Talk:Christianity

Archives

Archived discussions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Origins of Christianity

This is being reverted because its said that is being presented as fact. But it IS fact. Name some reputable scholarship which would deny the below connections in the origin and development of what became Christianity. I suggest you click on each link of the mystery cults listed along with their esoteric teachings, all of which have been shown to have contributed to the doctrines found in Christianity. Each section on Wiki has a section with references making this point. Its fair to mention each one here. My approach was to mention them all as being roots of the Christian religion's origins. These are statments of facts according to modern scholarship on the questions. Again what we see is simply reverting all my work because its secular in nature and not from a Christian point of view (note its not anti-Christian). 64.121.40.153 10:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is not the consensus about origins of Christianity. At best, as I said before, it is one theory, though how widely it is held today is another matter. But you worded it as it would be factual and uncontroversial, e.g. "the major Christian doctrines emerged ..." - no "may have emerged", no "scholars argue" etc. That is clearly against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also, calling those that disagree with your edits names does not help anyone here. Str1977 10:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the dominant theory that the majority hold to as factual. Infact, I do not know one reputable scholar who would deny these xian precursors. However, if your issues are that minor, i.e. only language such as "may," then why not make those word choice adjustments as you suggest here, instead of reverting the whole section, and getting rid of everything? As it stands now, the supresion of secular thought, and the current language--ironically lacking the very same neutral language regarding Jesus that you say makes my contribution NPOV, is what we have now, and thus is NPOV. FOr example, my inclusion of the word "purported" in "centered on the stories it teaches about the purported life, and actions of Jesus....is reverted. By your own logic, if you're consistent, is POV. Surely you are aware of that the Xian teaching about the life and actions of Jesus are highly doubtful as historical, and thus should be qualified with appropriate language accordingly. But, I guess this is pro-Christian so we see the double standard being enforced. 64.121.40.153 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that it is the dominant theory, at least not this extreme version you included. As for my issues, they are not only wording and NPOV, as I don't think your version is accurate at all. But if I suppose that for a moment, there are at least wording issues. "Purported" on the other hand is one of them weasel words, which seem neutral but in fact imply that what is being said is not only not necessarily true but in fact false. Another way to make the first sentence NPOV would be an addition like "as recounted in the New Testament". We had this before but it somehow got lost down the line. I will reinsert it now. As for your qualifications on the New Testament: I am well aware of the issue, but speaking as a historian, I cannot agree with on your conclusions that the NT is more doubtful than many other historical sources. Of course, we have do Quellenkritik and consider alternative sources as well, but the NT's books are still the most reliable sources on that complex. Str1977 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the word "purported", and had problems with it. Also, I find it illogical to imply that just because the word "Christians" first appears in Acts 11:26, Christianity first appeared then. People, things, and concepts exist before they are given names. AnnH ^(talk) 11:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 is absolutely correct; the theory that "mystery religions" were the roots of Christian doctrines is far from being a dominant theory. Were they an influence? Probably. But they were not nearly as important as the proposed edit implies. There is also no "pro-Christian" standard being applied; the proposed changes are wholly inaccurate, pure and simple. KHM03 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree its not logical regarding the quoting of Acts for when the word "Christians" first appears. I didnt add that, it was part of the original article, which I left unchanged. I've removed that in my most recent edit that restores the earlier information while addressing the use of language that states it as a fact, now changed to "believed to be by some scholars," "influenced," etc. Let the reader go to those links and learn from themselves these undisputed elements in the formation of the origin in Christianities teachings. To supress this can only be an example of an anti-historical stance. Btw, The NT is a book of faith and not a reliable historical source. 64.121.40.153 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite the changes of language my work is simply reverted on the pretext of POV. I wonder what next will be the rationale to advance a purely religious perspective, suppressing valuable understandings from secular scholarship regarding the origins of this religion. It appears too tabboo to entertain such knowlege for if followers of the faith understand the historical basis for their beliefs it my harm their faith? This type of POV pushing that suppresses knowlege is in keeping with the type of religious intolerance we seen in history, but is no place for an encylopedia. 64.121.40.153 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim POV. I claimed unsourced accusations and wiggle words, both of which are significantly different from POV. Jpers36 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

64.121.40.153, your recent edit summary claimed "rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page"...but there was no vandalism and no agreed changes on the talk page. Please watch your summaries for accuracy. Thanks...KHM03 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiping out work of agreed changes from the talk page, without justification or any participatin on the talk page, despite notice, and over and over is a vandalism. My summary is accurate. 64.121.40.153 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no "agreed changes"; Jpers36 acted appropriately. Please be more accurate in your edit summaries. Thanks...KHM03 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick review reveals that Str1977, AnnH, and myself all opposed your proposed changes, and only you supported them. Please be more accurate. Thanks...KHM03 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If the objection stated here was one of lanugage use, and I make the changes addressing the objected language, then this constitutes an agreement I was willing to make. I see no ohter objections stated, so as I could remedy those or discuss them. Therefore the changes I effected were the results of the ostensive agreement from this page. Your quick review is perhaps too quick. My comments are accurate. If not please be specific with other problems that have been stated which have escaped my attention. 64.121.40.153 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The objections were concerning your theory that Christian doctrine came from mystery religions. There was no agreement regarding the addition of your theory; you added it anyway and claimed agreement. There was / is no agreement. It was the content of your proposal which was opposed, not merely the wording. If you wish to add that theory, obviously, gain consensus. Thanks...KHM03 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ANON, are you representing that there are similarities between Christianity and other groups, or that the others were the "ancestor/father" of Christianity. I can support the Greek/Plato connection for early Christain beliefs, but I would strongly resistant that Christianity was the product of the others. Also, what are you defining as Christianity? Is that 4th century Christianity or that taught by Christ? I see a distinction between the two; without any intended offense to our traditional Christians. Storm Rider 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the scholarship clearly backs up my contentions that the mystery cults were the forerunners of the early Christians. This information is suppressed by Christians--but it is true nonetheless. And, I did include references. The “weasle words” (if I understand the the term) were the very things that were said to be required to make my inclusion acceptable and NPOV. Ironic that now they are used to suppress it, yet again. Please tell me which “weasle words” you object to and we can fix them.

About citing sources---I did. Notice that each of the mytery cults I listed links to Wiki, and each of the respective articles substanciates the point. But, I’ll list them here:

Therapeutae--its stated a fact on the Wiki article as the “Forerunners of early Christian monastic orders.” This is not disputed. Next, the Essenes: “The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of, and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene.” Enough said. The Gnostics: This one needs some wiggle words. From the linked Wiki article: “The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism; yet others think it derives from Jesus, and is a development of his teaching that is arguably as valid as the orthodox one. Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed.: Next, Dionysus: According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977) and the American scholar Camille Paglia, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” and the wiki page itself, this mystery cult is likewise linked. Infact Paglia writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity, and I quote, “Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25.

I hope these suffice as adequate sourced material. Somehow I know no matter what I do, prove, or change, the Christian slant will supress all secular scohlarship as POV if it counters their religious conception which is ahistorical at its core. To shed too much light on historical context and material basis for a belief system is to demysify it and bring understanding for how these ideas were formed. Such is counter to the devine, inspired nature that Christian faith depends on--thus its supressed and evidence of POV pushing. 64.121.40.153 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I left out the last mystery cult, Mithranism. This can be found both in Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, and Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), which states that Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. However, Larson believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. And that Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

“The resemblances between the two churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). From their common Zoroastrian sources, Mithraism first held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions, and inhabited a body upon birth. Life then becomes a great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, the children of light versus the children of darkness (identical to Pythagoreanism). All souls were to be judged by Mithra (represented as a bull) with the Elect going to heaven, and the earthly and evil being annihilated in a great battle. Mithraism divided the human race into three classes: the spiritual Elect, the wicked, and those who try to be good but can't seem to overcome evil. The Elect go straight to heaven, while the good-intentioned wait until judgment to be resurrected, where the wicked will be destroyed. Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations. Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in the same type of sacrament, bread and wine. Mithra was born in a cave; a cave is likewise the setting for the nativity of Jesus in the widely-read and influential Gospel of James, which though not canonical is the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary and claiming her continuing virginity. Both nativities were celebrated on December 25th, and each savior was visited by shepherds with gifts. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, despite early Christianity observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries. Many have noted that the title of Pope is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism. Both Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, with Christianity adopting millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth.” (Cumont, 191) Both religions placed a flood at the beginning of history, and both believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead after the final conflagration of the world. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184). When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190). Mitrha was perceived as the the persian savior, whose cult was the leading rival of Christianity in Rome, and was more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the "Christian" era. In 307 A.D. the emperor officially designated Mithra "protector of the Empire."1

That fact that Christians appeared to have copied many details of the Mithraic mystery-religion, was was explained by Christians with the argument that the devil had anticipated the true faith by imitating it before Christ's birth. Some resemblance between Christianity and Mithraism were so close that even St. Augustine declared the priests of Mithra worshiped the same deity as they did.2 Mithra was born on the 25th of December, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birthday of Christ.3 Some said Mithra sprang from an incestuous union between the sun god and his own mother, just as Jesus, who was God, was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female Rock, the petra genetix, fertilized by the Heavenly Father's phallic lightning.4 Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by magi who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock.5 Mithra performed the usual assortments of miracles raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra, he carried the keys of the kingdom of heaven6 His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter), when the sun rises toward its apogee. Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross.7 This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian's seven sacraments. 8 It was called mized, Latin missa, English mass. Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. He was withdrawn from it and said to live again.9 Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, anti-female religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only. 10 Women were to enter Mithraic temples.11 The women of Mithraic families had nothing to do with the men's cult, but attended services of the Great Mother in their own temples of Isis, Diana, or Juno.12 To eliminate the female principle from their creation myth, Mithraists replaced the Mother of All Living in the primal garden of paradise (Pairidaeza) with the named Sole Ceated. Instead of Eve, this bull was the partner of the first man. All creatures were born from the bull's blood. Yet the bull's birth-giving was oddly female-imitative. The animal was castrated and sacrificed, and its blood was delivered to the moon for magical fructification, the moon being the source of woman's magic lunar "blood of life" that produced real children on earth.13 Persians have been called the Puritans of the heathen world. They developed Mithraism out of an earlier Aryan religion that was not so puritanical or so exclusively male-oriented.14 Mithra seems to have been the Indo-Iranian sun god Mitra, or Mitravaruna, one of the twelve zodiacal sons of the of the Infinity-goddess Aditi. Another of Aditi's sons was Aryaman, eponymous ancestor of "Aryans," whom the Persians transformed into Ahriman, the Great Serpent of Darkness, Mithra's enemy.15 Early on, there seems to have been a feminine Mithra. Herdotus said the the Persians used to have a sky-goddess Mitra, the same as Mylitta, Assyria's Great Mother. 16 Lydian combined Mithra with his archaic spouse Anahita an androgynous Mithra-Anahita, identified with Sabazious-Anaitis, the Serpent and Dove of Anatolian mystery cults.17 Anahita was the Mother of Waters, traditional spouse of the solar god whom she bore, loved and swallowed up. She was identified with the Anatlian Great Goddess Ma. Mithra was naturally coupled with her, as her opposite, a spirit of fire, light and the sun.18 Her "element', water overwhelmed the world in the primordial flood, when one man built an ark and saved himself, together with his cattle, according to Mithraic myth19 The story seems to have been based on the Hindu Flood of Manu, transmitted through Persia and Babylonian scriptures to appear in late, rather corrupt version in the Old Testament. What began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. The great battle between the forces of light and darkness in the Last Days would destroy the earth with its upheavals and burnings. Virtuous ones who fallowed the teachings of the Mithraic priesthood would join the spirits of light and be saved. Sinful ones who followed other teachings would be cast into hell with Ahriman and the fallen angels. The Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of this Persian eschatology, adopted by Semitic eremites and sun-cultists like the Essenes, and by the Roman military men who thought the rigid discipline and the vivid battle-imagery of Mithraism appropriate for warriors. Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became patron of Roman armies. 20 After extensive contact with Mithraism, Christians also began to describe themselves as soldiers for Christ; to call their savior light of the World. Helios the Rising Sun, and Sun of Righteousness; to celebrate their feats on Sun-day rather than the Jewish Sabbath; to claim their savior's death was marked by an eclipse of the sun; and to adopt the seven Mithratic sacraments. Like Mithraists, Christians practiced baptism to ascend after death through the planetary spheres to the highest heaven, while the wicked (anabaptized) would be dragged down to darkness.21 Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. 22 Christian bishops Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope.34 Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years.24 The mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Saviors birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. 25 It is probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in the same way. However, the similiarities were an embarrassment, and differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian seems to have feared the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity the most, demonizing Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil. References 1. Legge 2. 271; Angus, 168 2. Reiach, 73 3. J.H. Smith, D.C.P., 146; Campbell, M.I.,33 4. de Riencourt, 135. 5. H. Smith, D.C.P., 146; Campbell, M.M., 131. 6. H Smith, 129 7. Hooke, S.P.,89; Cumont,M.M.,160. 8. James,250. 9. H,Smith, 130,201 10. Legge 2, 261. 11.Lederer.36. 12 Angus, 205. 13. Campbell, Oc.M., 204 14. Knight, D.W.P., 63. 15 O'Flaherty, 339. 16. Larousse, 314 17. Cumont,M.M., 17. 18. Cumont, O.R.R.P.,54,65. 19. Cumont, M.M., 138 20. Cumont, M.M., 87-89. 21. Cumont,M.M., 144-45. 22. J.H.Smith, D.C.P., 146 23. H. Smith, 252. 24. Cumont, O.R.R.P., 154. 25. Brewter,55

64.121.40.153 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Giovanni

Anon user (Giovanni)is correct in my view. On what basis are this contributions now being supressed? He has met earlier objections, it seems to me. Consensus might not be possible here as a result of the heavily pro-Christian editors here, but what matters is consensus in the secular academic world, which Giovanni's inclusions reflect. If your lack of consensus is based on legitimate objections, please state them. Otherwise, I vote that this souced knowlege no longer be supressed. 69.107.7.138 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My first objection is minor, namely that the early Christians did not use the "Hebrew Bible," they almost exclusively used the Greek Septuagint. The Jews did too, until they first tried a couple other Greek translations, then finally managed to revive widespread use of a Hebrew Bible. My next object to the paragraph quoted at the top of this section is the idea that a church hierarchy eventually emerged, and pulled together various ideas in order to broaden Christianity's appeal. It is well known that the basic church structure was established in the first century and maintained as Christianity expanded. Cumont's work on Mithraism is nearly 100 years old; today it seems more likely that many of Mithraism's features actually postdate Christianity's, making it more likely that it was Mithraism that borrowed from Christianity. Further, as I've already pointed out in Talk:Mithraism, many of the alleged similarities listed at that article are simply not true of Christianity at all; an example is the suggestion that Christianity started out being anti-female or even exclusively male. Many of the saints and martyrs from the early period, were women, including evangelists. Wesley \

It would greatly facility discussion if all the anon users would use registered usernames, so that we can address you by name rather than number. (For instance, which anon user is "Giovanni", and how do you know which IP Giovanni used, User:69.107.7.138? I honestly can't tell who you think is correct.) It would also help if you would assume good faith and discuss the edits themselves, not your fellow editors. Wesley 04:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the entry to address all of your points, Wesley. Let me know if you have any other objections. Btw, Giovanni lists his name above and is .40.153 My name is Mika.

"With an estimated 2.3 billion adherents, Christianity is arguably the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history, specifically to Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which many Christians call the Old Testament.Template:Fn The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint. Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam (see Judeo-Christo-Islamic). While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are beleived to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and perhaps Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract follower. In doing so many of these same mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed in often a literal interpretation. The early church was called "catholic", which means universal. It claimed to be for all, and combined many of the elements of its forrunners: Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and various mystery teachings. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas explains the often complicated and confusing similarities Christian doctrine share with a variety of pagan teachings." updated 69.107.7.138 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

69.107.7.138 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

Thank you for addressing those, Mika. Another general concern that I think others have already raised is the use of passive voice to express opinions or speculation, without attributing that speculation to anyone. Not every such sentence needs a full footnote to a book and page number, but it should at least say that "some/many/most scholars/critics/Christians/whoever think that..." in places that now say things like "...doctrines are believed..." for instance. Using passive voice to avoid attributing an idea or opinion to anyone at all is one example of "weasel words," something that can be hard to avoid. But atributing the idea, and in general using active voice instead of passive, is a good way to strengthen any article. Other parts of the above are clearly speculation, but speculation by whom? For instance, "it is fairly probably that..." and the final line saying that the potpourri of ideas explains the confusion etc. Other theories also explain the confusion, so why list only this one without attributing it to anyone in general or in particular? Wesley \

Regarding the word "catholic," you have the right definition, but not necessarily the right conclusion drawn from the literal definition. At least some early fathers used the word "catholic" to describe the faith or set of doctrines that they taught, particularly Irenaeus, and to differentiate them from the hodge-podge of various other religions that bore no more similarity to Christianity than to use some of the same names. Wesley \

Regarding the much later section about the list of persecutions, it's particularly important to note that the persecution of pagans and Jews was a two-way street for quite a while, especially in Alexandria. The pagans also had a brief 'revival' during the reign of Justinian the Apostate during which he tried to favor both pagans and Jews over Christians. If a detailed list of such is necessary, it should include both directions; such detail might be better in a History of Christianity or other such sub-article though. Wesley \

Again about Mithraism, I believe current thinking place their texts no earlier than mid second century, while the gospels and other Christian stories of Christ's birth etc. date no later than the end of the first century. Therefore it's more likely that Mithraism borrowed some ideas from Christianity, if any borrowing between them took place at all. Regarding gnosticism, it's at least as likely that gnosticism borrowed a few Christian names to attach to its aeons without really changing its ideas, as Christianity borrowed from gnosticism. Most 'gnostic Christians' tried to reject Judaism's influence, strongly suggesting that they were'nt well connected or descended from any of Jesus' Jewish followers.

Wesley 05:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mika and Wesley for making this better. And, thanks everyone else for not instantly reverting but allowing this to be improved. We are making progress. In light of Wesley's comments regarding the current thinking of Mithraism, I have made further changes. The current text change now reads:

"There is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris."

I agree with your comments about use of passive voice vs an active voice with attribution. I'll go back and see what I can do to correct this and I hope others can continue to improve this section as well.

I did not make the changes to the Persecution section below, but your comments make sense to me. Maybe someone else can work on that section.

64.121.40.153 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I have been reading various articles on Dionysus, Osiris, and Mithraism as it relates to Christianity for most of the day. My conclusion is that this article will turn into a rather lenthy discussion with references to the respective historians and their views on the evolution of Christianity. Based upon what I have read it certainly is not the prevailing thought of "scholars" that these three "religions" were the forefather of Christianity. To swallow that pill, the underlying premise is that Jesus was simply a fabrication, a melding of different religions of the day; however, the individual was not historical. That is the prevailing thought of several of the scholars cited above. Does it belong in the article? YES. However, it must be balanced with all of the scholars who oppose this research. It will be a long article, a little on the dry for most, but it will be accurate. Storm Rider 10:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Strom Rider. I'd be interested to see a reputable published scholar that discounts these attributed influences of early Christianity. I find it to be the prevailing thought among secular scholarship on the question, as cited. I agree that it raises questions about the stories of Jesus as described in the Bible. But, the bible is a book of faith and so the historical Jesus is probably quite different than the Christian one which incorporates myths that are part of the religious faith and consitent with its origins as described. No disrespect intended, ofcourse. However, this issue of the historcity of Jesus need not be mentioned here, since the title says Jesus "according to the New Testiment" which is a book of faith. Moreover, there are already many articles devoted to this issue alone: Historicity of Jesus, and Historical Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus, and Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Jesus-Myth. 64.121.40.153 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

That, Giovanni, is one of the problems often encountered in such discussions. YOu say the Bible is a book of faith, and you are right: it is. But it is also a historical work in two senses:

1) it gives the history of the people of Israel (of course seen from their perspective and through the lens of faith - and not all books of the Bible are concerned with history)

2) it is a historical source just like other sources. Of course we need to do Quellenkitik but I object to any singeling out of the Biblöe as something different or inferior.

Now, regarding the real Jesus (I mean the one that lived and preached in the 1st century) it is reasonable to look at the sources avaiable. We will get at a "historical Jesus" - this is not identical with the "real Jesus", as the historical craft will not necesarily answer all questions and tell as anything we'd like to know, but at least it will provide a solid basis. The nEw Testament happens to be the best source for the where, when and what of Jesus. I object to dismissing the NT as a sources only to fuill the "void" with speculation.

I not with gladnesss, Giovanni, that you intend no disrespect and I believe you. I just wanted to point this out. I agree, that the issues of the "historical Jesus" need not be discussed in our context. Str1977 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made further changes to improve the section, based on Wesley's helpful comments. In particular, notice that the Catholic word use is removed, and some sections reworded. I'm not sure about the last sentence I reworked to wrap it up: "Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery." The idea im trying to communicate in the sentence is that the origins are complex and are often not understood or known, even among practioners. Ofcourse, I want to do it with NPOV language. The section in whole as it currently stands for further scrutiny:

"With an estimated 2.3 billion adherents, Christianity is arguably the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history, specifically to Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which many Christians call the Old Testament.1 The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint. Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam (see Judeo-Christo-Islamic). While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are beleived to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract followers. In doing so many of these mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed with often a literal interpretation. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery." 64.121.40.153 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I disagree with the entire "mystery religion" thing. Aside from the fact that it's inaccurate (reason enough to not include it), it's unsourced. Clement & Origen commenting on Greek philosophy is not an endorsement on their part of the "mystery religion" theory...that's a separate school of thought. Paglia and Larson? If we're going to make this kind of claim, if it is true and supported by "most scholarship" (also completely untrue...and unsourced), surely there are dozens of mainstream historians we could cite. Let's do that first. KHM03 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, untrue, and you have failed to make a case for your contentions. I have already cited sources, above. The original had sources, too, with links. Apparently they are simply ignored. Meanwhile you revert the additions, even though they are currently being improved on the main page by many users in accordance with specifics raised here--- and already had the dispute heading.

Yes, these are all seperate schools of thought. No one is saying they are identical. Otherwise why would they have different names. That would be assinine. What it does say is that there is a influence of from these schools of thought, as is often the case is the evolution of ideas, and in particular the ones I mention--the mystery cults--are the ones believed by many scholars to be the ones that did that in development of what became known as Christian religious ideas. I do not make the claim that scholarship is uniform or difinitive in these matters, nor that in some cases its little more than speculation. But, the consensus has it that these influences are probable and they offer the best explanation to date for an understanding of the historical development from a naturalist historical perspective of the religious conceptions and doctrines under light. Do you propose an alternative theory that you'd like to include, or do you just not want any such discussion to be presented, which I might add is an essential part in understanding any line of philosophy, religious or otherwise.

But, again, I will cite my sources, which would suffice alone, but on top of that I'll include dozens of other sources which support these claims. And, I will re-insert the section so that it can continue to be improved by myself and others, and keep the NPOV tag until this is settled.

According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. Therapeutae--its stated a fact on the Wiki article as the “Forerunners of early Christian monastic orders.” This does not even appear to be disputed. Next, the Essenes: “The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of, and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene.” I'd say being a member is pretty good indication of influence, eh? The Gnostics, also linked Wiki article: “The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism. Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed." Dionysus: According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977) and the American scholar Camille Paglia, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” and the wiki page itself, this mystery cult is likewise linked. Infact Paglia writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity, and I quote, “Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25. Mithranism: This can be found both in Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, and Martin A. Larson,in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), which states that Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. However, Larson believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. And that Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. (1914), reprinted as two volumes bound as one, University Books New York, 1964. LC Catalog 64-24125. The Therapeutae and Christianity http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0120PhiloJudaeus.html Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and JSOT Press, 1989. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html Dr Constantine Scouteris, "The Therapeutae of Philo and the Monks as Therapeutae according to Pseudo-Dionysius": comparing the Therapeutae with the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Golb, Norman. 1985. "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran". Scribner Sanders, E.P., 1992. "Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE - 66CE" Minneapolis: Fortress Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1991. "From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism". Ktav Publishing House Smith, Enid S., Ph.D., 1959, The Essenes Who Changed Churchianity The Essenes are an important part of H. Rider Haggard's Pearl-Maiden: A Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem. [1] Bentley Layton's introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures, a translation of the texts found at Nag Hammadi. Layton, Bentley, ed. The Gnostic Scriptures ISBN 0385478437 Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English ISBN 0060669357 Robinson, James M., 1979 "The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices," in Biblical Archaeology vol. 42, pp206–224. The definitive account of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi cache. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1987), Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b. Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-49 CHRISTIANITY IN HISTORY General. F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Chris- tian Church (Oxford and New York, 1957). Adolf von Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, 3rd ed. trans. Neil Buchanan, 7 vols. (London, 1894-99). K. S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, 7 vols. (New York, 1938-45). http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism The Early Church. N. H. Baynes, “Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,” Proceedings of the British Acad- emy, 15 (1929), 341-443. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Vol. I of The Pelican History of the Church (Harmondsworth, 1967; London, 1968). Jean Daniélou and Henri Marrou, The First Six Hundred Years, Vol. I of The Christian Centuries: A New History of the Catholic Church, ed. L. J. Rogier, et al. (London and New York, 1964). E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cam- bridge and New York, 1965). Louis Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church..., trans. Claude Jenkins (from the 4th French edition), 3 vols. (London, 1920-24). W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church... (Oxford and New York, 1952). A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1948; New York, 1949). J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1960); idem, Early Christian Doctrines, 4th ed. (London, 1968). D. Knowles, Christian Monasticism (New York and Toronto, 1969). M. J. Lagrange, Histoire ancienne du Canon du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1933). Has Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, trans. B. L. Woolf, 4 vols. in 2 (New York, 1961). A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict be- tween Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford and New York, 1963). James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London and Naperville, Ill., 1959). Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906), trans. Mont- gomery as The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London, 1910). The Middle Ages. A. Fliche, La Réforme grégorienne et la Reconquête chrétienne, 1057-1125, Vol. 8 of Histoire de http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Dillon, John (1977). "Numenius of Apamea" in The Middle Platonists (Cornell University Press). Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism, tr. Anthony Alcock (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1990, 1992). Hegel, G.W.F. "The Gnostics" in Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol 2. "Plato and the Platonists," tr. E.S. Haldane and Frances H. Simson (University of Nebraska Press; Bison Books Edition 1995). Jonas, Hans (1958, 2001). The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press). Layton, Bentley (1987). The Gnostic Scriptures (Doubleday: The Anchor Bible Reference Library). Plato. Laws, tr. Trevor J. Saunders, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing 1997). Plato. Timaeus, tr. Donald J. Zeyl, in Plato: Complete Works. Plotinus. The Enneads, tr. A.H. Armstrong, in 7 volumes (Harvard: Loeb Classical Library 1966). Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations (Northwestern University Press 1974). Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, tr. Robert McLachlan Wilson (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark Ltd. 1984). Segal, Robert A. (ed.) The Gnostic Jung (Princeton University Press 1992). Barnstone, Willis (1984 ed.) The Other Bible (Harper San Francisco). Bultmann, Rudolph (1956). Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (New York: Meridian Books). Fideler, David (1993). Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books). Pagels, Elaine (1975). The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Trinity Press). Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument For Dismantling A Dubious Category (Princeton University Press 1996). http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/courses/sctr026/therapeutae.htm from the Religious Studies Department Secr 26 Gender & Early Christiany 64.121.40.153 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I challenge the use of Origen and Tertullian to support the idea that mystery religions were incorporated into Christianity. I also dispute the idea that the church hierarchy "emphasized common features to attract followers." For the first few centuries, being a church hierarch was a good way to get yourself killed, tortured or banished; these people were not marketers, in fact much of their appeal came from choosing death rather than compromise of their beliefs. Most surviving records of the mystery religions have those religions being condemned by orthodox Christians, not admired. And as I've said before, the dates suggest that any borrowing was from Christianity into Mithraism. Wesley 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Mithraism influence, please see here. KHM03 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points:

1. WP:CITE specifically states "Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources." In other words, Giovanni cannot use WP articles to back up his assertions, although he can use sources cited in other articles.

2. "The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of [sic], and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene. Where to begin, apart from this being atrocious grammar. First, "was thought to be a member of" and "widely regarded to be" — by whom? Unatributed speculation is no basis for concluding that this is historical fact. In fact, there is NO historical evidence that either Jesus or John the Baptist was an Essene. It's an interesting hypothesis, but basically speculation based on some ritual and theological similarities. JHCC (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

JHC, I agree with you on the use of Wikipedia articles. Another WP article might be just as flawed as Giovanni thinks this here is.

And in regard to Essenes, I have run into a disagreement on another article, and from what I hear (I haven't yet been able to look into it) this article is not quite up to standard. Certainly the passage Giovanni quoted is at least very POV.

Str1977 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be a able to address all these points later today, and further make changes to the language to reflect consensus. Sorry, I've been a little too busy to take care of this yesterday.64.121.40.153 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecutions list

I'm not a big fan of the list of "people persecuted by Christians," or whatever it may be, but I can live with it (if it is correct). However, I would mention something about it being the medieval Roman Catholic church that did so (or specific others, where appropriate), instead of the simplistic designation "Christian." - ElAmericano | talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the list was simply that it was a lot of accusations with no citation whatsoever...just an unsubstantiated list. KHM03 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The list was flawed, as some groups were not persecuted by Christians at all, some to no large extent and some were pseudo-groups. And not of those that were persecuted by Christians were persecuted by the Catholic Church or specifically by the Catholic Church. Str1977 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why'd you restore it? KHM03 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, if got three words for you: Soft! Ware! Bug! I am sorry about that and have repaired the bug. Str1977 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just restored the persecutions list. I think it is interesting and believe many others will too. Is anyone denying any of the categories mentioned? If so, no doubt citations can easily be provided. Just list the ones doubted - persanally I can't even guess which ones might be in doubt

Incidentally, many of these persecutions were detailed in an external web-link on human rights. There is something more than suspicious in removing a link that makes a case, then reverting material consistent with that case on the grounds that it is not supported!

I too seem to detect a concerted effort here by the faithful to minimise any observations, however facual, that show the Church in a less than glorious light, and I also agree with the observation that the there is a heavy bias in the demands for citations by those editors who are very obviously influenced by their own Christian beliefs. As someone has noted earlier not a single citation has been offered for pro-Christian statements or for the removal of statements that are less than lauditary to the record of Christianity.

Let's up the standards of academic scholarship, and stop trying to impose personal beliefs. Whgat good can anyone imagine it does?

194.165.180.131 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian

If you wish to include the list, can you give a specific academic citation to support it? Newspaper article, book, etc.; please let us know. Thanks...KHM03 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do this way since I assume you can't possibly doubt all of the list. You let me know just one that can't easily be justified by a good academic reference, and I'll remove the whole list myself!

194.165.180.131 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian

I think that's what KHM03 is saying... provide a "good academic reference" for the list... then it might be okay. Also, see WP:CITE. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Frankly, I don't care for the approach it takes. Yes, I believe that Christians have persecuted people. But an unsubstantiated list which contains so many groups...doesn't seem quite fair. I'd like to see either academic support for any list of that type, or just leave it, and keep up the link to the appropriate articles. I don't see a list, after all, which states that "Christians have been persecuted by Muslims, atheists..." etc. KHM03 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we also agree that the link labelled "The record of the Christian Churches in the development of Human Rights" has no place in a neutral article. DJ Clayworth 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that. KHM03 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Suppression of sourced criticism does not make for neutrality. That is absurd. Why are inclusion of facts relevant to the topic not allowed? The only "POV here is the truth--the historical record. Now if you claim that the record itself is bias thats another matter, however it seems you are saying that merely mentioning this record is itself, which puts the church in a non-favorable light is what you object to as "NPOV." That is POV pushing. 64.121.40.153 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

?

It's a POV, unbalanced, inaccurate link. You're acting as if it's unbiased historic fact. There are many valid critiques of Christianity; this link isn't worthwhile. KHM03 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is your POV/Claim. If you say that its inaccurate, not worthwhile, etc, then please make your case. This countries that engage in human rights violations calling Amnesty International POV. Human rights have objective universal standards and the record of Christianity is very poor by ANY standard of human rights. This information is being suppressed as POV only, which is an abuse of the notion of neutrality. To suppress sourced criticism is not NPOV. Please make your case if think link is not factually accurate. 64.121.40.153 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Any academic citations? Or just a flawed website? Please cite your claims, and then we can proceed with the discussion...thanks...KHM03 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re KHM03 comments above. I can see from your profile that as a Church Elder you are obviously best placed to judge neutrality. Also I hadn't realised that external links were supposed to be neutral and free of Povs. Thanks for the info. I'm just about to delete links which are obviously biased and devotional, and will continue to do so for as long as you insist on deleting links you do not happen to like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.131.156 (talk • contribs) 23:59,16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the double-standard is glaring. Pro-religious links are allowed to stand, which are clearly POV, yet nothing that could pur the church in a negative light. 64.121.40.153 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to resort to a POV complaint to remove the heretication link. Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially Dubious sources. To quote:

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.

Jpers36 00:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous users 64.121.40.153 and 194.145.131.156 (unless you're one and the same)...regarding my status as ordained clergy, please review WP:AGF. Also, I'm not sure you're doing a whole lot here to work with the community. You've been asked to cite sources. Please do so, and cease the pointless reverts until we all as a community can reach a consensus. Thanks...KHM03 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, 64.121.40.153, your recent edit summary claimed "rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page"...but there was no vandalism and no agreed changes on the talk page. Please watch your summaries for accuracy. Thanks...KHM03 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiping out work of agreed changes from the talk page, without justification or any participatin on the talk page, despite notice, and over and over is a vandalism. My summary is accurate. 64.121.40.153 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I might add that 194.145.131.156's deletion of other links, as protest against deletion of the heretication link seems to be a violation of WP:Point. 64.121.40.153's most recent edit summary ("rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page") is quite misleading, as the edit before did not at all fit the definition of vandalism, and the changes were not agreed on the talk page. (This was written before edit conflict with KHM03.) Also, 194.145.131.156, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~~~~. It makes it easier for people coming later to read the discussion. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again...there were no "agreed changes". Please be more careful...thanks. KHM03 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecutions list & External web links

The reason for removing the Human rights weblink was given by KHM03 as its alleged bias & PoV. Now either external sites are expected to be neutral or they're not. If they're not then this link should be reinstated. If they are, then all of the blatently pro-Christian links will have to go. I don't care which it is, but let's be clear either way.

The HR site in question gives a pretty well reasoned case, and I think clearly shifts the onus of proof. A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that you (KHM03) think is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that you fail to identify even one. Are you denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Give it a try - just for once. We can can all see how dedicated you are to academic rigor.

168.224.1.14 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mr Objective

Problem, Mr Objective, is that the "Christian sites", as you call them, identify as such, while the "Human rights site" hides behind pretenses of objectivity, declaring alleged facts (and indeed they are mostly quite the opposite of facts) without sources or argument, and basically is nothing more than a statement of bigotry that doesn't even realise that any criticism they might make is only possible because of the influence of Christianity in the first place. Str1977 11:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 -- well stated.

168.224.1.14 aka "Mr Objective" -- As I stated previously, I have no doubt that there has been persecution by Christians of other groups. What I asked for was, rather than an unsupported list, that we come up with sources (see WP:CITE) to support those claims. None were offered, which means that inclusion of the list could be original research, which is obviously frowned upon at Wikipedia. But if you (or any editor) can provide citations for each of the groups on the lengthy list, then I'd support its inclusion. Thanks...KHM03 12:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary Str1977 the site in question looks to me to be well researched and to contain many good objective references, including many to the bible and other religious sources. I don't know if it purports to be objective, but I'm not sure that's relevent. As I said before, if we remove all external links that anyone finds biased, then we'll not have many external links left.

I think the site clearly shifts the onus of proof. I'm not sure what the point about original research is. Simply compiling a list is hardly original research. As long as each item on the list can be confirmed by authoritative sources, where's the problem? A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that KHM03 thinks is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that he failed to identify even one. It is not clear whether you are denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Go on - apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to everyone you don't agree with.

168.224.1.14 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective

The heretication site isn't even close to objective, or even factually correct. Given the thousands of sites about Christianity there are out there we can do much better. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, another pro-Christian advocate who has missed the point entirely about objectivity and who fails to cite a single concrete example to support accusations of innacuracy. This is really not good enough.

168.224.1.14 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective

Insults won't get you anywhere. Maybe you should explain why you think this attack site is actually objective. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I still oppose the inclusion of the entire list, but let us for the moment adhere to the link provided as a source. It gives the following list:

Jews; Moslems; Pagans; Cathars; so called "Heretics"; Schismatics; Apostates; Humanists, Pantheists, Deists, Atheists and others; so called "Witches"

That is not congruent with what various editors have inserted, based on the link. The link is missing out:

Animists (unless subsumed under "pagans"), Zoroastrians; worshippers of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse and Celtic gods (unless subsumed under pagans); Manichaeans, Gnostics and other Dualists (unless subsumed under "so-called "Heretics""); proto-scientists.

Some notes about the groups mentioned. We don't need to argue about Jews, pagans, heretics (including all subsections), witches as they are already included in the text.

• Zoroastrians have absolutely no place in here, as there has been no persecution (even if for lack of oppurtunity) of Zoroastrians by Christians.
• "proto-scientists" are no group and the alleged cases are mostly spurious or better subsumed under either heretic or witch. It boils down to one case: Gallilei, who was neither proto or warrants a note all by himself.
• When was there any large scale persecution of Atheists or Deists by Christian? Granted, an Atheist would have been persecuted in the 13th century, if taken seriously, but there were no atheists around. To have persecution we need a potential persecutor and and a potential persecutee at the same place at the same time.
• When was there any large scale persecution of Muslims by Christians (apart from the expulsion of the Moors from Spain)?

The last two items are worded as questions because they are genuine questions. If you can provide such instances, then bring it on.

Str1977 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked for specific objections to the list of persecutions; here are some. The Spanish Inquisition was mainly under the control of the Spanish monarchy, not the Church. Prosecutions were generally carried out by secular authorities. Regarding the Cathars, my limited reading has yet to find anything to suggest that the goal was to "exterminate" them; the goal was conversion. There is also the question of religious versus secular motivations there as well, as it resulted in quite a bit of land changing hands. The heretication site purports to be well researched, but contains a number of inaccuracies; many of its "good" facts seem to be presented so as to deliberately mislead the reader. Wesley 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Objective seems to have stopped posting here when I asked for his evidence. However, since he asked, let's examine the reasons why the heretication site is actually far from objective.

1. It is attempting something entirely unreasonable - namely it is taking a late twentieth century definition of 'human rights' and applying it to an organisation's record over 2000 years. Not only is that unreasonable, but frankly no organisation or group would stand up to such scrutiny. Atheists, Americans, Italians, Asians or People with Blue Eyes; none would look good if what they did 1000 years ago was judged by the standards of today. Likewise a Wikipedia from 1000 years ago would undoubtedly condemn 21st century Western society for what they perceived as horrendous crimes.
2. It is obvious that the only agenda of this site is to attack Christians - not to present a fair or accurate assessment. In each section something is written only if they can find something bad to say about Christians. If there is a section where they can find nothing bad about Christians, then they just write "N/A". That's not presenting an objective picture.
3. Some of their historical statements are just laughably vague or inaccurate. To take merely one example, there is a whole section on the 'historical Christian support of slavery'. Saying that simply ignores historical facts. Christians were in fact at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, both in the US and Europe. Many of the leading abolitionists were not only practicing Christians, but in most cases cited their faith as a reason for opposing slavery. True there were Christians arguing for the continuance of slavery also, but to claim that Christianity as a whole was on the side of slavery is just plain wrong.

I can go on, but I think that will do for now. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Galileo was not the only academic called to account for his work. For example Champillon, whilst excavating in Egypt, had to supress clear archaeological evidence that contradicted Biblical chronology under RC church instructions. Less than 200 years ago, in the church controlled west, no academic could publish evidence that proved the Biblical timeline wrong, without fear of loss of funding or institutional support.

The problem with finding cases of organised persecution by Christians of Athiests is always difficult as they are, by definition, not a single group. If persecution did occur, there is no central office to record it (and keep those records safe) or group of faithful followers to take up the cause. Athiesm is a very old idea but as stated above there were none in the 13th century as they would not have survived. Bearing in mind the diversity of today's belief systems this in itself is telling. SOPHIA 10:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, we are talking about persecution here. I myself wouldn't call Gallileo's case persecution, but of course others might disagree. But what you state about Champillion, if accurate, is far from being persecution. Or are we to include somewhere that scientists persecuted scientists, because the colleagues of Copernicus almost bullied him into not publishing his book (and would have succeeded would it not have been for his confessor) and Gallileo was opposed by his colleagues (while supported by the Church). I don't think that is persecution, but you seem to disagree.

As for the atheists - if there is no evidence then it's not our business to make such claims anyway. Yes, Atheism is an old hat, but it had been out of use of a couple of (saner) centuries. Not because it was violently surpressed but because of its own deficencies. Str1977 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution by Atheists

I think it might be fun to add a section to Atheism listing all the people who have been persecuted by atheists. I think it would be pretty long. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Denominations of Christianity

I believe it is inaccurate to lump together Anglicanism and Lutheranism simply under the heading "Protestants," along with the numerous other denominations that were either offshoots of these two reform movements within the Church catholic, or were started by particular leaders. There is a distinction between the Continental Reform tradition of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, the anabaptists, et al, and the specifically anti-Roman reforms of the Catholic Church whcih were undertaken in England and in the Nordic countries which followed Luther. I have tried now a few times to createa separate category for Anglicans and Lutherans (as have others before me) after the so-called "Catholic," category, but some partisan with, likely, either an Evangelical or a Traditionalist Roman Catholic POV repeatedly removes my/our contributions. Please stop doing this.

Nrgdocadams 04:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Actually, as a Lutheran I object to what you're trying to do (though I wasn't involved in reverting it here.) Lutherans are certainly Protestants. The differences between the Lutheran and Anglican churches and the other Protestant churches could perhaps be dealt with some other way, but don't try to tell us we aren't Protestant. We were the first Protestants. Look up Protestant in the OED if you don't believe me. It is not productive to try to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, and I can't see how an attempt to implicitly redefine a word like this can ever be NPOV.--Srleffler 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Anglicans agree, since the full name of their church in the United States appears to be the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America^*. --Srleffler 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That is both smug and lacking in comprehension of the name. But because of the smugness of people like you, the American Anglicans made "The Episcopal Church in the United States of America" an official alternative name some decades ago, and now use that name in all official documents. The reason, historically, that the Episcopal Church in the USA was styled "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" was because, at the Revolution, there was no Established Church (as there was in England) and the Roman Catholic Church would also be "competing" on American soil. The name was chosen to distinguish the episcopal Church that was Roman from the episcopal Church that was Protestant-of-Rome. In addition, although Luther's 95 Theses gave further and catalytic impetus to the Reform movements that were welling-up on the European Continent, Luther's movement was by no means first. The Moravians had beat him to the punch. Moreover, unlike the Zwinglian, Calvinist, and other Reformers, Luther (with whose movement the Moravians eventually joined) steadfastly maintained that the churches that were joining with his movement were Catholic, but that they were strongly anti-papist and hence, Protestant of Rome. This distinction is true of the Lutheran movement and of the Anglican movement. Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant of Rome, but hold that they adhere to the (true) Catholic faith. Presbyterians, Anabaptists, the Reformed Free Churches, etc. make no such claim. This is why Lutherans and Anglicans belong in their own category

Nrgdocadams 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

You admit that Lutherans and Anglicans are "Protestant of Rome", and yet you tried to move them out of the Protestant category? How does that make any sense? In any event, my copy of Concise Oxford defines Protestant as:

n. 1 a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. [...]

adj. 1 of or relating to any of the Protestant Churches or their members etc.

You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean. This word has a clear definition and is in common usage. Any attempt to implicitly change that invariably violates WP:NPOV. --Srleffler 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting Anglicans and Lutherans from the other Protestant churches as you have now done (and in fact I prefer it), as long as the meaning of the word "Protestant" is not obscured or redefined. BTW. I took out the "C.E." because the Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes no suffix for dates in the current era.--Srleffler 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have POV "issues" about this and that your complaints have to do with your biases. I don't think you ought to be a Wikipedia editor.

Nrgdocadams 06:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Whether or not Anglicans or Lutherans are offended by the "Protestant" label is irrelevant on WP. They're Protestant. They arose during the Protestant Reformation. They formed, at least in part, out of a protest against Rome. If some Lutherans don't like the label (and mots that I know don't care one way or the other), that's not the issue...historians and scholars very much consider them Protestant. The same is true of Anglicans. So let's try and move on...but, by all means, on the articles for these groups, say something about some folks' objections to the Protestant label. Thanks...KHM03 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The other thing is that the current version is very POV.

Anglicanism and Lutheranism: This category includes those Communions which contend that they continue to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses." Hence, they consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups separated from the Roman Catholic Church under the 16th-century influences of the European Continental Reformation, the English Reformation, or both. Also included in this grouping are the Moravians and the Lusitanians.

Other groups believe themselves to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses" and consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups include Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal; Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Anabaptists. And how on earth can we say that Lutheranism separated itself from the Lutheran Reformation? No, the whole thing is POV and inaccurate, and needs changed. KHM03 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM, if we cannot call Lutherans Protestants, who is left as Protestant. The only people I know who may object to such a classification are extreme Protestants who think Lutherans too moderate. But that is their POV - the truth is that Lutherans started the Reformation (that is not to say that they were the first Reformers - we have Reformers on either side, before Luther, and also strictly Catholic Reformers)

As for Anglicans: they started (if we take Edward or Elizabeth) as a Protestant Church, but later though about a via media developed and in the 19th Century Anglo-CAtholicism emerged. You may include a note to Anglicanism that states that it is not solely Protestant, but that doesn't mean it should form a group of its own.

Str1977 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the section contains the phrase:

Since the Reformation, Christianity is usually represented as being divided into three main branches...

That's fair...and also accurate. This isn't to say there aren't other branches of the tree (such as Mormonism), but this is the way Christian denominational families are "usually represented". KHM03 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution the French Revolution and NPOV

I've twice removed references to persecution of Christians during the French Revolution and still think the sentence has no place in this section as it currently stands.

The reference is misleading as a glance at the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution link will show. This page is about Christanity not just the RC church. The RC church in France at that time, was corrupt and immoral. If it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate. It is only called Decristianisation because at that time, the RC church wealded enormous power was the biggest land owner. In actual fact it was anti all religions. For something to be NPOV the frame of reference must be taken into account. A popular name for an event is not necessarily a historically accurate and complete description of the occurances.

I am seriously concerned that the accuracy of statements in this page are only challenged when they are critical of Christianity. Editors fly out of the woodwork rightly demanding proof, details and specifics in the case of anti statements. Am I the only one who thinks that describing post French Revolution Europe as in the grip of a dechristianisation program is a generalisation and POV? The UK certainly never had such problems. The only references I can find to it relate specifically to France. France is NOT Europe and there is no evidence that it was part of a Europe wide resugence. The sentence as it currently stands implies a) that it was wide spread and b) that it was the restart of some previous Europe wide dechristanisation agenda. I would like to see specifics and references for both of these areas.

For this page to have any credibility the same standards must be applied to all. The discussions above show that such generalisations would not have survived the mainly RC editors of this page if the tables had been turned.SOPHIA 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sophia, but your points don't make sense.

• Are Roman Catholics not Christians?
• Does it matter whether the Church was "immoral" or "corrupt" - and I sincerly challenge that observation in this general version, especially in regard to "crimes") and especially not as the reason for the persecution - the Church was not persecuted because of any (alleged) immorality, but because it wasn't in line with the revolutionaries' ideologies - I wouldn't think of sifting through the groups persecuted by Christians and decided who deserved it and who didn't and hence who should be included or not in this article.
• The sentence, at least according to my understanding or intention, does not say that there was a Europe wide persecution (though some measures were not restricted to France), but it says (or wants to say) that after centuries of Christian dominance, during which there was no persecution of Christians by non-Christians, this phenomenon resurfaced with the French Revolution. The "in Europe" means that it resurfaced in Europe (as opposed to the Islamic world, Japan, China) but it did not resurface everywhere in Europe.
• As for your observation, before I overhauled the persecution section it basically said: "Christians were sometimes persecuted by the Romans, but only because they were stupid, or camp, or deserved, but maybe they weren't even persecuted. Christians however persecuted a lot, all the time, ending with a bogus list." - You didn't speak up then.

As for the language issue, I will ask someone to have a look into whether my sentence says what it wants to say.

Str1977 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, SOPHIA, please read WP:AGF. Our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers - at least on this article - are fine editors who do good work. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt here.

I personally don't know much about the persecution of Christians during the French Revolution, though I've always thought that was a very "secular" revolt, if not altogether atheist. I may be wrong of course, and plead ignorance.

My personal view is that the persecution section is so contentious here, and we have at least two other articles which deal with the subject, so if anything there is challenged, best to get rid of it, whether it's favorable or opposed to Christianity. KHM03 12:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, thanks for the flowers.

You are right that the FR was a secular revolt. It also had a totalitaristic approach and wanted to remake France according its ideas (most visible in Saint-Just). Opposing views had no place in the new France. That is the philosophical basis for this persecution (and part of that was the first genocide of modernity, in the Vendee). In France this lingered on way into the 20th century, though never again in the form of long-term direct persecution (the Commune was too short for that and 1905 didn't venture to go that far).

But the objective of my edit was not to discuss this all in breadth but to state that persecution of Christians after a long hiatus reappeared in the French Revolution (and later persecutions by totalitarian states all follow this model).

Str1977 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:AGF. I said previously that the editors of this page rightly demand specifics and details. I also stand by the comment that a sentence of such general nature would not (rightly) have stood unchallenged by the most active editors on this page if it had been anti Christian. The term "resurfaced" implies that Europe was previously anti Christian. The Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution states that it was anticlerical (ie anti RC) not anti Christian. SOPHIA 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask you, Sophia: Are Catholics not Christians? If they are, what we have here is a state persecution of Christians (and these were Catholics, but there had been no other Christians in the land since Louis XIV). The term "resurfaced" does not imply, IMHO, what you think it does. Also, my edit was neither anti-Christian nor pro-Christian but just stating a simple fact, neither justifying nor dramatising or exaggerating or downplaying the persecution. Str1977 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, SOPHIA. I'm a bit puzzled by your objections to the inclusion of the French Revolution. You say that Catholics were persecuted because they were corrupt and immoral, and that "if it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate." What crimes did the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne commit? Eleven nuns, three lay sisters, and two servants were guillotined; they sang hymns at the scaffold. They don't sound very corrupt to me. There's even an article about them at French Wikipedia.

You also seem to object to the inclusion of the French Revolution persecution of Catholics because this page "is about Christanity not just the RC church". I hope you're not implying that Catholic are not Christians. If they are, and they were persecuted, then Christians were persecuted.

As for "resurfaced", well, there had been persecution of Christians in European countries prior to the French Revolution, hadn't there? Didn't many countries martyr the Christians before Christianity became established?

Anyway, I've looked at the language carefully, and I don't see any hidden POV. AnnH ^(talk) 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the Nuns were wonderful people but they were guilotined for being Nuns - not Christians, for being part of a hierarchy that left the general populace starving and disaffected. The churches were full of wealth while the people starved - that is why they were a target, not for their religious beliefs. The purpose of the Revolution was to overthrow the institutions that the people saw as oppressing them - that included the Monarchy, the nobles and the Church. We introduce new and worry definitions of persecution (as well as opening a can of worms) if we class anyone who reacts against an authority that leaves them powerless and starving a "persecutor". That is why I object to its inclusion. I have no axe to grind or Church history to defend. I am genuinely surprised that this is proving so controversial which is why I am concerned at the heavy number of RC editors on this page.

As for Christian martyrs. They were generally in the 1st wave of Christians to Europe, when Christianity would have been seen as new and a challenge to the established authorities. Once they had dominance the only widespread persecutions of Christians in Europe, for theological reasons, were by other Christians. SOPHIA 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, even if your accusations were true in general, it still doesn't justify persecution and it doesn't justify leaving them out.

The Church was not attacked in the Revolution because of what you say but because of Enlightenment ideology and because the new rulers thought it proper to rob the Church of her property in order to solve the budget problems (while they at the same proclaimed the inviolability of their own property). The Church didn't cause any starving of the general populace. I agree that some of those involved thought as you think now and these saw King and Church as oppressive. It's not are business to worry about whether someone because of our definitions (and they are not new) may no longer rebel against authority. I am not picking sides right now regards the political event called French Revolution, but WP should neither adhere to the (sadly all too common) glorification of the revolution.

But be that as it may, it has no bearing on our actual conflict. Christians (and yes, nuns are Christians too (and they are not part of the hierarchy)) were persecuted, clergy, layman and religious people killed, their worship supressed, an entire province of France was depopulated. You say they deserved it - that is a monstrous view but you are free to adhere to it (and before my overhaul the Roman persecution section said the same: that Christians deserved it) - but your POV is no basis of excluding this act of persecution.

You are right about persecution of Christians by Christians, but that it why I wrote resurfaced: Christians were persecuted by the pagan state until 324. After that they were only "intra-Christian persecutions" (except in Persian or Islamic territory) until the French Revolution, which again had a non-Christian state persecuting Christians.

Facts are facts. You can chant "They deserved it, they deserved it!" all day long in front of your mirror, but that shouldn't govern our article. 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's the true religion."

Whoever keeps on adding it please stop. There is no "one true religion" and that statement introduces POV. Please stop now. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That user has just been blocked. AnnH ^(talk) 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I warned first. Their response strikes me as a little odd. Jkelly 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two socks already blocked, expect more to show up. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I semi-protect the page? I'm going to bed in the next few minutes, and I don't want to lock out good-faith contributors? AnnH ^(talk) 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Following the appearance of more sockpuppets, I have semi-protected the page, which means that IPs and newly-registered users can't edit. As I said, I don't want to lock out genuine contributors. I'll be going to bed in about twenty minutes from now. Should I unprotect then? Zach, will you still be around? AnnH ^(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He has moved over to Evangelicalism now. AnnH ^(talk) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be here, but I am also watching Hero of Ukraine (my baby is on the front page). Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just unprotected, and am going to bed now! AnnH ^(talk) 02:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected again

I just semi-protected again. If those people who are watching this article would please keep an eye on Evangelicalism, that would be great. Thanks. Jkelly 03:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)