholic Christian Churches.

For all of these reasons I'd propose a rephrasing like the following.

Resulting from various schisms such as the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation, Christianity is divided into many bodies of faith, or communions. The largest are the Roman Catholic Church (both the Latin Rite and the Eastern rites) and the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the body of Christians includes many other groups such as the other Eastern churches (e.g. Oriental Orthodoxy), the Protestant churches (e.g. Lutheranism), the African Initiated churches, and others.

Comments?

--Mcorazao 14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the portal! You raise an interesting point; I wasn't aware of these issues when I wrote the intro. Your proposed change doesn't seem controversial or biased; so I've merged it into the lead with minor changes. Thanks for raising this point. Brisvegas 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Virtue account 8;05 pm CT, June 12 2007 -- Hey. I just want to say that I want to put that the arguments of the christian beliefs are just some beliefs that could not be agreed. Probably the non-denmoninational chuches would in fact support more from the bible, and not put up fights between Protestants, and Chatholics. -- Also. Would we christians also view the Book of Mormon. Not to say I am a Mormon, but to say that we could also learn from it like the Old, and New testament. Anyway, this is a great portal talk. Peace be with you.