Talk:Christianity: Difference between revisions
imported>Michael J. Formica (→2 Billion adherents: Yes, indeedy...) |
imported>Bruce M. Tindall (→Theology: Scriptural passage as evidence of a religion's beliefs?) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: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. [[User:Mark Jones|Mark Jones]] 10:17, 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. [[User:Mark Jones|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? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 19:09, 18 January 2008 (CST) | |||
==2 Billion adherents== | ==2 Billion adherents== | ||
Revision as of 19:09, 18 January 2008
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)
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)