Talk:Christianity

Background

Is it the largest religion or the most practiced? Is this a regional statistic or a world statistic? --Robert W King 14:52, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Theology

Added multiple sections. Quite possibly biased because I'm a Christian; let me know if anything needs to be changed. Jonathan Beshears 04:20, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Hello Jonathon. No problem with bias there at all—I think the sections are very well written and from a neutral point-of-view. It's good to have you on the wiki. Mark Jones 10:17, 18 January 2008 (CST)

I'm curious why Michael Formica removed a reference to a biblical passage, with the comment "not comfortable with the Bible as a reference." When describing the beliefs of a religion (a problematic phrase, I admit), why is the content of the religion's central holy books off limits as evidence of what those beliefs are? Of course, a secular encyclopedia like CZ should not use the biblical passage in question as evidence for the theological claim that "God does not change," but it seems reasonable to use it as evidence for the secular sociological claim that "Christianity asserts that God does not change." Also, if the Bible is off-limits as evidence of Christianity's beliefs, what else is off-limits? The Summa Theologica? Papal "definitions"? Various denominations' catechisms? And how does this exclusion apply to non-religion CZ articles? May an article on the U.S. Democratic Party not cite the party's own platform as evidence of its election promises? May an article on the marketing of cigarettes not cite tobacco companies' own advertisements as evidence of what claims the companies made about their products? Of course, you could not cite these sources as evidence that "the Democrats increased employment," or that a particular cigarette brand actually caused "not a cough in a carload,'" but why omit them as evidence that the party or the corporation made those claims? Bruce M.Tindall 19:09, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Bruce: With all due respect and good faith held forth, kindly be mindful that proper etiquette would dictate that you address questions about a specific editors actions to that editor, rather than in a public forum.

Regards your question, from an academic standpoint, assuming we all agree that this project is an academic endeavour, it seems to me that, given the commentary nature of the material, it would be more appropriate to reference a commentary, rather than the source material itself. This is not a direct quote of James, it is an interpretation of catechism, and, by rights, the source of the interpretation should be referenced.

To whit, if I state that naming the unnamable sullies a thing that is indefinable because in defining it I have robbed it of its essence, I can quote the Tao Te Ching. If, on the other hand, I state that Taoism holds forth the idea that when you talk about a thing directly you rob it of its immutable nature, I need to reference Jane English, Thomas Cleary, or Eva Wong.

Referencing an interpretative statement with source material is just bad form. I have a half a dozen books on my shelves from Thomas Merton to Meister Eckhert that make the same statement. Quoting James, especially given that James is a canonical tract and, by definition, eschews the non-canonical codex', is, to my mind, suspect. Tort, if you wish...it's just an opinion. I think it brings up a good point. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 19:35, 18 January 2008 (CST)

I additionally would like to add that because the Bible is an extremely loose document-of-fact, and the words or "scriptures" within are largely faith-based, it probably should not be accepted as physical "proof" of anything other than what the adherents to it believe. Within the bible lies no physically conclusive evidence that a metaphysical "God" exists other than through proposal that the written word is fact, and the only document required as proof is the document itself--that is, the bible is largely self-referencial. --Robert W King 23:15, 18 January 2008 (CST)

2 Billion adherents

Really? That just seems... too high. Is there anyone knowledgeable on the subject that could confirm or deny this? Richard Pettitt

And the answer is Check this out.... 2.1 billion is the correct number, but it includes everything from Cathlics and Protestants to Monophysites and Quakers. The number makes sense, given that all the sects are included in it...Monophysites??? Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 14:45, 18 January 2008 (CST)