→Biblical Christianity: clarify |
Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
:::Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. '''Number one:''' though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. '''Number two:''' it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) '''Number three:''' this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing ''elaboration'' to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. '''Number four:''' this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. '''Number five:''' I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very ''broadly'' or ''nominally'' many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. [[User:Gabby Merger|Gabby Merger]] ([[User talk:Gabby Merger|talk]]) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
:::Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. '''Number one:''' though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. '''Number two:''' it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) '''Number three:''' this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing ''elaboration'' to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. '''Number four:''' this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. '''Number five:''' I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very ''broadly'' or ''nominally'' many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. [[User:Gabby Merger|Gabby Merger]] ([[User talk:Gabby Merger|talk]]) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::All Christian groups base their beliefs—including celebrations they deem ''acceptable''—on their '''interpretations''' of ''the Bible''. (For example, it could be argued that the use of ''wedding rings'' is an ''unbiblical'' and ''pagan'' custom, but this supposedly 'unbiblical' custom is happily observed by JWs along with other Christian groups.) Whether any particular group has interpretations that differ from the intepretations of another group (in this case, JWs) in no way means that those other groups are automatically 'unbiblical'. The use of 'Biblical Christianity' in the manner suggested is not only unnecessary (and the capitalisation is not supported by Wikipedia Manual of Style), but is also biased (specifically, Gabby Merger is making ''a priori'' assertions that attempt to uniquely equate the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses with the ill-defined term, ''biblical Christianity''). Similarly, the alternative suggestion of 'true Christianity' is also biased, and probably even worse.--[[User:Jeffro77|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77|talk]]) 06:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
::::All Christian groups base their beliefs—including celebrations they deem ''acceptable''—on their '''interpretations''' of ''the Bible''. (For example, it could be argued that the use of ''wedding rings'' is an ''unbiblical'' and ''pagan'' custom, but this supposedly 'unbiblical' custom is happily observed by JWs along with other Christian groups.) Whether any particular group has interpretations that differ from the intepretations of another group (in this case, JWs) in no way means that those other groups are automatically 'unbiblical'. The use of 'Biblical Christianity' in the manner suggested is not only unnecessary (and the capitalisation is not supported by Wikipedia Manual of Style), but is also biased (specifically, Gabby Merger is making ''a priori'' assertions that attempt to uniquely equate the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses with the ill-defined term, ''biblical Christianity''). Similarly, the alternative suggestion of 'true Christianity' is also biased, and probably even worse.--[[User:Jeffro77|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77|talk]]) 06:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Jeffro, what you're failing to understand is that the point made was how ''Jehovah's Witnesses'' see it, per the context of the sentence. They deem the "pagan holidays" situation as against not just "Christianity" in the broad sense of how it's nominally used many ways, but more specifically and clearly "true" or "biblical" Christianity. As I said, even the other editor Grranbahr conceded the point, and even said that "true" would be better in a way. As I said to BlackCab, if consensus truly builds against this minor good-faith (and sourced) elaboration, of course I'll respect that. But I am reverting you, Jeffro, well after 24 hours, given that your argument does not really stand or hold well against an accurate elaboration, per context, and per JW's own writings on the matter. [[User:Gabby Merger|Gabby Merger]] ([[User talk:Gabby Merger|talk]]) 07:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:09, 8 February 2014
Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Freemasonry
Info on the relationship with freemasonry should be given. --41.151.113.87 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what sources? ChercheTrouve (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
1. Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. should be changed too "... and are sometimes shunned...."
2. although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible should be omitted (There are many errors in this book and it should not be used as a source)
3. Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications. should be omitted (There are baptized witnesses who openly criticize what they feel is wrong, they are not shunned nor discouraged)
4. Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. should be omitted. Personal opinions and private ideas can be shared
5. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, but that God is the final judge. should be changed to "... teach that they...." only should be omitted this has never been taught
6. Jehovah's Witnesses are perhaps best known for their efforts to spread their beliefs should be changed to "...efforts to spread the word of the Bible"
7. Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group. should be changed to ".... is encouraged to become baptized...."
8. Witnesses are told they are under a biblical command to engage in public preaching. "....are encouraged because of biblical command to engage...."
9. They are instructed to devote as much time as possible to their ministry and are required to submit an individual monthly "Field Service Report". should be changed to "They are encouraged to devote as much time as they have or feel to their ministry....." I asked this specific question and was told that the time you devote is completely up to you and how much time you feel is necessary
10. ....members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned. should be omitted I openly disagree all the time and I am not shunned, I am applauded for being a critical thinker
11. Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization".[307][308][309][310] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[311][312] and would "cause division".[313] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" and "mentally diseased".[314][315][316] should be omitted I openly question, I am applauded for my independent thinking, I openly disagree no one condemns me
Sources: I have been studying with this sect for 2 years now, and attending their meetings regularly, the above information I questioned the witnesses about. Please contact me if you need more sources, don't reject me readily I do believe in the accuracy of Wikipedia and depend on it at times, I have been donating money since last year to keep it up ad free so please consider my plea. Some of the the books published about Jehovah's Witnesses are biased, and the most recent one that I know of was written in 2002, over 10 years ago, I am pondering on publishing a newer book.
Rivlyb (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
1. The existing wording is correct. The process of "formally" leaving is to write a letter of disassociation. The Watchtower has explicitly stated that a person who does this is to be treated the same as a disfellowshipped person.
2. Holden's book qualifies as a reliable source. I have found only a couple of minor errors in the book, and neither are cited at this article.
3. The wording is correct and based on a RS. A JW who openly criticized teachings would be reprimanded and, if they persisted, disfellowshipped for apostasy.
4. The wording is correct and based on the Watch Tower Society's own literature as well as other RS.
5. The wording is correct. I'll provide a source later. The word "only" is used several times in the cited sources, directly from WTS publications.
6. Their best-known piece of literature, which they endeavour to share, is The Watchtower, which contains their beliefs.
7. The wording is correct. "Encouraged to" is JW jargon.
8. Ditto. Watchtower literature has repeatedly used the word "command" in relation to public ministry.
9. Definitely an instruction. The existing wording is correct.
10. See No.3 above. You say in your comments you are just "studying" with the Witnesses, hence presumably not baptised. Only baptised JWs can be disfellowshipped and shunned. JWs do allow a certain amount of latitude for prospective JWs to demonstrate their critical thinking and freedom of expression. This changes post-baptism.
11. The statements are correct and based on multiple RS. BlackCab (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- 12: The teachings of JWs are all in accordance to the Bible. The difference between JWs and other Christians is that they encourage regular intake of Bible knowledge and to live up to Jehovah's standard to the best of one's ability, they like to follow the bible standards to the Tee and their best. And of course, the fact that there is a God whose name is Jehovah, which needs to be sanctified and well known. That Jesus is his son, and not God himself. The fact that there is no eternal damnation, because a God who is loving and merciful would never create a dark place for his own children to suffer in. God does not incite fear and demand devotion. He gives free-will. If one chooses not to follow, he will not receive the chance to live on this earth forever. He is not a puppeteer. He treats us like he treats his angels. He wants us to believe in him, and to obey him (live up to his standard.) His standards are not hard to follow, if understood and studied well, one will realise they are all in-built anyway.
- Baptised/unbaptised witnessed are encouraged to be honest about their short-comings so that they can get help and counsel from elders of the congregation. They are not shunned. Shunned is a very strong word. Nobody is unwelcome at a meeting. They keep a keen eye on how a person repents, how they make amends and how they bounce back. There is no wrong in talking about personal views. They encourage baptised or unbaptised witnesses to challenge and question because JWs do believe, practice and prove the Bible right. That's why they call it the truth. The truth can never be wrong. They encourage discussions on various topics, no matter who. A disfellowshipped witness is allowed to attend meetings, is allowed to raise their hand to answer questions, but only in time are their answers taken. This practice encourages them to be persistent and never lose hope and work harder.
- Yes they do say that in the end it is Jehovah who will be the final judge, they include themselves in the notion that only Jehovah knows what lies in whose heart. No witness/non-witness can mask that from him. Even they are susceptible to losing eternal life. Being an official JW does not guarantee eternal life. It only adds on to one's spiritual effort and life. How they make use of it, or allow themselves to be used for God's work, is up to them. ---
Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013
Well I would like to say that the location of the J.W headquarters changed last year. The beliefs written are not all correct. Which is a really big deal. All the articles listed at the bottom are over the top and unnecessary for the fact you can get articles for free from their official website, therefore over-complicating the information.
Christine Elena Kirk (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your claim about the headquarters is incorrect. The new headquarters in upstate New York is still under construction, and the Watch Tower Society has only indicated the future move in 2017.
- The existence of the official website does not negate the suitability of having a Wikipedia article on the subject, and the official website can hardly be considered to be a neutral source. You should probably also read Wikipedia's standards about reliable sources.
- Rather than claiming that the "beliefs written are not all correct", it would be helpful if you could be specific about which information you believe to be incorrect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Bible prophecy
User:Undentman, in this edit, requested: 'Under "Failed Predictions", in the first sentence, please change "and has" to "and, through Bible prophecy, has"." The suggested wording is not entirely true. The article at that point cites the 15 July 1960 Watchtower which claims that "in 1942 the faithful and discreet slave guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up ... Once again the faithful and discreet slave has been tipped off ahead of time for the guidance of all lovers of God". Watch Tower Society publications have repeatedly claimed that God "revealed" matters to the JW leadership. The current wording is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Biblical Christianity
I was reverted when removing "Biblical" ("or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Biblical Christianity") from the lead section, a word recently added to the article. My reason for reverting was I've not heard about unbiblical Christianity, and the addition either way was redundant. It was left a notice on my talkpage, with claims of being disrespectful for using "redundant", as it was added to be contrary to nominal Christianity. I won't start an edit war about nothing, so leave it up to other to revert the added word once again.
To be nitpicking about the topic: JW does actually think they got the only true kind of Christianity, so if adding a descriptive adjective according to their believes, it may should have been "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as it is all about their consideration. True Christianity could also be a contrary description to nominal Christianity. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Grranbahr, I appreciate your response on your own talk page about this. (If consensus on here goes one way, of course I respect it, though I may not necessarily agree per se.) My points were basically these: I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. You and BlackCab. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point about nominal "Christianity" that may even claim NOT go by the Bible all that much, by their own admission, and also the point too regarding the edit itself...of wiki and "no own".
- Frankly, speaking. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. As even you seem to be conceding, in a way. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". And that's how it came across, honestly. No disrespect intended.
- That mod is sourced and true. And just bit more clear. So? JWs don’t consider it compatible more specifically with BIBLICAL Christianity. Not just broad or nominal so-called "Christianity".
- Yes, your suggestion about the term "true Christianity" in the context of what JWs themselves consider to be "not compatible with". But that is also what they consider "Biblical" Christianity.
- Again, though, the term "Christianity" for a while now has been too broad or general...or nominal...and arguably not clear or precise enough, in the given context, as even you seem to admit. So arguably no need to remove that correct minor elab...in that particular sentence and drift. this is a wiki....the edit was good-faith and valid....
- Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves. Some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. It was not redundant necessarily, per context, but just more clear...as, again, not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical". But many times just nominal or general. By your own admission. This is a wiki. No one owns the article. And my concern too was that removing valid good-faith (and sourced) minor modifications or elaborations because of "don't like" or maybe little misunderstanding of the point made, which was a contextually valid point in reality...was not necessary. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The phrase "Biblical Christianity" (ignoring the incorrect capitalisation of "biblical") is meaningless here and the addition of the word "biblical" does nothing to add information. The JWs consider Christmas, Easter etc to be incompatible with Christianity, period. BlackCab (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. Number one: though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. Number two: it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) Number three: this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing elaboration to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. Number four: this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. Number five: I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- All Christian groups base their beliefs—including celebrations they deem acceptable—on their interpretations of the Bible. (For example, it could be argued that the use of wedding rings is an unbiblical and pagan custom, but this supposedly 'unbiblical' custom is happily observed by JWs along with other Christian groups.) Whether any particular group has interpretations that differ from the intepretations of another group (in this case, JWs) in no way means that those other groups are automatically 'unbiblical'. The use of 'Biblical Christianity' in the manner suggested is not only unnecessary (and the capitalisation is not supported by Wikipedia Manual of Style), but is also biased (specifically, Gabby Merger is making a priori assertions that attempt to uniquely equate the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses with the ill-defined term, biblical Christianity). Similarly, the alternative suggestion of 'true Christianity' is also biased, and probably even worse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. Number one: though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. Number two: it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) Number three: this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing elaboration to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. Number four: this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. Number five: I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Jeffro, what you're failing to understand is that the point made was how Jehovah's Witnesses see it, per the context of the sentence. They deem the "pagan holidays" situation as against not just "Christianity" in the broad sense of how it's nominally used many ways, but more specifically and clearly "true" or "biblical" Christianity. As I said, even the other editor Grranbahr conceded the point, and even said that "true" would be better in a way. As I said to BlackCab, if consensus truly builds against this minor good-faith (and sourced) elaboration, of course I'll respect that. But I am reverting you, Jeffro, well after 24 hours, given that your argument does not really stand or hold well against an accurate elaboration, per context, and per JW's own writings on the matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)