Talk:Christianity

	This Christianity related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Talk:Christianity

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Worzelpete#Talk:Christianity.

I think that the discussion is over; Note 2 won't be changed. Can we end it here? I don't have time to lose.--Sofer (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy said on his talk page that he would take care of the article before to discuss about what should we do. Can we just stop to let BruceGrubb continuously vandalize that page and keep it as it was before the discussion took over? That would be great.--Sofer (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the best idea would be to mod-lock the page. Unfortunately I don't have that power. Worzelpete (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What is a mod-lock? Should we ask to/talk about it with an administrator? (by the way, Christianity is not the only one that he vandalizes...)--Sofer (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys. First of all, it's not possible to lock the page, because the highest lock level is "sysops only". BG is a sysop and unless he does anything to lose it, he won't be deprived of it.

Secondly, I've spoken with BG twice now about his writing style. I also acted on the promise I gave on my talkpage.

I don't know anything about Sofer's charges against BG of peddling pseudohistory and the likes. All I know is that I've done what I set out to do previously, and that I'm still monitoring the situation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about most of his edits on Christianity and Basic history of Christianity, the ones that i just tried to rollback. However, it doesn't matter anymore: i'm bored of this entire situation, and i see that he still won't listen. I didn't debate with him for 4 days because i had nothing to do, i was trying to help him (and the page, of course) to understand that he can't write whatever he wants just because "it's right" according to him, or because he likes to put his own opinions on an encyclopedia to feel more important, without any regard of the others.

This is an issue that concerns everyone. We have to help each other in this Community, and i tried, just as you. So, i won't go on with this; i have a job, i have a life, i have a family, and i have a lot more better things to do than talking with someone indifferent to any suggestion or advice: there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. That said, i'm out of RW. Thank you guys for helping me and supporting my efforts, i really appreciate that; you're great. --Sofer (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I advice you to take a break, sure, but your dedication will be missed. And BG's style of writing will have to be adressed. It's not over if you don't want it to be. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering I put my latest addition though both LibreOffice's spelling and grammar checker I am doing the best I can to fix my writing style. Furthermore, it is not just Jews and Muslims who put out claims of "Christian" polytheism but denominations and sects within Christianity as well. Roman Catholics and Mormons seem to be prime targets of supposed polytheism but there are others. Finally, "Polytheism and Christian belief" Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 57, Pt 1, April 2006 states in its abstract "Social Trinitarianism should be classified as a version of polytheism rather than monotheism."--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That's all great — or rather; that's all for another talkpage — but the main problem I'm having is that you write article text like you write talkpage text. Meaning, it's totally your writing style to also insert something like "..."Polytheism and Christian belief" Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 57, Pt 1, April 2006 states in its abstract "Social Trinitarianism should be classified as a version of polytheism rather than monotheism."" into mainspace articles. Which is a disaster for readability. You can't re-read this too many times. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Social Trinitarianism is a ridiculously complex matter and I really didn't want to fill up Worzelpete's talk page with text explaining exactly what Social Trinitarianism was. Besides talk pages aren't really suited to our standard ref code system and links do break so better to have the entire reference then a "Some scholars have pointed out..." reference link that, if it breaks down the road, could be difficult if not impossible to find again.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Gospel Dating

There's a lot of incompetent history going on in this article.

The page states that the dating of the four Gospels (Mark 70 AD Matthew 80 AD Luke 85 AD John 95 AD) are assumptions and there is no evidence that these documents were written before the first century. That's crap. The opinion of the overwhelming majority of secular scholars is that all four Gospels are first century documents -- because that is a precise fact. The earliest fragment of the Gospel of John (P52) dates to about 125 AD, meaning John was almost certainly first century. Clement of Rome, an author of the first century (who wrote either 70 or 95 AD) quotes from as many as three of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The fact that we have a first century author quoting the gospels completely ends this debate, the Gospels are all first century documents. That is a well-established fact of history -- I don't know of the troll who seems to have completely missed all the authors who speak of or quote the gospels are an extremely early date (Clement of Rome, 95 AD; Ignatius, 95-105 AD; Papias, 95-110 AD, etc).

Even Early Christian Writings gives ranges in the 2nd century (which I might add starts with the year 100 CE not 101 CE) for Matthew (80-100 CE), Luke (80-130 CE), and John (90-120 CE). If Clement and Ignatius (Papias is only known via third hand accounts and therefore useless as evidence) really quoted from the Gospels we wouldn't have the date ranges we do. This logically means that the supposed quotes are not in reality quotes. QED.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

.

Why are some Christians just so adamant that some things they don't agree with are a sin?

This isn't a statement against Christianity as a believer but when you come across some groups they outright condemn things like video games, alcohol and graffiti art without any real justification for why except for some proof-texted verses out of context.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They are different realms. TranslationForAll (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

To believers who are here in doubt

A lot of what you struggle with I believe a lot of true born again Christians struggle with throughout their lives at different stages. I feel like occassional unbelief, bitterness, apathy, and lovelessness is very common but the Lord is very patient.

I personally have battled with doubts and similar emotions of apathy and cynicism since I was renewed by the Holy Spirit. I grew up a Jehovah Witness, turned atheist, turned eastern mystic, turned falsely converted universalist, and finally I continued to study the word and made the path through synergistic faith to biblically reformed. Being involved in apologetics I find myself faced with argumentation against our Faith, and it challenges me. I firmly believe that our God leads us through these valley's for his names sake and Glory, and we benefit a stronger and refined faith when he brings us out, on His own time.

A few things I have noticed that are consistent when I find myself resisting prayer and feeling extreme apathy.

I am feeling condemned. Self condemnation destroys motivation and the desire to resist sin. We have to constantly remind ourselves that we belong to Him, and we are safe in His hands. Reading through Romans chapter 8 has always comforted me when I feel despair. Romans 8:1‭-‬2‭, ‬15‭, ‬33 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. | For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” | Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;

My self condemnation usually is because I am defaulting to a works based mentality. A moralistic faith is not the Christian faith. I notice that in those low valleys I am focusing on myself rather then my Savior. I grew up with works based salvation and I was in a constant state of fear and despair. When I shift my thinking away from me and focus on Christ's redemptive work I find peace and motivation to put to death the sin in my life because I have been made anew in His blood. Ephesians 1:5‭-‬8 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight

I hope this brings you comfort brother. And know that you are not alone, and you have fellow Saints praying for you to be built up and delivered from this storm. God Bless!

Hebrews 4:15‭-‬16 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So do you have any good testable evidence for the existence of your particular version of god?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So that's tumbleweeds then.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand how the members of a thinking race can give any credence to any supernatural being let alone an omnipotent god. The very idea is contrary to all logic and quoting a four thousand year old goat herder's imaginings only adds more to my disbelief. Scream!! (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

While I do get where you are coming from, I do feel that you should consider the reason why one might be Religious and the such, even if you do not believe in that kind of thing; For example, I believe in the supernatural because my family has had history with it, that, as far as I know, doesn't have other explanations, and while you might believe that I'm bluffing, or that there are other possibilities I have not yet considered, you should consider that maybe other people believe in Religion or the Supernatural because of similar reasons. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Christians aren't Christ-like

Vee (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)