Christianity Project‑class | |||||||
|
Template:WPChristianity sidebar
Anno Domini FAR
Anno Domini has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Anti Christian Movement (China) needs attention
Please see Anti Christian Movement (China). Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Archiving
I removed the notice about archiving by Werdnabot and the template which was apparently intended to instruct the bot. First of all, the archiving recently has been done by User:Shadowbot3, not Werdnabot. Secondly, Shadowbot3 has been archiving the page too quickly (after 10 days instead of 14), and has not responded to questions about that. [1] Once the bot can be confirmed to work properly, it can be re-activated on this talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where did they archive and if the bot does not add a link in the page being archived it should not be used. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- When the bot was in effect, the bot notice did have a link to the archive page. However, the bot was shut down because it was archiving too quickly not just on this page, but on other pages as well. And the bot's operator had left Wikipedia and was not responding to questions about it. If this page gets too long, we can archive it by hand in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD on Theistic rationalism
Your comments are welcome on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theistic rationalism. See the article Theistic rationalism. It appears to be a POV-fork and WP:OR. Zenwhat (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm putting it through right now. Even though it cites a number of decent sources, the article violates WP:FRINGE. The link between Chrisitanity and domestic violence doesn't seem like a mainstream position.
If I'm wrong, then a question for you all: Are there any folks here that beat your spouses in the name of Christ? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
naming convention for churches?
Is there a naming convention for churches (buildings, rather than denominations)? Or even, more specifically, for UK (anglican) (parish) churches? I can see nothing in [[WP:NAME]. Looking at Category:United Kingdom church stubs (OK, so it's stubs rather than established articles, but shows a wider range than other cats I could find) shows a nightmare. "Church of" or not? "St" or "St."? "St Name" or "St Name's"? "St Name Town" or "St Name, Town"? The "DEFSORT"s for those churches must be a wide variety too, seeing how it sorts. I can't find a naming convention, but it seems unlikely that this hasn't been thrashed out somewhere. Any ideas? PamD (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't find any specific naming conventions for buildings or structures, which would include churches. On that basis, I guess the practice to follow right now would be the standard naming convention, which in this case would pretty much be to use the name by which the church most commonly refers to itself, in bulletins, correspondence, and the like. If it is an unusually common name like "St. Paul's Church" for instance, then it might make sense to add the town name after a comma later, like you indicated above, like perhaps "St. Paul's Church, Cambridge", for example. If that still isn't enough to clearly differentiate the structure, maybe add the denomination or country after the city name, like "St. Paul's Church, Cambridge (Massachusetts)" or "St. Paul's Church, Cambridge (Old Catholic)", for example. But it defintely would be a good idea to establish a convention for use in such an instance. I know I could be wrong, and very likely am, about some of the above, but think that might be enough until we establish a real convention. I'd welcome input form any others, though. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Superficial review
Someone put "Jesus" as the founder of one denomination article. (No, I don't want to say which one! I don't think it will last!) Anyway, I checked around somewhat superficially to see what other denominations had. Russian Orthodox had the Apostle Andrew, which is according to their tradition, the Church of England, Henry VIII, contrary to my expectations! That was about it for that type of box in my rapid overview.
While none of us wants the articles to "look allke," it seemed to me that the articles could resemble one another. Some religions. Lutheran, I think, had so many nav boxes that the intro was squeezed out. Lots of potential for portrait nav boxes. When I tried to look up "Episcopal Church" I could find no reference to Anglican or Church of England at all. I suppose there's some historic reason for this. Be it far from me to interfere, but there did not appear to be a collective "Orthodox" article.
Some of these observations may belong in the WikiProject Religion article, but didn't want to take it there quite yet. Anyway, just a quick and dirty assessment by a near-outsider. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Toward Peer Review
Gospel of Mark could use some help tracking down missing citations to get ready for peer review. Thanks in advance. Ovadyah (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability for denominations
There is, to my knowledge, no general guideline for notability when it comes to denominations. We have haggled some with recommendations for congregational guidelines (which did not gain consensus), but has there ever been a consensus about denominations? A current AfD discussion has me wondering where the line is for denominations. Any thoughts? Pastordavid (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused here. We have a template (and an infobox?) Template:Social Christianity, a subject that I'm interested in, but we don't have an article on Social Christianity, nor is it apparently listed as a topic at Portal:Christianity.
This template lists some articles where it is used, including Leo Tolstoy and Catholic Worker Movement.
My questions:
- (A) Is this template being used correctly?
- (B) Does Wikipedia have a central article or resource on Social Christianity? (Not simply the Social Christianity articles listed in the template.)
-- Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Carl Linnaeus
Talk:Carl Linnaeus, got tagged by a bot a while ago as being part of WikiProject Christianity. I don't see how the two are related. Was this tagging a mistake? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it was done on the basis of the subject being included in the Category:Christian people. The article's inclusion in that category would seem to indicate that someone saw his Christianity as being particularly relevant, and as such it makes a degree of sense for the bot to tag that article. I don't know enough about the subject to say one way or another, but it might be beneficial to ask on the talk page whether the category is an appropriate one. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Naming Convention
What is the naming convention for church leaders? I was thinking it was "(Post, ie archbishop) (name) of (see)". is that the correct way?Grk1011 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Christianity. It's hard to give a specific answer, because there are individual variations depending on individuals and positions, but you should find your answer there. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk Archives?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing a link on this page for the archives of past WikiProject Christianity discussions. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the {{archivebox}} template to this page. You should see the archive now. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Infobox church2}}
Just wanted to bring to the attention of project members the template "{{Infobox church2}}" which may be used in articles about churches. The infobox is intended to provide general information about churches; for articles dealing with the architecture of church buildings, "{{Infobox religious building}}" should be used instead.
Comments are welcome on the template's talk page on how it may be improved. (Also, in case you're wondering, there is a proposal to have "{{Infobox church}}", which is redundant, deleted so that "{{Infobox church2}}" can be given that name.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Poem of the Man God
Currently, there is one article for the Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta and one article for her. However, most of the body of the biography describes the work. I feel the pages should be combined because edits on one page do not transfer to the other. (Or the biography page should not include so much about the work and reactions to it.) There is a controversy as to the Catholic Church's historical and current acceptance of the work, and I feel changes made should be reflected whether a reader searched for the author or the work itself. I defer to your expertise while I continue to research the topic. Thank you. Carinamc (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are right that the "biographical part" and the publication controversy have overlaps in the pages and should probably be merged - something I was planning on doing anyway. But the overview of the book itself probably deserves a page for the book. I was/am going to add more about the book chapters, so those can not easily go into the "author's page". So I think both pages are needed, but the amount of the overlap should be reduced - and I will get to that soon I hope. As for the Church position, I think their position is "very clear" in that they decided to remain unclear on the topic while Pope John Paul II was in office. However, according to a new editorial in the London Times [2] the new Pope Benedict seems to have started to keep the wordprocessors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith busy by issuing letters about apparitions. So we shall wait and see what develops in the next 6 to 12 months as Cardinal William Levada types away new letters. He already typed a letter against Vassula Ryden, reversing a previous letter, if you look at that page. But he seems to be going after the living first, so we will just have to wait and see what he will do next. History2007 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Judaeo-Christian Web sites
I am giving you all a list of the Judaeo - Christian Web sites that I have collected over the years. Please feel free to disperse them where you feel they will do the most good. However, I strongly caution against using those sites to promote antichristian and or anti-Catholic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.237 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What to believe
The whole concept of Agnosticism and Atheism is a absolute waste not only in human effort but also in time in the same way as the people who say that Climate Change is not happening or is not real. The word "belief" should be completely deleted from our language because belief is a "choice" and based on the following grounds. Human beings should be able to answer 3 (Trinity) simple questions before they are entitled to talk about anything that concerns belief especially in the "anti" sense of the word;
- Where did the big bang come from? see Finite 3D Universe in Infinite space
- Where do we come from? (Birth)
- Where do we go once we die? (Reincarnation)
it just proves how arrogant (arrogance), naive and judgemental we are as people, everyone walks around thinking and talking as if they were looking for some kind of "foodtopia" as depicted in the childrens film Antz. The saying "wake up" accurately describes the state of peoples minds here, to wake-up would be from a state of sleep. To be politically correct (Political correctness), everything should be taken on face value or until it is "dis-proven" in the same way as one is "innocent until proven quilty" (Criminal law).
To say that one does not "believe" in something which is "judgemental" is the same as saying one is (Guilty until proven innocent). Once having Considered these points it is clear that the people who are closest to the "truth" or the (fact) to these 3 questions are the ones who actually do believe in something, especially to a pro belief system that claims to be "the" truth, the way and the life ("quote by Jesus Christ") for an individual human being.
Our world and its systems are governed and ruled by everything that are a sum total of averages, for example, average intelligence, price, population growth, numbers, voters, rainfall, temperature, height etc, so it stands to reason that when "pro" belief systems are concerned one should choose a system that is accepted by general concensus or the "average" (in the majority) person. Another selection guide for choosing a pro-belief system would be to choose from a "system" that already governs and rules our everyday lives, one which bases its own guidelines (dogma) to a pro-belief system which it follows eg, the legal system Law, government, Christianity, parliament or congress), time counting AD (Anno Domini) etc.
The only pro-belief system that would qualify for a person to follow is the one that promotes "constructivity" (positivity), "love", forgiveness and the exercise of "freedom of speech" free will (freedom), democracy and life after death, such pro-belief systems alrady exist and they are called Christianity or Judaism[3].
For instance, 33% (majority) of the world population is "Christian" [4] democracy for instance is built on the beliefs of (Truth and Reality) Christianity, both Christianity and Judaism are the wings from the same bird. Only a system that offers all these things that have any merit or legitimacy and value are worthy of a "belief", Christianity as a pro belief system would be the "awakening" of the sleeper (Agnostic or Atheist) if they chose to accept it.
Famous quote by Albert Einstein, “…religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” – Albert Eintein, Einstein- A Centenary Volume, edited by A.P. French, p.305.
The most important inventions i.e, "Laws" and discoveries of all time have come from people who have believed in God and Jesus Christ, [5] so who are we the otherwise "amebae" [6] to argue, right?. The bottom line is my friends, that the "best" brains of all time have believed in God and his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible (Gods word)! so the question is what is the value of Agnostisim or Atheism as an "intelligent" argument?, so the answer has to be "Not much" Fact idiot (TM) 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
GOD SAYS TO MAN
- in Psalm 32:8, I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go I will guide, thee with mine eye.
- Psa 32:9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.
- Psa 32:10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about.
- Psa 32:11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, a ye that are upright.
Article added by Fairdeal08 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)