Talk:Christianity

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Older archives
Before July 2003 More old debate

christianity as a state religion

On the map 2 is a mistake as Slovakia is set as a country with christianity as a state religion. Slovakia is neutral to all religions (although majority of the citizen are christians). It can be found in the Slovak Constitution in the first articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydrian1 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

James the Veggie

A lot of Jesus disciples were quoted to be vegetarians and tee-totalers although the arguement goes that Jews who did not partake in a weekly sacrificial feast would be in trouble. Anyway, after Jesus death and the scattering of the disciples, his brother James would preach to the congregation. Vegetarianism was part of what James preached and he thought that it was one of the ways of Jesus. A local and rather unsavoury character, violently opposed to Jesus weakling followers, by the name of Saul who had seen Jesus once himself got to learning more about Jesus teachings through stories of James. Saul eventually turned over a new leaf and became a preacher of the ways of Christ renaming himself Paul after a night out homeless trying to sleep with his head on a rock. He also decided to preach that James way of being a vegetarian was weak as a Jew. Shortly afterwards James met an early death through assasination opening a way for Saul/Paul to take over and guide James congregation of what would eventually become the Christian church. Anyway, I don't see any mention of James on this article. Maybe he shouldn't be mentioned here, I don't know. Saul is always considered the major apostle but it's rather interesting to leave a key element out of it entirely. Caretaker managers are rarely left out of the history of a football team. ~ R.T.G 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the view of the early church you put forward is a minority one, and you have cited no sources for it. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability to find out how Wikipedia handles these cases.

Secondly this article is an overview of the Christian faith, and a description of one period of it is probably too detailed for this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

James took over from Jesus. He was assasinated. The local sheriff of Nottingham got all his goods. End (or beginning) of story. That is compelling in any book. Nevermind the veggie bit, that's just a bit of jibe I added about about my personal faith. James was the brother and the man. It requires no additional sources to point that out and it is not represented on this article. I wonder, is the purpose of the single-sided viewpoint tags on the Origins section related to this fact? What else could it mean? Are we discussing it with a view to correction? ~ R.T.G 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

James did not "take over" from Jesus. James was an apostle, but Peter was the leader or head of the group after Jesus was resurrected. Where did you read that James was the lead disciple? Also, where is this veggie bit coming from? When DJ is asking for sources he is seeking some reputable source to support your position. If all you are asking for is the mention of James' name in the article maybe something can be worked out naming all of the original apostles. --^StormRider 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Several things about this person are not clear, including whether James the Just was in fact James the Apostle - all of which is another good reason for not getting into the subject in an overview article, since it would take a lot of space to give all the different views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lies

Can anyone just put in bold at the very start "What is stated below is NOT true." Seriously this is the 21st century, surely Christianity must be fading by now considering how it was proven to be plagerised from Ancient egyptian theology. Also it just sounds like nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.148.111 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You claim: "it was proven to be plagerised from Ancient egyptian theology." No it wasn't. You need to practice informational hygiene. NJMauthor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look carefully you will see that the article never says that Christianity is true - nor that it is false either. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another one of these guys? Seriously this is the 21st century, why can't people accept that people have other ideas? It's all the same rhetoric. "My ideas are true. Yours are wrong." What causes people to act this way? Insecurity? Don't people have anything productive to do? Ranting here won't help anyone or anything. It just makes you look like a fool. Bias isn't welcome here. 174.1.141.145 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He's just a troll. He probably doesn't even care about Christians that much, he just figures that the article makes for easy trolling, but without an account he's stuck trolling the talk page. It's unfortunate that when people say "atheist," someone will think of someone like him, but that's life, I suppose. 24.95.247.110 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's so obviously not true, why do we need to state in bold that it's not true? We don't do that for articles on novels or films. Ash Loomis (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no "controversy" section, nor much mention at all of all the opposition that this horrible group of child raping freaks receives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.195.27 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We link to an entire article on the Criticism of Christianity. EastTN (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be gross generalization. Barely any Christians rape children. Barely any human beings rape children. The action is abhorrent. If you're referring to the Catholic sex abuse controversy, Catholics are not the only Christian denomination, and there were only a few select cases of abuse. What they did was disgraceful, but saying Christians are a group of "Child raping freaks" is one of the most asinine oversimplified things I've heard on the internet. Sick people rape children. Sick people exist in every race, religion, social class. I'm sorry but that statement makes me sick. 174.1.141.145 (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think that it's obvious that something was going on. Considering that of the fourteen people who would know if it was a lie, five people were crucified (one upside down), one was beheaded, three were definitely killed (although the exact method is uncertain), one committed suicide (admittedly after betraying Jesus), one was speared to death, one was beaten to death, and one was stoned to death. Only one died of natural causes. This doesn't even include the people who believed they had seen and/or heard God, Jesus, or one or more of the saints, and were killed for it. Nobody will die for something they know is a lie, especially like that. Obviously, Christianity can't be simply dismissed as a lie, even if there's no evidence of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.136.194 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Love

The whole foundation of Christianity is LOVE.

John 3:16-17(New International Version) :

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

And yet, the word "love" only shows up once in the wikipedia definition of Christianity.

God created us because He loves us, He wanted to have a relationship with Him. He loved us so much that He sent His perfect Son, Jesus the Christ, He who is without sin, to die for us on the cross so that we may reconcile with our Father.

God is our heavenly Father, He loves us His children.

I urge you to please update the website explaining that God is love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.90.138 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not an evangelical website. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

non-denominational christianity

could somebody add non-denominational christianity to the movements list please?Jigglyfidders (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

picture

Can we get a different picture please? of a cross preferably.