Template talk:ChristianBeliefs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This template should be seen as a navbox, with the following idea:

  1. Classify the most important denominations (groups) of Christians, according to their beliefs, and according to what others believe about them.
  2. This will allow to simplify the other Christianity navbox (it can then only mention Protestantism, without the need to specifiy that there are zillions of different protestant opinions.

I think the more liberal Catholics and Protestants are still missing though.

Evangelicalism == Calvinism? --Eptalon (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Adventism == Millerites? --Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Millerites are extinct except for the Adventists which is about 100% Seventh-Day Adventists, but to be exsact they may say their "history orginates with the Millerites"
Evangelicalism and Calvinism are not equle, similar, or very related. You can be either, both, or neither.--*Carlaude (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

more and more will want in[change source]

The main trouble with any list is that whoever we put in... more and more will want in.
1 Is this a template of ism's or groups?
Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism are ism's -- and ism's that never had group by that same name. If that is what you want then...
...I think it would be a mistake to leave out so many other important ism's
...a mistake to include groups with the same theology but just a different leadership
...a mistake to include groups that are the only group holding that ism and
...I think would be better all-around to focus one or the other --- groups or ism's--*Carlaude (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
2. If you fell strongly about keeping extinct groups it would add clarity to group them all together.--*Carlaude (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up[change source]

I see the following problem:

  • Anglicans, as well as Old Catholic are basically Roman Catholic (except for the pope). In the case of the Anglicans, he was replaced by the Archbishop of Canterbury; I don't know for the Old Catholic. Both arose after the Lutheran spilt (Protestant reformation), but I don't know whether to classify them as Catholic or Protestant--Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree Anglicans, as well as Old Catholic are basically Roman Catholic except for the pope-- in a way -- but Anglicans are traditional considered Protestant, even if some Anglicans want to be considered both or Catholic.--*Carlaude (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As to my knowledge it is currently unknown whether Pelagianism ever had any followers (or whether it was just an idea of Pelagius); Catharism had the Cathars, and from what is known today, they were rather progressive; The last Cathar was saved somewhere in the middle of the 14th century. Arianism was very important for the spread of Christianity in Gaul (yes, it includes a few movements). What other important -isms did we leave out?--Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This should be about it.
  • African Initiated Churches
  • Anglo-Catholicism
  • Arminianism
  • Charismatic movement
  • Congregationalism
  • Dispensationalism
  • Fundamentalism
  • Holiness movement
  • Independent Catholic Churches (larger than Old Catholic)
  • Messianic Judaism
  • Moravians
  • Neoorthodoxy (bigger in Europe)
  • Neoplatonism and Christianity (maybe)
  • Pietism
  • Salvationist
  • Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
  • Wesleyanism
  • All of these are important in there own way... but it is murky what the criteria are. --*Carlaude (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we find another (perhaps better) Classification for Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals, other than them rejecting trinity?--Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think there is one but am open to ideas.--*Carlaude (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are 50k Hutterites worldwide, mostly in Canada, and the US; how many brethren and Amish? - Does it weight up against the 1.5 million mennonites?--Eptalon (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Puritanism was a religious reform movement; mainly in the US; Presbyterianism is a way to organise Church hierarchies; keep, drop or replace by anything visible today? --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not understand what point you are making and/or what question you are asking in these last two. Reword?--*Carlaude (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It was only after I had written/ simplified the hutterites that I learned that there are 50.000 of them (which is not much compared to 1.5 million mennonites). My question was: are the "Brethren" important enough in numbers (and different enough in belief) to mention them?
  • No they arn't.
  • Puritanism was a religious reform movement, are there any living creeds we could mention, that embrace mostly the Puritan ideas?
  • Presbyterianism is a way to organize the church; if they are not presbyterian they are congregational (meaning no hierarchical clergy), or they are episcopal (more hierarchical clergy; seen with the Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox, for example). Presbyterianism as a form of belief was Calvinism (which we have), if I understand that correctly.--Eptalon (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But it was held by some Calvinists that Presbyterianism was the only Biblical was to govern a church -- even thou Calvin himself said no such thing. It is an idea with a big impact on church history. The congregational Calvinist churches soon became liberal and/or Unitarian! Presbyterian Calvinism, as a way to govern a church seemed to keep these Calvinists more on tract.--*Carlaude (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria again[change source]

My basic idea of what I wanted, is stated above; in it, I focus on movements, not ideas, to include, I think one of the following should be met:

  • The movement or idea has many followers today (or it had at some point in time)
  • The idea/movement was important in that it came up in a council or synod meeting (where high-ranking church officials discussed it) or that it was the cause of a Crusade/religious war
  • The idea/movement was historically important (in that it significantly influenced many other ideas/movements)

In addition, so as to not list every single movement:

  • The movement/idea is sufficiently different from other movements/ideas already listed(In other words: If several movements for the same, or very similar ideas, list the bigger ones first); As an example: The official mormon church rejects polygamy; there are are some movements which call themselves mormon that do not; in my opinion, it is not needed to list those movements that accept polygamy, in addition to the main Mormon movement.

These are of course very murky; note I am not a church historian, I also have no formal formation in theology; If you think we get enough entries together we could use this infobox only for movements, and make another only for ideas..--Eptalon (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How many is "many followers today"?
10,0000?
100,0000?
1,000,0000?
I do know a lot about church history and theology so I hope to help.--*Carlaude (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That really depends, as I say the criteria are open to discussion. Pelagianism perhaps never had any followers (except Pelagius), still it was important.--Eptalon (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not think so much... only that he was a springboard for some of Augustine of Hippo's writings.
I think Semi-Pelagianism, for example, is more important.
What I meant is how many followers if it is not historically important-- so lets say and lets say that you are lots and lots of (maximum) difference from your group and others but no historically importance yet -- how many people? Do you want me to pick a number?--*Carlaude (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not have made the hutterites had I known their number; so what about 50k? - Possibly thats too low though. --Eptalon (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have re-added Old Believers; Russian wikipedia says they are between 1.6 and 2.2 million (I don't know Russian, thats what I interpet the figures at the bottom of that page to be, though). --Eptalon (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so say you you are maximum difference, you need +100,0000 (or even 500,000)-- Old Believers are minimum difference. Even less than Old Cathlic and Roman Cathlic. Not a different church goverment system, just different church goverment system leaders. For minimum difference they ought to have around +50 million. --*Carlaude (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding movements[change source]

Hello again; Augustine of Hippo was very much influenced by his ideas of grace and sin; he opposed (Semi-)Pelagianism; and the Council of Arausio (Orange, in modern-day France; unrecognised by the Easrern-Orthodox) condemned both Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism as heresies; If you now say that Semi-pelagianism was more important than Pelagianism, we should perhaps list it; --Eptalon (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure.--*Carlaude (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free ot add those movements you consider important for the development of the church (As I say, I have no background in Christian theology or history of the Church). --Eptalon (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay-- so do you agree with the reasoning to remove Old Belivers?--*Carlaude (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we add en:Liberation theology (probably no article on simple) to the list? --Eptalon (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I do think it is that important... esp. if it does not even exsist on simple.--*Carlaude (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

..do we need a list of ideas, rather than movements? --Eptalon (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure just how we would differentchate them... but I think we best move toward arrangement by time-period.
Also, you may want to break up your paragraphs here in talk for more clairity.--*Carlaude (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Believers[change source]

As I understood it, Patriarch Nikon (17th century) introduced some changes to bring the Russian-orthodox liturgy and practices closer to the Greek-Orthodox one. What are called Old believers today did not like that and basically stuck with the old rituals and practices. This looks very similar to the Split of the Old Catholic after Vaticanum I (because they did not like the infailibility of the pope). AFAIK, it is the biggest schism in the Eastern Orthodox church. Even if they are relatively few of them left today (which amongst others are further fractioned on the idea of how to organise the hierarchy), would this not make it notable, at least as notable as the Roman-Catholic/Old Catholic split? --Eptalon (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But if this is about not liking a particular leader or not liking a (minor to us) new/old form of worship-- it is not like the split of the Old Catholic after Vatican I-- because it has nothing to do with a doctrine.
Old Catholics had nothing against the pope per say, they objected to the doctrine of infallibility of the pope. The orthodox have no similar doctrine.--*Carlaude (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Biased[change source]

Its not fitting to add footnotes that say which Christian beliefs have been "debunked". Even if those beliefs are no longer practiced, pointing out that they are "wrong" is not acceptable. Also, not all Christian groups use the cross as a symbol; notably Jehovah's Witnesses who are listed on that board. --Oranges&Lemons (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)