Talk:Christian love
This is not a legitimate article in its own right, and it's extremely POV, but it can be cleaned up and merged with Christian philosophy or something like that. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:45, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Regarding neutrality[edit]
This page claims to be an excursus on the basic tenet of christian theology. It is just opinion, however. A say, once again: potential Vfd material. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:46, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Much of the article appears to verbatim copies from the Bible. --Chiacomo 05:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing in this article that provides encyclopedic value; it appears to be a billboard for Christian ideas (or ideals). At best, it should snip all direct biblical quotes into links, such as the "Love your enemy" section, thus:
In the Gospel According to Matthew (MAT 5:43-49), the Bible quotes Christ as saying "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."
Such snipping would make this entire article fit quite neatly under Christianity, probably as part of the Beliefs section (which is pretty scanty anway). This would obviate the need for a separate page and, since there are only 53 words in the entire article that are not either referential or quoted from the bible, I think it should be under VFD. Kevin Wells 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you look, we already have many separate articles about individual doctrines of churches, such Quorum (Mormonism); this is an important concept to Christians. It certainly deserves an article. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is a completely frivolous comparison. Quorum (Mormonism) contains detailed information on the internal function of that church without a single paragraph dragged from their Holy Texts. If this page were about Catholic Diocesan practice or Eparchal organization in the EOC, your comparison could have been valid, but for the core issue here: The Quorum article is not simply a billboard on which someone has decided to post personal views (53 words) wrapped around 700+ cut-and-paste words that appear elsewhere in Wiki (either other Wikipedia articles or WikiSource:Bible).
I still agree with (unpronounceable)'s basic assertion. This is a VFD candidate without significant chance (or rationale) for redemption. At best, it is a subheading under Christian Theology; even there it would have to be snipped nearly to death to be wikified. PS: If you want proof that this is opinion, not encyclopedic info, see Mike B.'s comments below and ask yourself, do we need a Wikipedia article for each passage from the Sermon on the Mount or the Nicene Creed? Love is a central ideal? How about humility? Meekness? Obedience (a MUCH more valid argument for the central theme, IMHO)? Faith? Life everlasting? One holy and apostolic Church? Forgiveness of sin? Etc., ad nauseum. Conclusion: VFD. Kevin Wells 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Such anger! However it is not opinion, but an important teaching of Christ! Yet I can't help but agree with much of what you say on Agape
~~Melissa
The Greatest Command[edit]
Good point. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." and " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Therefore it should be included in a Wiki-Article. I have also mentioned that most Christians reject this...Melissa
- Who rejects this? Please, provide me a reference, because I'd be shocked to find mainstream, authoritative Christian opinions that so explicitly repudiate the words of the founder of their faith! NatusRoma 03:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you really believe this theology is practical in the real world?--Melissa
In faith, I do, even if I fail to live up to it. Yet this is not just about my beliefs, but about the beliefs of billions of Christians around the world. All Christians fall short of the glory of God, but that does not mean that they reject his standards. The imperfect condition of man does not in itself imply that most Christians reject Christ's words of love. If you can show me a reference that says that most Christians really do find such incredible love, well, incredible, then I'll let my objections go, but I believe that unconditional love is central to the Christian faith. NatusRoma 03:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Do you not see the difference in what you say and how a Christian (ie Bush) must live his life. If Bush and the CIA followed what you say it would be the end of the free world.~~Melissa
- Oh, I see, and might agree, but I don't think a link to GWB is appropriate here... Unless there's another explanation, I'll remove it... And you can sign your posts by entering --~~~~ (with the tildes ~~~~) -- the software will insert your user name and a time stamp. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm sorry, link to GWB already removed by another editor --Chiacomo (talk)
- I have NO idea how this argument answers the central question: What encyclopedic value does this article have? Just like the Christian ideal of humility is under the Humility article, there is a perfectly satisfactory article on Love that has a nice little section on Religious Views, with a paragraph on Christian Love. Add to that the fact that this article is inextricably infused with POV (and not even a one that Christian adherents can agree upon). Sorry to be so blunt, but (unpronounceable) had it right: Wikipedia:VFD and be done with it. PS: Is there any reason that you cannot take your "greatest" debate to the talk pages of Christian philosophy, Love or some external (non-encyclopedic) forum? Kevin Wells 01:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Such anger! However it is not opinion, but an important teaching of Christ! Yet I can't help but agree with much of what you say on Agape
~~Melissa
My Ten Cents[edit]
The central idea in Christian Theology is the Holiness of God. God's love is a part of His character. Where as Holiness is the central part of this character from which all other attributes flow. A Christian should accept all teachings of Christ. The reason being that Christ is God. Therefore rejecting ANY teaching of Jesus would be rejecting a teaching of God, and therefore sin. Mike B.
Your are right!--Melissadolbeer 04:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS see changes
Compromise??[edit]
The first 'summary' paragraph in the article now reads rather clumsily and doesn't make complete sense. What about the more simple:
'Love is a central idea in Christian theology, and one of the most important themes in the Bible.'
I doubt many would disagree with the above. (note i've said a central idea and one of the most important to try and avoid further debate!
The article is not about God's holiness - this can better be addressed in the Christianity article. Clare
No sooner said than done! Melissa
- Good compromise! Question, though, why is there a "see also" to George W. Bush following the assertion that, "Most modern Christians feel such a high standard of love is not practical in the 21st century"? To me, it seems that the article asserts that GWB holds that view; if this the assertion, the statement should be properly sourced. Also, please sign your posts to discussion pages with --~~~~ as it's easier for me and others to follow. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Structural changes[edit]
I have placed all of the content apart from the introduction under a heading entitled "Descriptions of Love in the New Testament". Subsequent headings on the same level (==) can describe the further development of the idea of Christian love from the early church Fathers to the present day. I think that this will do a lot toward making this a workable article. NatusRoma 06:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)