Template talk:Christianityfooter

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

Christianityfooter[change | change source]

I find quickly that we cannot say much in Simple English about Christianity without explaining your terms. For example, I have created Template:Christianityfooter from the English Wikipedia and am looking for feedback on the glosses that will be need to use for all the common Christian terms in it. (Only "Father" and "Son" were already on the Basic English wordlist. Please look at it and discuss/ give feadback, etc. I also hope this will lead us to use the same glosses for words in the articles.--Carlaude (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a good thing to have; we need to be careful though to not oversimplify - When I write articles here I assumemy readers to have a "vocabulary" of about 2-3k words. Facts of the Religion sounds odd. What about Belief; Reform -> Change; Evangelicalism /Liberalism are problematic. When I think about Liberalism, I think about a philosophy (John Stuart Mill), or I think about Economics (Adam Smith); I don't think about religion. Similarly, when I hear Evangelicalism I think about some people who read certain passages of the bible perhaps too literally. We really need to find good words there. We can use more difficult words, we just have to expllain them. In short - If we are too simple, it will be too hard to understand. If you don't see what I mean try reading Relativity in words of four letters or less. --Eptalon (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
See also Template:Christianity--Carlaude (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree "creed -> Facts of the Religion" sounds odd. But Creeds are not really just beliefs. They are some beliefs, core beliefs that are written down. It has to me something like "Statements of the Belief" -- with a simpler word for Statements if there is one.

'Evangelicalism /Liberalism -- I don't think there will be any suitable gloss for these two. I dropped Liberalism already -- it more way of thinking than a group or category of churches, but I think they are almost like proper names. (Liberalism was dropped from the English Wikipedia Template:Christianity for that reason some time ago but with more space than we have kept Lutheran · Reformed · Anabaptist · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelicalism · Holiness · Pentecostal) We have to either keep or drop.

By the way you view of "Evangelicalism" is not uncommon but I would recommend you read Evangelicalism contra Fundamentalist Christianity --Carlaude (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I had never really considered some of those word complex (e.g. "theology"), but I guess it is better, a few of those words I wouldn't have known what they were without checking the page. In "First 12 Leaders," they weren't only the first twelve leaders, so Jesus and John the Baptist weren't founding leaders? Anyway that one is too simple. But words like "Ecumenical council" did need to be changed to "Religion meeting" - much simpler and easy to follow. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They are by necessity glosses-- which means they are brief, hopeful adaquit translations-- not necessarily good translations. For some of these it could be an open question if it better not to translation here, But we will need some type of gloss. Do you like The 12 Missionary Leaders?

Creed comes from Latin Credo (I believe);Religion is not about facts, it is about beliefs. If you kept to facts, you#d see what (I think Tacitus?) saw: Jesus as a leader of a (religiously-motivated) sect of Judaism, causing problems to the Roman administration, and the rest of Judaism. What about Creed-> Basic beliefs?; As to the doctrine: I know that the Protestants are a pretty diverse flock. If someone has the time, can you point me to somewhere where I can read on the theological differences from the Copts (Oriental Orthodox) to the rest? - I has to do something with the naturte of god; but I just could not grasp it so far...--Eptalon (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Miaphysitism states of the Oriental Orthodoxy:

The distinction of this stance was that the incarnate Christ has one nature, but that nature is of the two natures[sic], divine and human, and retains all the characteristics of both. However, opponents of those who took this stance regarded it as nothing more than monophysitism. The alternative response, which eventually became Byzantine dogma, was dyophysitism. This states that Christ has two natures, but emphasizes that they are not separated: Christ is fully one person (ὑπόστασις hypostasis).

This on "Dyophysitism" also looks good.

Once you read it you will have to think there are political reasons they never reunited over this (apparently) small difference in theology. You would be correct but I have only read about it in books-- nothing on Wikipedia it seems. I think the different branches of Oriental Orthodoxy may also have had different motivations from each other. apparently --Carlaude (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that exactly why the Assyrian Church of the East split?--Eptalon (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No. Read this on Nestorianism.
The Assyrian Church of the East was unorthodox in the opposite direction from Oriental Orthodoxy; they hold to a greater separation of the human and the divine than Chalcedonian. Oriental Orthodoxy hold to a greater unity of the human and the divine than Chalcedonian. --Carlaude (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In "(God: God the Father, Son, & Spirit of God)," shouldn't "Son" be Jesus? -- American Eagle (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is already a link or two to "Jesus" - more about his human life. "Son" is a chance to link to an artical about his divine identity in Christian theology. We can leave it linked it Christology or English Wikipedia has an article on en:God the Son we can link to hoping it will be written.--Carlaude (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Err, my bad. That's right. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

list 2 disambiguation ? - meanings changed[change | change source]

Hi list 2 of the template (ie the second line) of the template is

[[Creed|Sayings of Belief]] • [[Christian Church|Christian Gathering]] • [[Gospel|Good news]] • [[New Covenant|New Agreement]] • [[Timeline of Christianity|List of events]] • [[Twelve Apostles|The 12 Missionary Leaders]]

I am concerned that the disambiguation into simple English is perhaps excessive. I think for example

  • Christian Church is a better term than Christian gathering. Or perhaps just Church could be used.
  • saying Good news instead of Gospel is against our policy on neutral point of view and people might not understand that the link leads to an article explaining the Gospel and that that is actually what they are looking for.
  • I think sometimes the meaning is being changed too - I do not think the Apostles are the same thing as Missionary Leaders.

--Matilda (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur. As these are real names and titles, and not merely English, we should use the original, not a simplified term. At least, New Covenant, Twelove Apostles, should be preferred. Cassandra talk 00:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should assume that the article names are sensible and that no disambiguation is necessary in the template. Do editors agree? --Matilda (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)