Christianity Knowledge Base:What is a Christian

Proposals for the CPOV are to be posted on this page. Until we reach consensus, please discuss details on the discussion page.

Proposal 1 - Popular, but wrong

Refrain from using foul language, maintaining a G or PG rating.

• for -- nsandwich 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes indeedy Homestarmy 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• absolute for --Hayson1991 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely --Holy Cow 22:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

You foolish, Satanic, murdering, hypocrites! By banning foul language, you know nothing of what you speak, you murder truthful speech, you Satanically oppose what God has said to do which is to refute false doctrine, and your judgement, if used as the standard, would condemn you all because of your hypocrisy.

I'm speaking the truth about you all here, and being truthfully serious, and I hope that language was foul enough to get you to realize you all judged wrongly in voting for this to pass, because all of those things are in the Bible. You'd ban the Bible at christianity.wiki? Amazing.

See all of Matt 23, Jesus calls them hypocrites repeatedly.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Jesus even called Peter, "Satan", which means adversary or opposer.

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter, when filled with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, said that his audience was responsible for murdering Jesus; essentially he called them murderers.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Stephen, in Acts 7, emulated Peter, and called the Pharisees murderers and worse:

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Paul calls his enemies "decievers"; he might as well be calling them "liars".

Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

First, you've smashed Matthew 7:1 into thousands of tiny pieces with your first sentence alone, second, foul language is not the same as language people don't want to hear. We're talking vulgarities here, Jesus never used vulgarities, nor did any of the apostles. 208.62.171.226 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - PASSED

Absolutely no pornographic or sexually explicit images are allowed

• for -- nsandwich 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for obviously... inky
• for --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Pr0n is mostly adultery of the heart Homestarmy 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• absolute for --Hayson1991 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

What in the world? No pornographic images? We may as well rip out Revelation 17-18 right out of the Bible. Don't describe the Great Harlot, mother of prostitutes. What in the world is wrong with you people?

Images my friend, images. The Bible is not a picturebook. 208.62.171.226 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - PASSED

Absolutely no intolerant or hateful material is allowed. Discussion, exploration, and criticism are encouraged so long as they are respectful of other viewpoints. (See relevant discussion on talk page.)

• for -- nsandwich 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Judge not, lest ye be judged, and check your own eye for beams before criticizing the speck in another's eye! Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for As long as I get to demur from the status quo in a friendly, respectful manner. :) --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for --Hayson1991 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

• Hey wait a second A policy like this has to have precise definitions of "intolerance" and "hatred". Many Christians, for example, think that homosexuality is wrong, (I think that) or even that all homosexuals go to hell (I don't think that but some people do) or something. A discussion of contraversial issues like that ought to, in my opinion, include all views, even extreme ones, don't you think? This needs to be more narrowed down. --BenMcLean 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I tried bringing up this point myself about the highly ambiguous definition of "intolerant", but it seems nothing mattered :/. Homestarmy 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the proposal was an affirmation of agape myself (if you pardon my Greek). Archola 21:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what is love, to let those who have lifestyles which God Himself has confirmed will be met with eternal damnation to just keep on going with no attempt to show them the truth, or to confront people about their sin and try to shake them out of their sinful lifestyle so that they may avoid a fate far worse than having people be "intolerant" around you? If a person is walking off of a cliff, is it more loving to pull them back, or let them calmly walk off? Homestarmy 13:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't want anybody to walk off a cliff. More like, "With respect, sir, you are wrong, and this is why: watch out for the cliff!!!" Intolerance would be saying "I condemn you to the cliff!" and not even trying to save them. (There are people who would say that). As I said in the vote, I simply took the proposal as an affirmation of Matthew 7. Also, no hate: we're supposed to love our enemies after all.

It simply didn't occur to me that it could be taken that other way. Right now I have one foot here and one foot in ChristWiki, so I should ask you: are you going to raise this issue at ChristWiki as well? Or are the two sites going to wind up with divergent policies? Archola 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "tolerance" is so open ended many people would be quick to say "AHA, YOU MENTIONED CHRISTIANITY IN A DISCUSSION WITH ME, HOW INTOLERANT!!11E12!2312#"! It's a flaw of modern culture, and is abused to no end, anyone who even suggests that homosexuality is wrong for any reason is often quickly labelled a homophobic, intolerant bigot quite a large amount of the time. And nobody on ChristWiki is saying much of anything on this page heh. Homestarmy 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

um yeah I think I agree with Homestarmy on this ... I think ... --BenMcLean 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Love" is the desire to bring other people into the Kingdom of God. --BenMcLean 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I literally cannot believe it. This just goes from bad to worse. No intolerance? I can be as intolerant and hateful as God commands! Excuse you me! God commands us to hate evil! This does not mean to try to rip evil out and ban it AS YOU ARE ALL DOING, otherwise you'd violate the scriptural advice to let the tares grow with the wheat, or else you rip up the wheat.

You are all trying to rip out the tares! But this is imposible, because if you rip them out, you rip out Jesus, too!

You are the intolerant ones, by not tolerating intolerance! You must not be able to stand yourselves! Hilarious! Hypocrites!

False doctrine is not to be banned, or ripped out. It is to be WITHIN THE CHURCH, AND REFUTED. Do you all not know your Bible at all?

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

70.133.7.161 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. This policy is not binding on your life - it's a reasonable standard for what can appear in an encyclopedia on this web site! Get your own web site and you can be as hateful as you want. I believe in loving sinners - not in compromising or accepting sin, but loving people, "Love" being defined as the desire to bring people into the Kingdom of God. --BenMcLean 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

BenMcLean, you are missing the point. I respect you, but I must refute, and disrespect, your doctrine. And there ought not be a committe that judges what is in, or out, of the christian.wiki, which is my entire point. The reader ought to be able to be exposed to all views, and decide for himself. How can we refute bad doctrine, and "respect" it at the same time? We are not to respect doctrine, nor even respect men! God is no respector of persons, and certainly not theologies! Instead, to refute, to rebuke, we must be allowed to ridicule, and condemn, and judge false doctrine, and show why it is to be hated. Why do you tell me to "get my own website", that's not very loving of you. Why can you not tolerate me? Where is the humanity? Do you not even know that free speech comes from Christian persecution perspective, and yet, the first thing this group is trying to do is define the kinds of speech to ban! Unreal!

There is a place for being exposed to all views. It's called Wikipedia. The community there has standards about what can appear on their site.

The contributors to this web site want to have standards about what can appear on their site. You are allowed to ridicule/condemn/hate whatever you want - on your own web site. Nobody's freedom of speech is being compromised by banning foul language. I think you are somewhat confused as to the purpose of this site. --BenMcLean 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused as to the purpose of Christianity itself. Opposing views must be allowed to be villified with foul language, rather than banned. I have experience in Christian debate, and I can tell you, that this rule of banning foul language is not Christian. In a debate, you must be allowed to say that another's view is wrong, or in error, and why. That's the entire purpose of the debate. Another word for error is heresy. If you can't call another person a heretic, then there is no debate at all. If the person being called a heretic (or liar, or hypocrite) then turns around, and says that is "foul" language, or no fair you are name calling, and gets the opposing view banned, then there is no discussion. I understand that the purpose of this site is Christian discussion, not Christian perfection. If we all had to have perfect theology prior to posting, (based on these imperfect rules that rule out even the perfection of describing heretics as heretics) then not even Jesus himself would be allowed here. Furthermore, you are wrong about wikipedia, as it does NOT allow all views; the rule there is no original research. This place must allow both truth and lies if it is to contain the truth at all, and be a success.

That may be true, so far as calling false doctrines false, but there is no need for dropping the F bomb to do so. For example, all Latter Day Saints (as far as I know) believe that all the Protestant and Catholic churches are doctrinally false and that their creeds are an abomination in the sight of God. (i.e. the false practices that will of course result from false doctrine are evil) Mormon missionaries will even shake the dust off their feet at people who firmly but politely disagree with what they have to say. (RLDS missionaries would never do that - it is yet another fundamental doctrinal difference between the two churches - but I digress) Even they don't have to curse at people to express what they think is true. I believe in hating evil but not in hating people. --BenMcLean 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

BenMcLean, I agree with you that we must be allowed to express hatred towards evil doctrines, and evil actions, and to even rebuke evil people, as Jesus, Paul, Stephen all rebuked people at times. Even Peter was rebuked by Jesus, who called Peter, "Satan". I assume Jesus revealed to Peter that Peter's actions were Satanic, out of Jesus' love for Peter, and out of Jesus' hatred for what is Satanic.

I also 100% agree with you that any sort of hatred towards people is, by definition, Satanic, because Christians are to love all men, because people are not the enemy, our enemies are not flesh and blood, but are wickedness in high places in the Spirit realm.

This is what I'm trying to include as policy here, please love all men, include all viewpoints, and then rebuke them as necessary. Rebuking is what we are called to do, not banning.

I also understand that it is impossible for you to know in my heart how I, personally, feel towards both Jesus, and towards my fellow man, and therefore, you cannot ban certain kinds of speech based on your feelings of what my feelings are.

It is extremely important that if you want the blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ on this project, that you don't include rules that would ban the Lord Jesus Christ, and what he would say.

Banning Jesus, banning truth, banning the Holy Spirit by calling it Satanic, is awefully close to the unforgivable sin, and I beg you all to not institutionalize such a practice.

I am Championing the right to allow all viewpoints. But this group wants me to "respect other viewpoints", which I cannot do, as I must rebuke the viewpoints that I see as evil. Yet this group wants to ban my such viewpoint (where I may rebuke others) and claim that I'm intolerant?! Those who ban others are the intolerant ones! Don't you see the hypocracy of the rule?!

I don't think you have anything to worry about under this particular policy. --BenMcLean 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 4 - PASSED

Issues and questions concerning CKB policy shall be decided by the elected administration of this Wiki, taking into consideration all relevant research and discussion provided by both administrators and editors.

• for (but could use better wording maybe. someone go ahead and change it) -- nsandwich 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• maybe but I'm sure if I'm ready for such responsibility. Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for He who payeth the bills... --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Provided rewording, feel free to revert or edit further)
• for --Hayson1991 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC);

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

Absolutely. First thing to do is to create an impenatrable and mysterous organization that leads things, instead of letting Jesus be the head of the Church. Wonderful. Can't see why this would be bad, since you don't know your Bibles. I'm ready to puke.

Proposal 5 - PASSED

Jesus Christ provides the only path to salvation for mankind

• for (again, could use better wording. someone be bold and change it) -- *nsandwich 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for This seems pretty basic to me. Archola 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Seems basic, but inclusivists would disagree. They are wrong of course, all-inclusive. :) --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for A basic statement like this provides room for denominational flexibility (ala baptism, eucharist, etc.) --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• absolute for --Hayson1991 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for I decided to be bold then Nsandwich :). Homestarmy 05:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• against' I'm now crying. I'm a sincere Christian, who has befouled this board already, but you again miss the point. Jesus died for us, and provides salvation, yes, and I love him for it. But don't you know that those people who embrace the truth that God gives them, even if they don't know Jesus, will be saved, as the Bible teaches? All men are without excuse, because God gives men the truth not only through the Bible, not only through Jesus, but through truth. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
  • I don't think you're really against The idea you just expressed isn't nessicarily at odds with the statement here, since it might be possible to be "saved through Christ" without even knowing who Christ is. C.S. Lewis explored this concept near the end of his allegory "The Last Battle". --BenMcLean 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• abstain There are several passages that give leeway to one who does not know Christ Jesus directly: Matt 19:25b, 26b BBE "...'Who then may have salvation?' ...'With men this is not possible; but with God all things are possible.'" (see also Mark 10 & Luke 18) Mark 16:16 BBE "'He who has faith and is given baptism will get salvation'" (oops. is baptism also required?) Luke 10:25b-28 BBE "'Master, what have I to do so that I may have eternal life?' ... 'And He said to him, 'What does the law say, in your reading of it?' And he, answering, said, 'Have love for the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and for your neighbor as for yourself.' And he said, 'You have given the right answer: do this and you will have life.' John 17:3 BBE "'And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God'" Romans 2: "do not judge others - leave that to God alone" - 2:7 BBE "To those who go on with good works in the hope of glory and honor and salvation from death, He will give eternal life" not meaning good works leads to salvation but are EVIDENCE of salvation. John 3:36 BBE "He who has faith in the Son has eternal life; but he who has not faith in the Son will not see life" which proves your point about to know Christ is to recv. life, but Christ was only around 4000 years after His creation had started plus there were many folks not living in the middle east at His time so God will use man's appreciation of nature on their reverence of God. Rom 1:20,21a VW "For ever since the creation of the world the unseen things of Him are clearly perceived, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they know God, they do not glorify Him as God, nor are thankful" And then finally the judgment at the end of those with no clear saving faith: Rev 20:12 VW "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, out of the things which were written in the books." I would hope to see that those same people who love their neighbor and show respect for God's creation will receive eternal life. And then the alter argument that not everyone who 'thinks' they believe in Christ will recv eternal life: Luke 13:24 BBE "'Do your best to go in by the narrow door, for I say to you, A number will make the attempt to go in, but will not be able to do so.'" Matt 25:11,12 WEB "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!' But He answered and said, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'" Luke 13:25,27a WEB "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from' ... But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from'" Matt 22:14 BBE "'For out of all to whom the good news has come, only a small number will get salvation.'" Who are these that do not get in?? This that do not obey [all] commandments” Matt 5:20 CEV"'You must obey God's commands ... If you don't [obey them all], I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.'" Matt 19:17 CEV "Jesus said to him, ... 'If you want to have eternal life, you must obey His commandments.'" Who is likely not to obey His commandments? Mark 7:8 CEV "'You disobey God's commands [when instead you] obey what humans have taught.'" Recall what I said about those who revere nature? Rom 2:14-16 CEV "Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have [or know about] the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts". In conclusion, if you revere aka love nature and the beauty of it all but not worship it and you love your neighbor, you will recv eternal life!! Doesn't hurt to have a saving faith in the LORD Jesus Christ!! --Austin K 02:02, 01 November 2008 (CST)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

Proposal 6 - PASSED

The canonical Gospels and the Pauline Epistles are Scripture.

• for (wording here is also an issue. Someone would have to know what the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles are; these are not obvious to someone with a more limited understanding of Christianity.) -- nsandwich 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for But see talk about the differences between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox canons. Archola 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for This seems like a good basic criteria to me -- shouldn't offend too many. And the ones who are offended probably have a well-worn copy of the DaVinci Code and think that Constantine forced everyone to be Christians. --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Homestarmy 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• for wording. --Hayson1991 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

Proposal 7 - PASSED

Version of the Bible has to be mentioned when quoting Scripture.--Hayson1991 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• for we're going to need some templates made for bible references, and I am too dumb to make them :) -- nsandwich 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• for Inkybutton made us a template, check his user page. BTW we're using the World English translation, because it's pubic domain. Archola 02:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Now changed to KJV, also public domain except in United Kingdom. --Kathleen.wright5 (talk) 11:27, October 17, 2016 (UTC)
• for reasonable enough. Homestarmy 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

Proposal 8: Official Bible of the CKB

We consider the King James Version of the Bible to be acceptable for citation on this website.

• for -- nsandwich 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• for Archola 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• for --MonkeeSage 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• for Homestarmy 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• for --Hayson1991 07:24, 6 April 2006 (PDT)

Proposal 9

The Bible is Divinely inspired.

• Strong AgreeArchola 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Agree --Hayson1991 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Agree --Dragoonmac - ^{Talk>_Contribs.} 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Agree --Holy Cow 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• for -- nsandwich 17:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Absobalitutenanilly! (for) Homestarmy 20:55, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
• predestined to agree --MonkeeSage 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever they say (for) --inky 07:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• for --BenMcLean 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed.

Proposal 10 - Define "Christian" in negative instead of positive terms

For the purposes of clarificaiton, and order to distinguish Christians from persons in other religions who merely have a particular view on the identity of Christ, and in order to not exclude anyone from our definition of what a Christian is who rightfully belongs in the category, we should list most other major world-religions and state that they are not Christian. This is not to say that they do or do not have some beliefs that agree with some Christian beliefs, and does not deal with anyone's salvation but is intended to say that the religious groups named here are not considered Christian by this wiki in the context of CPOV, and that apologetics materials can be written to win converts to Christianity from any of these groups:

• Atheists are not Christians.
• Agnostics are not Christians.
• Satanists are not Christians.
• Muslims are not Christians.
• Bhuddists are not Christians.
• Hindus are not Christians.
• Nazis are not Christians.
• Communists are not Christians.
• Freemasons/Templars/Illuminati are not Christians.

This should not conflict with any seperate proposal that may be written dealing with Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses or any others.

• Initial for - stressing once again that this does not mean we are saying anyone does or does not go to hell. --BenMcLean 19:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against Christian Communism is a recognized political affiliation, generally concentrating on the "No property" sort of deal in Socialism, since many of the original apostles also seem to of shared much property and didn't seem to own anything themselves much.. Stalinism, the widely acknowladged negative form of Communism, has nothing to do with it. Neither does China's Mao Zedongism, or the Khmer Rouge or whatever, or whatever it is. The communist philosophy, although somewhat intended to be atheistic and anti-Christian in nature, can easily be taken up in a compleatly Christian manner if you scratch the atrocities, racism, assumption that man is good, and whatnot. I do not, however, know about Nazi-ism. Homestarmy 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Objection noted - by "Communist" I was really refering to pure Maxist-Leninism, which does not allow for Christianity, except to subvert it. I have changed the terminology to "Marxist-Leninists are not Christians", if that is not acceptable then we can just strike the line. --BenMcLean 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's also possible that somebody's individual take on Marxist-Lennonism may not really be Marxist-Lennonoism in a literal sense, I think im just plain opposed to the idea of excluding people from the possiblity of being Christian because of political ideology, no matter how extreme it may of been through history :/. Though I do admit im not sure how a Nazi could be a Christian. Homestarmy 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm well ... I guess we'll have to strike that bit then. Seems to me, based on what I've read about Marx-Leninism, the only reason for a devotee to that worldview to become a Christian is to subvert Christianity, because they see religion is a tool of the state. --BenMcLean 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's the dangerous thing about generalizations, they have a bad habit of not including the exceptions :/. Im unsure about this policy still in general however, because I mean its a bit obvious to me anyway that somebody who is a member of a non-christian religion by definition wouldn't be a Christian pretty much. Homestarmy 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• If it is really obvious then vote for it. :) --BenMcLean 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well Nazi-ism, as abhorrant as it may be, is still a political philosophy as opposed to a religious one, (Though I think one could argue it is needlessly naturalistic in nature) so it sort of gives me pause here about rendering a vote, because this thing is basically telling me to judge very large groups of people, which, well, is sort of a Matthew 7:1 violation. To me, its far more safer to classify the actual doctrines and philosophies of different religions as non-Christian, because how are we to know what is in a person's heart? What if millions are actually Christians in the inside, but they've been infected by, say, Hindu nanoprobes or something far out like that? Homestarmy 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Um, I don't mean to be rude here, but at this point it might be better for you to write a counter-proposal rather than argue over the particulars of this one. In my view, I'm not sure there is a clear boundary between religious and political philosophy. I think there are political philosophies that clearly are logically contradictory with Christianity. (obvious example: Outlawing religion is not Christian.) How do you determine when a philosophy stops being political and starts being religious and visa versa ??? --BenMcLean 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• What it really depends on is what you're actually talking about when you say "Christian". What the proposal's doing is lumping together "non-Christian" and "bad people". One has to keep in mind that not all Christians are good people, and that in fact through a large chunk of the history of Christianity many of its leaders were very, very bad. Nazis, quite simply, were Christian. They had their own denomination, Positive Christianity. They read the Bible, went to church, and believed in Jesus. In fact, they truly believed that the atrocities they were committing would elevate them in the eyes of the Lord. They're just like any other Christian, trying to follow the Lord but hindered by their own sinfulness, only in their case the sinfulness was far greater. Quite simply, when you say they're non-Christian, you're basing that on a judgement on their sins, something, like Homestarmy pointed out, that is quite inconsistent with the Bible, no matter how great the sin in question. --Thetoastman 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... well ... I'm pretty sure Hitler came right out and said that Christianity was but a temporary tool in his long-term plans at one point, and wouldn't be around forever, but I guess you're right. But does that mean the wiki has to accept neo-nazi/psuedo-Christian/racist/KKK-style theology as legit Christian doctrines ? (i.e. allow racism as an acceptable subset of CPOV?) --BenMcLean 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not, its just that rather than try to sniper shot individual philosophies, if we elevate the Bible's authority for the Wiki, then editors can simply use the Bible to decide on everything rather than having to look up a particular policy on each thing. The theologies of many of those types of groups you mention can be clearly demonstrated in many ways to not be Christian using the Bible, I just don't think individual policies on each and every type of group like that will be helpful except for more general cases, like we really ought to get around to Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS someday, (You already seemed to give me enough of that material on my talk page Ben :) ) or other groups like that, but little tiny things like the KKK and Gnostics and Neo-Nazi's, well, making policies for all of them could take awhile when if we make the Bible's authority high enough for editing decisions people can just look stuff up and just write down the Bible verses which would indicate a certain groups philosophy is bad. Or we could make some sort of rolling amendment procedure for each group we come across, but I think it would take too much time for our small editor population :/. Homestarmy 18:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly say that the groups I have up there now that aren't crossed out aren't Christians can't we ? --BenMcLean 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The main distinguishing feature between Communism and Christianity is the use of force. Early Christians shared property accoring to the communist line "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need". All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45) The difference, is force. Communism relies on force to take, and redistribute, which thus is stealing, and ignores the right to own property as given by God. Christian sharing must therefore be voluntary, and can be withheld by the doners if they see that the recipients are not acting in a Christian manner. --Jason Hommel

Christians can indeed be communists and Marxian and most such Christian adherents are also pacifists. For example, some adherents of liberation theology are communists, most are strongly informed by Marx's ideas, but all would adhere to the Nicene Creed. Have a look at my user page.[1] CyberAnth 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe I think that this really needs to be reworded, at first glance, I thought you were saying that we should define Christian as a negative thing (as in saying that Christianity is not good.) -- HAYSON¹⁹⁹¹ 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• By having the basis that there is a God [amen], therefore a Atheistic belief there is no God is really a denial in the existance of God and therefore are really Agnostic --Austin K 02:02, 01 November 2008 (CST)

Proposal 11 - Define Christian by adherence to the stipulates of the Nicene Creed

The easiest and most straightforward way to deal with who is and who is not a Christian is to create a policy that defines "Christian" as exclusively those who adhere in totality to the stipulates of the Nicene Creed. This includes all Catholics and Protestants and branches thereof (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals [except Oneness Pentecostals], etc), and excludes groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Wittnesses, and the like. http://www.christianforums.com/ has dealt with the issue this same way, for example. This issue needs to be dealt with NOW--actually, before the site was even opened, but it is too late for that--before thorny articles begin popping up. Otherwise this site will probably be doomed to arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#.22Consider_themselves....22 CyberAnth 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree (Not voting on it, just agreeing.) -- HAYSON¹⁹⁹¹ 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• TOTALLY APPOSE This stance is paramount to giving credence to man’s attempt to paraphrase once belief in a short mindless chant. Case in point is that the VERY church that came up with this ‘creed’ killed 10’s of thousands of devout true believers of Christ just because they refused to play by the religious rules of the time. --Austin K 02:40, 01 November 2008 (CST)

Proposal 12 - Don't

What is a 'Christian?' To be fair, only God knows. The terms 'heresy' and 'orthodoxy' were bandied about just as freely in the Early Church as they are today and are meaningful only to discrete communities of believers. I may be a Trinitarian, Episcopalian adherent to the catholic Creeds, but I dare not presume to say that a Unitarian or Presbyterian or Evangelical is not truly a Christian. To do so would be to impose the limitations of my human understanding on God.

So - I propose that we scrap this thread and be content not to define what is 'Christian' at all.

Actually, I think C. S. Lewis defined what a Christian is pretty well in Mere Christianity. --BenMcLean 13:38, March 22, 2011 (UTC)