Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

The Bad Wolf: Hi my name is The Bad Wolf (well actually it's Calvin) I have, in the past, kept somewhat of a watchful eye over this page, and having not been active in this site I recently came back and did a major edit of this page to clean it up. As I have been watching and helping maintain this page for over a year here are a few useful notes, on editing useful notes about Christianity.

The biggest problem on this page is that people will go into far far to much detail about:
  • The brand of Christianity they are a part of.
  • The type, aspect, or debate in Christianity that they studied in College.
  • What they personally believe (Don't get me started on that dude that added his own personal view about sin, the godhead, and like 5 different other things)

This article is a collection of useful notes not an in depth study. Go for the general out line, don't get bogged down in the minutia. We all have the different aspects of Christianity we just have to correct and make sure are exact, for me it's Byzantine era heresies and bible translation debates, we just have to reign this urge in and acknowledge that this isn't the place for an extremely detailed discussion about the use of "sit" vs "fiat" in the Latin Vulgate Bible, no matter how much I could write about that subject.

Rules of thumb:
  • If your quoting chapter and verse numbers, too much detail, this isn't Wikipedia you don't need to source things.
  • If what your writing begins with "actually" or "in fact" your probably forgot to read the anti natter disclaimer and your edit could be better integrated.
  • If your edit starts with more then 2 asterisks your either getting into far to much detail about something or what you're talking about should be split off into its own topic.
  • Wit and humor go a long way, if you can write a description about vowel transliteration in old testament names, that is actually enjoyable and interesting feel free to put it in.
  • If you at least pretend to try to follow these guidelines nobody is going to judge you for making a mistake at in all likelihood will just rewrite your example so it fits better.

Wemmblyhogg: Why the change to the quote, The Bad Wolf? Seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

The Bad Wolf: the original quote was about Christianity, but it mainly stressed how important Christianity is vs anything about Christianity. I changed to that quote in particular because I figure it's the one quote about Christianity that most Christians would agree on.

As for the translation I choose, that's a whole other can of worms. I choose Good News because that's the bible I happened to have laying around. What I really want to do is have John 3:16 there twice, once from Unvarnished New Testament and once from King James Version, but I can't seem to find a copy of UNT anywhere, if anyone has a copy of the unvarnished new testament and wants to tell me what that line is in it, that would be really appreciated.

Wemmblyhogg: I think you've misunderstood my reasons for the quote. Constantine was referring to the importance of unity within the Church rather than the importance of Christianity over everything else; the whole point of the first Nicene Council was to end the division that had arisen between the Trinitarians and the Arians, and create a single, unified, definitive Christian creed. I chose that quote because of the irony it creates in light of the vast number of different Christian denominations that exist now. To me, it's neutral regarding the importance of Christianity itself. If you think it doesn't belong there, then that's okay. I just wanted to clarify my intent.

The Bad Wolf: ok that does make more sense, I just thought the new quote was better as it gave a pretty consise deffinition of Christian thought that few people could object too.

The Bad Wolf: I just did a fairly large edit, the main focus was on cleaning up some bits of natter where specific points where explained in far too much detail. The tone I went for was witty, informative but non-biased to the extreme.

My rule of thumb for the tone of the page was as follows "Imagine you are accosted in a dark alley by a man who puts a knife to your throat. He claims to be a Christian and asks you to describe to him Christianity, but he refuses to tell you which sect in particular he belongs to. Also he implies that he is bored so you better make it witty."
Dammerung: You know, I'll be damned but this article seems to be showing slow but steady improvement.

The Bad Wolf: The reason I had changed the syzygy line is the tendency for every single person and their god father to put in exactly how their religion or the religion that they study or the religion they invented (I shit you not) interprets a given point, so unless it's witty and funny I tend to delete those types of entries. The fact that there is a name for it, not strictly necessary but not a problem either, the aside about where they believe it, a bit much. I'm going to try to rewrite it with your critiques in mind.

The Straw Feminist link was originally a pot hole for "inarticulate feminists" as it isn't the positions that is extreme, it's the way it's phrased. If we don't make that a joke we should probably rephrase that line so it doesn't sound like it was written by a Straw Conservative pretending to be a feminist.

Dammerung: but there is no mainstream view on the subject, that's the trouble with this page at all. Once you put down "God is generally referred to with the masculine pronoun..." you're already operating from a particular approach to Christianity. That isn't the natural default view and everything else extraneous - there was never any agreement on the correct approach to this topic in the first place.

The Bad Wolf: ah but you'll notice I never said "mainstream" or any other judgment terms, I just said "generally" due to the fact that whether people like the idea or not, if you walk up to an English speaking speaking Christian and ask them, they'll probably use that pronoun, though I am fixing this part, I'm moving it to the arguments section.
The Bad Wolf: Ok turns out that John 3:16 was rather a poor choice for illustrating the differences in bible translations as both the very formal and the very dynamic versions end up being kinda similar.
The Bad Wolf:All right, another massive reorganization, this one focused on both cleaning up the formatting, and clearing out some of the brush that has accumulated over time.
Gitman: I deleted the bit in the Jehovah's Witness section about their Bible translation only differing in the number of times God's name is used. It's just not true; they actually rely on an alternate translation of John 1:1 ("The Word was a god," as opposed to "The Word was God") as part of their proof that Jesus was not, in fact, God. discussion prior to August 10th 2008 see here.