Swept in from the pub

I've been wondering about creating a couple of pages about religion in general, but I'm not sure how this ties into Wikivoyage's scope. I guess an argument could be made that the traveller would want to have a few guides on what places to possibly avoid during a travel vacation, since some regions of the world are more intolerant of certain religious persuasions than others. But some of the pages on religion, like Christianity and Buddhism, have been tagged at the bottom with some sort of pending deletion template or request for merge, and I'm confused. Should we have one central travel topic page discussing religion in general and incorporating all the different religions as subtopics (level headers) of the page? Or should we have them split up into different pages, touching on the specifics of each religion and what behaviors among travellers may cause its adherents to be offended? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the standard message for any outline topic article. I think for now you could use those two pages as a model for creating other similar pages. What were you thinking of covering? Texugo (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, our religion articles are not very strong, but I think the Buddhism article is closest to what we might want from these articles. Ideally, these will give information that is useful to travelers in regards to themes and imagery that is commonly seen (architecture, sculptures, art, etc), restrictions (ex: many mosques cannot be entered by non-Muslims, proper dress, etc.), important differences between countries/faiths, etc. as well as becoming a place to link all itineraries that relate to that religion (currently there aren't any/many, but there's a lot of potential). I don't think that the focus of these or a general Religion article (if one is created) should be on what offends believers. That should be given some attention, but I don't think it's a good focus. Often religion is so integrated in societies that things that are offensive to followers become offensive to the larger populace, as well. We should probably have a separate template for articles that we definitely will not delete even if no one edits for a year. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For travel topics (and itineraries), the deletion warning is standard for articles that have an outline status. It disappears when the article is usable. We don't want loads of topics with only a couple of sentences. If your town has a cheese museum, it is fine to create an article for the town and add the museum - the article will stick around if it only has that one listing, but if you create a cheese travel topic and add the museum then it is likely to be deleted. I think that Buddhism is very close to being usable, maybe after deleting irrelevant headings like Buy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some topics that have been predetermined to never be deleted, even if they are outlines (discussion about this is out there somewhere). They are topics that are obvious itineraries, like the Silk Road. Even if the Christianity article is not edited significantly for a year, if you put it up for deletion, I think it will be given a "Keep" in spite of that warning. For those, it may be useful to have a separate template that does not threaten deletion. However, there are not so many of them, and I just threw the suggestion out there. I actually don't care either way. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles which, by their nature, will never be comprehensive. Underground Railroad is one (an unlimited array of largely-parallel paths), Moon is another (the Apollo programme proved it to be possible, but we'll never have enough detail in the article to provide a blueprint for the next nation that tries an Apollo-like mission post-2020). Contrast this to Radiator Springs, which is fluff but we have a list (from the "Cars" film's closing credits) of exactly who the filmmakers met while researching Route 66 and NASCAR, so only need to retrace those steps for the piece to be relatively complete. K7L (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, travel topic articles on the main world religions would be a good idea. I'm not sure of the best way to organise text to deal with the mostly separate issues of where adherents of some religion might go on pilgrimages versus advice for outsiders who will be affected by local religion. However, I'm sure that is a soluble problem.

Our current article on Islam is rather weak and we don't seem to have one on Hinduism, Taoism or various others.

We do have things like Holy Land, Sacred sites of the Indian sub-continent, Hajj and others which cover some of the ground. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a separate template, just a switch in the existing one that will have it give a more appropriate message. I seem to remember having brought this up before somewhere, not sure where at the moment... Texugo (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I plan to do the five major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) but I saw most of them had been created already. Also some lesser but still well known denominations, like Catholicism which is probably important as a complement of sorts to the Vatican City article, and Shintoism and one of my favorite religions Atheism. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism would definitely be an interesting one, since it is a major branch of Christianity that has a very strong background in travel. (I guess you could say that (at least in Europe) Roman Catholic pilgrims were the first people who traveled for personal fulfillment).

Just out of interest, what would Atheism look like as a travel topic? Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about Atheism, but Darwinism would be fair game... retrace the voyage of the Beagle in an ocean-going vessel? K7L (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinism is not a religion and we emphatically should not use the term in a title.

An article about Darwin's travels would be a fine idea. Title should be either On the trail of Charles Darwin, parallel to existing On the trail of Marco Polo and On the trail of Kipling's Kim, or something like Voyage of the Beagle. Pashley (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Communism might be a atheist related subject with plenty of material, with the caveat that only some atheists are communist. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And only some Communists are Atheist. Stalin was going to become a priest, after all and some interpretations of some parts of the new testament suggest early Christians lived in a kind of religious communist hippie commune... Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it doesn't have to be long. I think the significant additional information would cover the following: the conversion of Paul and his central role in ending the binding role of Jewish law among the early Christians and in proselytizing, along with Peter and other apostles; the years when the Gospels are believed to have first been written down; the fact that the Roman Empire tried to annihilate the early Christian communities and then adopted Christianity during Constantine's reign as Emperor and in turn tried and eventually succeeded in wiping out polytheism in the Roman Empire, with Mithraism having been a particular threat to the dominance of Christianity; the Roman Catholic/Orthodox split; the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and then John Calvin; the further spread of Christianity through missionizing during the European colonial period.

If a decision is made to cover these points, we could include some of the following travel-related content, among others: links to some of the cities Paul sent epistles to (Smyrna is Izmir, for example) the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome has a Mithraic temple in its crypt, Hagia Santa Sophia in Istanbul was the seat of the Greek Orthodox Church in Byzantium, the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg is where Martin Luther put up the 95 Theses.

Please give your views. I think it's debatable how much our audience will know about the history of Christianity, and we should remember that quite a few English readers are not Christians and live in countries that don't have Christian majorities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story with the theses and the church door is most likely anecdotal (Luther, a prolific writer who was not ashamed to use vulgar language when necessary doesn't mention it or allude to it). However I understand the non-policy of going with the myth, if the myth is better than the truth ;-). That being said, maybe we should mention some of the "juicy bits" that Karlheinz Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" (Criminal history of Christianity) deals with in. excruciating. detail. Also I find your lack of mention of the non-Greek Orthodox Churches disturbing. Yes they are small in number and apart from Ethiopia and (arguably) Lebanon don't play much of a role any more today, but they still built some churches and their schisms from mainline Orthodox-Catholicism (that schism occurred much, much later) were historically important and most likely set the ground for Muslim invasions. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly could cover the Copts, the Armenian Orthodox, the Nestorians and some other early churches that left notable places to visit, but you could equally well be disturbed that I didn't mention the Beta Israel, the Iranian Jews, the Jews of Kochi and several other non-Ashkenazic, non-Sephardic communities in the Judaism article. We can't cover everything, but where I take your point most strongly is that the early churches in most cases still are alive and kicking, and produced interesting attractions. I haven't read that German book, though. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only had a peak at one of the parts once (it took a man who recently died well into old age most of his live to write and makes the Lord of the Rings look like a pamphlet by comparison). And yes I see your point about not covering everything, but a (Coptic) Christian church in Egypt for example may surprise many travelers and well be worth a visit. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are great Coptic churches in Ethiopia, too, and Armenian Orthodox churches, and at least one Nestorian ruin of some interest in China. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] I kind of ran out of gas in working on the "History" section. There are a bunch of other important things to cover, including the Roman Catholic/Orthodox split, the Protestant Reformation, the Church of England split, and wars between different Christian denominations. In the process, more important sights can be mentioned and linked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reread this. The Orthodox/Roman Catholic split seems to me to be the next obvious thing to cover, probably followed by the Albigensian heresy as the impetus behind the Inquisition, which then gained strength with the Reconquista of Iberia (the early attempt at a reformation by Jan Hus might be mentioned, too, as the Hussites managed to survive, and if I remember correctly, preceded Luther by about 100 years). Then Luther, Calvin and the most important of the primarily Catholic/Protestant religious wars should be covered. I suppose some mention of Vatican II is important, too, to explain why it is that most Catholic masses are no longer done in Latin. Somewhere in there, the Crusades need to be mentioned, too, as should the use of "Crusade" to this day and perhaps the controversy it engenders, but we could easily get too far afield into politics, so perhaps it would be best just to present the original Crusades and just mention that nowadays, any campaign that involves some kind of Christian-led renewal of any kind might be called a "Crusade". Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I once heard (I think while touring one of the churches of the East Frisian islands) that some Lutheran churches have a certain bird on top of them, because Hus allegedly said "today you are burning/frying [one type of bird] but soon there will be [another type of bird] who you can't burn" - apparently many Lutherans took Luther to be the other type of bird... I don't know the birds exactly, but I think it is goose and swan, also having to do sth. with Hus' last name and a Czech pun I don't get... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivision[edit]

I was inspired by User:207.181.219.50's excellent work to add more historical information about Christianity, concentrating on more of the doctrinal splits. At this point, the "History" section is long and probably should be lengthened a bit with links to travel destinations relating to these aspects of history. So please, if any of you would like to subdivide the section into different subsections, go ahead at will! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Great schisms" subtitle. If you don't like it, again, please change it at will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have a page quote from the bible? I mean... we don't have one from the Q'uran for Islam. It may well be my secularist over-sensibility (plus me not liking Tim Tebow) But we shouldn't be in the business of promoting any religion, just informing about them where they are relevant to the traveler. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. We do quote the Shahada in Islam, but so as to inform, not as a kind of motto. I think it's really the context that's at issue: This Biblical quote would be fine as a summing up of the essence of Christianity in the "Understand" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could (though we don't usually do that) add a second quote to show the different attitudes towards Christianity and the Christian god, this being Dawkins' famous quote "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love that quote though. Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate at Judaism? Texugo (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not appropriate anywhere on this site except a talk page like this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody argues that this quote is not one-sided... However, the current quote is one-sided on the other side... In a sense... ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it states the core of Christian belief in an article that's about Christianity. Besides, the Gospels are beautiful and among the great literature of all time, and a major reason Christianity is interesting to non-Christian travellers is that there are so many great works of art inspired (or, if you'd rather be a bit less high-minded, funded) by the religion. All that said, I understand that it can come across as evangelizing, so I wouldn't have a problem with either deleting it or putting it in a context other than a set-apart quote, such as "Though there are many differences of belief and practice among Christians, one can sum up the core of Christian belief with the following quote from the Gospel of John:". Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "blessed are the cheesemakers" bit? As a loyal servant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I fervently believe that spaghetti goes well with cheese... K7L (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's no accident that we're not having these kinds of discussions on the talk pages about the other religions. It's because many non-Christians who live in Christian-majority countries acutely feel the domination of Christianity. If we had a lot of non-Muslims from Malaysia posting, we'd probably get a lot of sharp complaints about Islam, Rohingya posters would complain about Buddhists, some Muslims in India would have complaints about Hindus, etc., but those participating in this discussion aren't in those categories. Those of us who live in majority-Christian countries need to separate our feelings about that from a travel-related focus on those basics of Christianity that will help travellers who are interested to understand and appreciate sights (churches, monasteries, etc.) and experiences that are related to Christianity. Of course, if you all are just blowing off steam and being funny, that's fine. I speak as a non-Christian here... Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't seriously suggesting that it be put on the Judaism page. Texugo (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume all this talk is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the part about spaghetti going well with cheese, which is serious business. Texugo (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can put that into our article on Cheese ;-). And yes I understand the allure of the quote, as it has been called "the gospel within the gospel" and it is short enough to fit within the eye-black of a mediocre (at best) former NFL QB (scnr), but all tongue-in-cheekiness aside, it has a proselytizing quality to it. As does the Shahada (is that how it's spelled?) in Islam. Of course a person who gets religious inspiration from a travel guide (how ever well written it may be) needs psychiatric attention imho ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this section, but some of you probably know that I'm a professional musician with a Doctorate in music, and taught courses on various aspects of music history for over 20 years. I felt like the potted history we were giving was too detached from travel-related content, so I added information on where various important composers were born and worked. The risk is that people will get lost in the details and the section will get too long to be readable, but the potential gain is that they could visit places where the composers were born and worked. It took me some time to make those edits, but if you feel that there is too much detail now, please edit accordingly, as long as the edits are not misleading. Before I edited, it seemed like it was being at least implied that polyphony didn't exist in church music before the Renaissance, which is violently wrong, and that all church music through the Renaissance could be accurately called chant (albeit "polyphonic chant", which I guess would mean based on a Gregorian chant cantus firmus), which is also drastically incorrect, to my knowledge. (The Music article was even worse, claiming that Western classical music had been notated only since the 17th century, when the correct answer is since the 9th century!) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat related aspect: I have heard that older styles of notation were "lost" at least for some time. (This is IIRC why the Carmina Burana can be sung to different tunes) When were they "rediscovered"? And are we now able to accurately recreate a melody in 9th century notation or are we still limited in some aspects? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The older the work is, in general, the less agreement there is about performance practice. But "what's the right way" is often really the wrong question, as in most periods of European music history, no-one expected any piece to be performed anything close to identically in multiple performances. However, a longer answer could and does take up reams of books and articles.

As a performer (and therefore someone who has to deal with these questions in a practical and not purely scholarly way), I would say that there are many right ways to perform, say, a Baroque piece, and some "wrong" ways, and that it's clearer when you're dealing with someone who himself wrote a method book. For example, the great post-Baroque composer, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, clearly showed how long appoggiaturas should be, in his book on the True Art of Keyboard Playing, so that when people play them short or before the beat in performances of his works, that's "wrong". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choirs[edit]

There are various churches or church schools that have wonderful professional choirs, either boy's or children's choirs or mixed choirs of adults. It would be good to list or highlight some of the best, because that's surely travel-related information. I guess the Thomasschule boy's choir is very famous. So is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Where else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One I can think of is the Escolania de Montserrat, a boys' choir based in the Santa Maria de Monsterrat near Barcelona. It was a really nice experience hearing them when I last visited Spain. Although I haven't been to Italy, I imagine the Sistine Chapel Choir would be worth a mention. And likewise, in England, there is the Choir of King's College, Cambridge, which has some pretty nice performances of music by Handel and Purcell that you can find on YouTube. The dog2 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This can be the heart of the travel-relevance of this article. We are starting to develop the presumably analogous section, Islam#Cities. My feeling in working on that section is that any city that's historically and/or culturally important in terms of Islam and Muslims and has beautiful mosques, tombs of famous Muslims or other important Islamic religious institutions or institutes of learning belongs in that section. If we did the same thing for Christianity#Destinations, we could potentially list thousands of cities and towns with beautiful churches. So what criteria should we use in judging what belongs in this section, while we enlarge it in a travel-related, useful way? I would state to start with that I would definitely consider the most important of the Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals to merit a listing for their cities, so without recapitulating Gothic architecture in full at all, I think Paris definitely belongs, as does Santiago de Compostela but also probably Chartres. I would mention Venice for San Marco, among many other churches, Florence for its world-famous and gorgeous churches, and Munich, as a city full of beautiful churches, belongs, too. So does Moscow. But before I go further, let's discuss criteria for how to move forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe list cities that in addition to the criteria you line out have (historic or current) importance for one or several sects? Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Istanbul and Rome come to mind, even though only one of them has a clear Christian majority today and three of them are Jewish/Muslim cities (in various compositions) today with tiny Christian minorities at best Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So yes to Sofia because of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and yes to Belgrade because of the Serbian Orthodox Church but no to Paris because the Catholics are headquartered in Rome? I wouldn't agree with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of missing the criteria for inclusion. If you want to list every city with a lot of Christians, then it is going to be a very long article. I'd restrict it to destinations with a distinctive Christian history, and more than just having an important cathedral or building. Paris could be included, although Lourdes (for example) would be a better French candidate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should make up a list here, with reasons, before it's moved to the article. I'll start one below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has the potential of becoming an insanely long article, but I also don't have any suggestion for how to decide what should be included and what not. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christianity-related destinations[edit]

Related to Jesus' own life, as recounted in the New Testament[edit]

• Bethlehem (alleged birthplace)
• Nazareth (home town where he grew up, very likely was born)
• Baptism location on the River Jordan
• Cana, where the miracle of the loaves and fishes is said to have taken place
• Jerusalem (place of the Holy Temple where he as a Jewish boy was presented as a child, argued with priests, turned over the moneychangers' tables, did sacrifices; location of the Passion)

He presumably saw Pontius Pilate in Caesarea, if I remember the New Testament account correctly, so we could add that, but it's really a Roman ruin.

Related to the earliest disciples[edit]

• Rome is where Peter was martyred, but of course there are many other reasons to go there
• Places in India where St. Thomas lived and preached
• Some place(s) in Ethiopia (I forgot which disciple)
• Christian missionaries in China in the 7th and 8th centuries - What about them? Are there any interesting destinations that have vestiges of their journeys? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's fill the rest of this in, but we could choose to list the various places St. Paul wrote Epistles to, or not, since those are listed in the historical narrative.

Related to the early missionaries and saints[edit]

• Cuthbert - Lindisfarne
• Patrick - Ireland and Northern Ireland - Comment: Too broad a scope. That's like listing Italy as a destination. Are there specific sites traditionally associated with St. Patrick? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh would narrow it down, (where St Patrick built a church in 432.) I don't know whether there are other places that should be mentioned. AlasdairW (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Francis - Assisi

Related to key historical events[edit]

• Gutenberg Bible Mainz
• Where Martin Luther translated Bible Wartburg Castle
• Crusades (both the ones to the Holy Land and up to Scandinavia and the Baltics, there are likely others too)
• Missionaries of different periods of time. E.g. Magellan's crew did missionary work and organized the first mass in the Philippines, missionaries in Africa and the Americas...

Works of art[edit]

• The Last Supper Milan
• The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb Ghent

Seats of churches[edit]

• Antioch, seat of the Syriac Church
  • Although ceremonially still called the Patriarchate of Antioch, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox Church was moved to the Deyrulzafaran Monastery near Mardin (also in Turkey) during the 13th century. In 1933, it was moved once more to the Syrian city of Homs, and later still, in 1959 to Damascus (not sure if the Syrian Civil War necessiated yet another move). On another note, Antioch/Antakya is the site of the Church of St Peter, one of the oldest churches of Christianity and where the earliest adherents of the new religion were called "Christians". Vidimian (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2016‎
• Alexandria, seat of the Oriental Orthodox Churches as a whole and specifically the Egyptian Coptic Church
• Axum, which I think is the seat of the Ethiopian Orthodox (Coptic) church and also has a historically important church said to have the original Ark of the Covenant
  • I don't think the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is Coptic in any way besides (perhaps) acknowledging some folkloric supremacy of the Pope in Alexandria (a bit like some Orthodox Churches do with the Patriarch of Constantinople) Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Istanbul (Byzantium/Constantinople), seat of the Eastern Orthodox churches as a whole and specifically the Greek Orthodox Church
• Somewhere in Armenia (Yerevan?) for the seat of the Armenian church
  • I think Echmiadzin is the seat of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Vidimian (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhere in Georgia (Tbilisi?) for the seat of the Georgian church
• Moscow for the seat of the Russian Orthodox Church
• Sofia for the seat of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
• Belgrade for the seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church
• Rome was already mentioned
• Canterbury for the Archbishopric of Canterbury and other historical reasons
• London as the location of the overall head of the Anglican Church (that is, the Queen of the United Kingdom), Westminster Abbey and St Paul's Cathrdral
• Places most associated with the Reformation (mainly Luther and Calvin, but we could also include the earlier Jan Hus), without duplicating the Protestant Reformation article.
• We could also include seats of arguably post-Christian denominations in the U.S. like the LDS Church (Salt Lake City) and the dwindling Christian Scientists (Boston)
• Centers of Inquisition activity in Spain? France? Portugal? and their colonies. Some are important for other reasons, which brings me to

Places of Catholic pilgrimage[edit]

• Santiago de Compostela
• Lourdes
• Vezelay
• Czestochowa
• Guadalupe (Mexico)
• Aachen
• Ephesus, more specifically the (supposed) House of the Virgin Mary (wp) on a hillside out of the modern town of Selçuk
• Fatima

This list could get long, but let's make it. If there's a separate travel topic on such places, let's not fully duplicate it.

Important archdioceses[edit]

This is where we list national capitals or current or former capitals and big cities with historic cathedrals:

• Paris
• Prague
• Venice
• Krakow
• St Petersburg, probably
• Munich?
• Montreal
• Barcelona

Where else? That African city with the huge church built by order of their former dictator (Yamoussoukro, I think?)? yes

Please edit this list mercilessly, but maybe by copying and pasting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good outline. I was say there may be merit in A) making a distinction between historical and 'living' Christian destinations in seperate articles, and B) discarding anything too list like such as 'Seats of churches' and 'Important archdioceses' sections Andrewssi2 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why get rid of those? Rome surely won't be omitted, so why omit Moscow, Istanbul, etc.? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more places. If you mention London, I think you absolute must mention St Paul's Cathedral (which is probably the largest church I've ever been into, not counting the evangelical megachurches) and Westminster Abbey because they play a big role religious ceremonies for the British royal family. Fatima in Portugal should be mentioned as a place of pilgrimage since it is well known among Catholics for being the place where apparitions of the Virgin Mary appeared to three children. And I think it might be worth mentioning that the head of the Egyptian Coptic Church is also the symbolic head of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, so Alexandria would be the sear of the Oriental Orthodox Churches as a whole.

And I also added Montreal because it is home of four Roman Catholic basilicas, which is quite a large number for a single city. And perhaps Barcelona, because of the Sagrada Familia, which is still unfinished after over 100 years of construction and in any case is a basilica that is pretty unique in appearance. The dog2 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] Most of these destinations haven't been listed yet. Should we expand the section? I also thought of another significant one, perhaps - would you agree or disagree that Mount Sinai is a significant Christian destination, given both its Biblical importance and the presence of a monastery there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we come back to this? We could stand to add more destinations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know the church was quite fond of handing out death sentences like candy during Karneval, but this edit seems to think that there was only one method of execution already pretty early on, to which I say "citation needed" Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

huh? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a repetition, which was why I removed it. We only need to mention Salt Lake City once on the list, and if you look carefully, it was already listed further up. The dog2 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some listings use "Saint" and "St." before names of disciples and apostles, and while that is commonly used in Catholicism, many Protestants do not use the term "saint" for important Christian figures because they consider all Christians to be saints. Selfie City (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could mention that in the article as one of the differences between Catholicism and similar sects (Orthodoxy, Anglicanism) and some Protestant churches. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up Lutheran and never once heard of a doctrine that all Christians are Saints. Is that a doctrine of the United church of the NFL headquartered in New Orleans? Or is this monophysitic Arianism? Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it is an Evangelical belief. Check this out: information about saints. Selfie City (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also related to the song "When the Saints Come Marching In". I'd suggest mentioning this belief in a subsection about Evangelical Christianity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical church doctrine[edit]

Also, considering the great number of differences between Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, should Christianity be separated into two different articles, one for Catholicism and one for Evangelical Christianity? Selfie City (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, and it's also possible to have separate articles for Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, the Coptic Church, etc., etc., etc. But my suggestion is, start here and see whether the travel-related content becomes too voluminous for this article to hold. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how we split this, I think it's also important to note that all Christians, regardless of denomination, believe that Jesus Christ was free from sin, and died on the cross for the sins of humanity. That's why I think this article should stay in some form. And the schisms that led to today's Christian denominations are without a doubt a significant part of the history of the Christianity.

And speaking of the Evangelical churches, I would not mind if someone can expand a bit more on the doctrine. At least based on what I know, many of them preach something called the "prosperity gospel", where material wealth is closely tied in with the strength's of one's faith in God. And as part of this belief, there are also many churches that conduct "faith healing" sessions, where the pastor is supposed to be able to harness the power of Jesus to miraculously heal all diseases in the faithful. And not to mention, many of these pastors are fabulously wealthy; they often live in $10,000,000 mansions and drive luxury cars like Rolls Royce and Ferrari, and in the U.S., a number of them have their own personal airports and fleets of private jets. (And as a side note, in Singapore, while all other religions, including more traditional Christian denominations, are on the decline among the younger generations, Evangelical megachurches are the exception and are in fact growing in congregation size.) The dog2 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're stereotyping Evangelical churches. Although there are many people in Evangelical churches who run successful businesses, I'm sure most Evangelical churches don't see wealth as the definition of a good Christian - if anything, most Evangelical churches would support the opposite (think of Lazarus and the rich man). Also, pastors are only wealthy in the megachurches, not in other churches. Selfie City (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are many Evangelicals who are very sincere Gospel-based Christians, but you're writing as if you've never heard of the "prosperity gospel". Have you never heard of it? See w:Prosperity theology, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the context of Singapore, it is the "prosperity gospel" that has attracted and continues to attract large numbers of youth converts. It's not just other religions, but even other churches that have been losing young followers to the "prosperity gospel" churches. And they're a very significant reason why the government has yet to repeal the laws against homosexuality; they will lose a lot of the votes from younger evangelicals if they do so. And chances are, if you see a pastor driving a Lamborghini (or other expensive cars like maybe a Bentley or Maserati) and living in a mansion surrounded by armed security and an electric fence, chances are, he's either the "prosperity gospel" or "faith healing" type.

And by the way, the "prosperity gospel" theology is not that wealth is the definition of a good Christian in the way you define it. Rather, it is the idea that material wealth is God's reward for your faith in Him, and the stronger your faith, the wealthier you would be. In fact, many of these megachurch pastors use that to justify their wealth, and get their followers to donate huge sums of money to the church with the promise that God will make them wealthy in the future (and of course, that's where the church gets the money to buy the pastor's Lamborghini and private jets). The dog2 (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘But the page on Wikipedia about Prosperity Theology says it about "some Christians", not by any means all of them. And I still think that a church in Singapore doesn't mean that every other church is like that. Selfie City (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not all Christians. I have friends who are more traditional Christians too, and I know for a fact that many older Christians disapprove of the "prosperity gospel". But the "prosperity gospel' actually originated in the US, and from there spread to places like South Korea, Singapore and Australia (the famous Hillsong Church in Sydney is a very good example of a "prosperity gospel" church). It's a fact that all televangelists preach the "prosperity gospel". And it is this form of Christianity that is growing in popularity among youths. The traditional churches are actually in decline in many places even as the "prosperity gospel" churches continue to grow. I am not saying that we should state that all Christians believe in the "prosperity gospel", because that is demonstrably false, but it is not incorrect to say that the very successful charismatic movement uses the "prosperity gospel", and it is this "prosperity gospel" that has been attracting the bulk of youth converts these days. It is most certainly true that Christianity has been the most successful at modernising and commercialising among all the modern religions, though we'll see if that is true for much longer as the Chinese are trying to do the same with Buddhism. The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selfie City, why would you think anyone is suggesting every church is like that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we can mention this prosperity gospel thing on the basis that we also say not all Christians believe it. Selfie City (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. I am well aware the it is for the most part just the Evangelical megachurches that preach the prosperity gospel and not all churches. And I think we can also mention that despite its popularity among teenage and young adult Christian converts, the prosperity gospel is controversial among the more traditional "old-time" Christians. The dog2 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know more about these megachurches, actually. About how many of them are there? Are they associated with a particular denomination? I'm pretty sure we're not talking about Methodists or Baptists - is this perhaps a Pentecostal thing? Selfie City (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They actually belong to various Protestant denominations, but most often would be Baptist, Pentecostal or non-denominational. Singapore has City Harvest Church, New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church. As I previously mentioned, there's Hillsong Church in Sydney, Australia. And in South Korea, there's also lots of them, like Yeoido Full Gospel Church. Of course, the United States has the most, since that's where this thing started, and you have the likes of Lakewood Church, and of course many televangelists like Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland and Jesse Duplantis. I can't possibly name all of them, but all the people I mentioned, as well as the people leading the churches I mentioned all preach the prosperity gospel, and they are all fabulously wealthy and lead an extravagant lifestyle. The dog2 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose language like "some Evangelicals believe in the 'prosperity Gospel'" followed by a brief definition of it and examples and brief descriptions of some preachers who preach or have preached it. "As Jesus served the poor, sick, outcast and downtrodden and famously stated that 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven' (Matthew 19:24), this interpretation of the Gospel is quite controversial, with many Christians strongly condemning it." Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think most of your proposition is good, except that I think a better way of stating the end part is "...many Christians do not agree with this interpretation of the Gospel." That's shorter, more to the point, and uses more moderate language. Selfie City (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds good. And we can also mention that the vast majority of megachurches preach the prosperity gospel (I can't say for sure all, but at least all of those that I know of do), because that is most certainly true. The rise of the charismatic movement is in fact very much tied in with the rise in popularity of the prosperity gospel. The dog2 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Wikipedia page for the Charismatic Movement for the words "prosperity gospel" and got no returns. This is either a fault with Wikipedia or the prosperity gospel is not in the vast majority of megachurches. However, [1] has a little more information about the "prosperity gospel".

I also just have a feeling that we shouldn't go too much into the prosperity gospel or megachurches because, despite the name "megachurches", these churches represent only a small portion of Evangelicals. I think that if we're going to talk a lot about the prosperity gospel, we should mention more about other theological issues as well. If we want to go into detail about prosperity theology, we should also go into detail about other theological issues. Selfie City (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another question - where should information about Evangelical church doctrine go? If we can decide where it should go, we can put plenty of information into it. Selfie City (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about the megachurches and the prosperity gospel in Singapore: [2]. I'm sure you can find numerous articles about the ones in the U.S. and South Korea as well.

Regarding the prosperity gospel, all I was planning on doing was to add a few short sentences where we mention the charismatic movement. Basically, I just intended to mention that the charismatic movement tends to preach the prosperity gospel, followed by a very brief summary of what the prosperity gospel is. And I was also intending to just mention that this is controversial among some Christians. As for Evangelical theology as a whole, I wonder if a good way to some it up is that they believe that the Bible is to be taken literally as a historical chronicle, and that it is their job to spread the gospel as much as possible, and to fulfill the prophecies in Revelation and bring about the Apocalypse so Jesus can come back and lead Christians to heaven. The dog2 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a summary is definitely a good idea. I think the information about doctrine mostly is useful for background and so someone who chooses to visit a church might have some idea of the kinds of experiences they may have, but I don't think we want to describe any church's background in great detail.

But it occurs to me that the nature of different masses/services as experienced by a visitor is not described much. Churches with Gospel singing are popular with visitors, and a visitor also might be interested in going to a Pentacostal church where people speak in tongues. There are also Catholic and Anglican high masses in which a composed setting of the Latin mass is sung by a professional choir as an integral part of the mass. We should have a section in which there are some descriptions of what to expect in different kinds of churches, don't you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we cover a lot of that under "Christian music"? If you think there is a good way to expand this, why don't you do it since you're our resident expert in music. But I'll be honest that as someone who loves classical music myself, I have yet to find a Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran church that has professional choir, orchestra and operatically-trained soloists that will allow it to actually perform a Bach, Mozart or Beethoven mass. If you do know of any such churches, I'd love to know. The dog2 (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masses can be performed with a chorus plus organ. My girlfriend is in just such a choir, in an Anglo-Catholic (Anglican) church in New York. They have a small orchestra on especially high mass days but otherwise make do ably with an 8-person chorus plus organ. And they do perform Mozart masses, among others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do know about music but haven't been to every type of church service, and there are things other than music that are important for a prospective visitor to know. Does the congregation dance in the aisles or remain at their seats in the pews except when going up for communion? Do they say "amen", "halleluyah" and the like during the sermon or listen silently? Do they speak in tongues? Are people who want to be saved asked to come up to the altar individually? Is there a lot of responsorial singing, or does the congregation mostly shut up and listen to the choir, or do they sing along with the sopranos? Some of this is about music, but a lot is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Cathedral Choir comes to mind. Philaweb (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ikan Kekek and The dog2: I've created a subsection in "Understand" called doctrine where I've mentioned he prosperity gospel. Feel free to add to this section, especially in "beliefs". Selfie City (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One famous choir I can think of is the King's College Choir in Cambridge. And in fact, many British and American universities (and I would presume, universities elsewhere as well) were traditionally associated with particular Christian groups even if they may be largely secular in practice these days, and still have one or more churches on campus with their own choir for those who are interested. In parts of Europe, some monasteries have a boys' choir which is often a tourist attraction; one I have heard personally is the boys' choir of Santa Maria de Montserrat Abbey located in Montserrat, which is near Barcelona.

As for Gospel music, I think we might also want to note that it is no longer confined to just African-American churches. Gospel music has in fact strongly influenced many Protestant churches outside the African-American community, and these days you do have many predominantly-white churches that sing Gospel music as well. And for that matter, there are also several churches in Singapore that use Gospel music, so it's by no means a black-only thing these days, even if its origins may be in the African-American community. The dog2 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. And of course we should list the boy's choir at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text on the Christianity page has in the past said that Jesus was likely born in Nazareth despite what the New Testament says about Bethlehem being Jesus' birthplace. I took that out, because the idea that he was born in Nazareth is not an established fact and many Christians believe Christ was born in Bethlehem. But it has been added in again. Personally, I think we shouldn't say where he was born. Selfie City (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christians believe the Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and there were prophecies in the Old Testament that foretold that the the Messiah would be a son of David. And at least according to tradition, David was born in Bethlehem. However, most secular historians think that Jesus was most probably born in Nazareth (we can never be completely sure, as all the accounts of Jesus' life were written long after he died). At least the current practice we have on WV is to state both the theological account, and the account by historians and archaeologists, so I think this should be mentioned in some form, but in a neutral tone. See the Judaism article for examples of how we have done this. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think we shouldn't just say "this is where he was born" when many Christians wouldn't agree. Instead, I think we should say that "while many secular historians think that Jesus was probably born in Nazareth, Christians generally go with the New Testament account of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem." One other question: does the practice on WV to mention both theological accounts and archaeological accounts apply to articles about paleontology, evolution, and the geologic column? Selfie City (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, for those, we generally follow the scientific consensus. For instance, we state that "Africa is the wellspring of the human race." in the Africa article, even though most Evangelicals will vehemently disagree and insist that it was Mesopotamia, where they believe the Garden of Eden was. And we generally assume the scientific position that the Earth is at least 4,000,000,000 years old, even though Evangelicals say it is 6,000 years old. However, if you feel very strongly about changing that, start a discussion in the pub and see if you can get a consensus. I happen to be a scientist, so of course I will vote to side with the scientific position, but if you feel very strongly about the need to give the Biblical account at least equal consideration, who knows? You might be able to get enough people on your side for a consensus to change WV's practices. The dog2 (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it would fit to talk about Christian beliefs on a page about evolution or the big bang. Here's the issue: not that I'm comparing Evangelical Christianity to conspiracy theories, but on the page for the moon we could mention that some people think the moon landing was fake. If Wikivoyage had a page about the earth, we could mention on it that some people think the earth was flat. The point is that there are so many different beliefs that mentioning them all in every single place would soon go beyond the scope of Wikivoyage. I simply think, for evolutionary/Athiest ideas, we should make clear that positions like Earth being 4.6 billion years old are based upon evolution and the big bang (nebular hypothesis). At the same time, we shouldn't say on the Christianity article where Athiests disagree, but instead on each article about each belief only talk about that belief and not about contrary ones. (For example, we shouldn't say on the page about Christianity, "Well, we know miracles can't happen, so this must be made up." Selfie City (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But at least from a secular perspective, the findings of historians and archaeologists give us an insight to the early history of the religion, even if they may not match the official theological narrative. While I don't think we should be declaring in our articles what is true and what is not true, I think we should mention both positions. The dog2 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which are these, though? Selfie City (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘A lot of that stuff is already covered in the Judaism article. Like the idea that Judaism started off as the polytheistic Canaanite religion before later becoming monotheistic, while traditional Jewish and Christian theology has asserted that the Jews had always been monotheists and stood out in an otherwise polytheistic world. As for the historical Jesus, there is a general agreement among historians that his baptism by John the Baptist actually happened, as did his crucifixion (although Muslims do not believe the latter actually happened), but it is also believed among secular historians that we do not know how much we can trust the Biblical account. There is of course a debate on whether or not Mary was actually a virgin when she conceived Jesus, and there are some historians who think she was the victim of a rape. Of course, this is very controversial and probably does not belong in this article. But it is most certainly true that while Christians believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, most secular historians believe that he was most probably born in Nazareth. Likewise, while Catholics believe that Jesus was an only child and Mary stayed a virgin until she died, most historians believe that Jesus had siblings, and that Mary did not die a virgin. The dog2 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Syriac Christians believe Thomas was actually the twin brother of Jesus, though I may be misremembering this. I understand that the Gnostic Gospels, or some of them, describe Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife.

But the reason we mention archeology and history when it conflicts with sacred histories (and maybe we should do so more when it supports them) is that though this site is of course based on opinions in the sense that first-hand reports describe and rate points of interest, hotels and the like from an admittedly subjective viewpoint, I believe this is a fact-based site on topics to which science and history can be brought to bear. As The dog2 says, if a consensus someday decided to substitute the spread of one religion's dogma for the current approach, that would carry the day. But I just don't ever see that happening, as at that point, it would no longer really be a travel guide, but rather, a propaganda travel guide from one religion's point of view. I would further say that the articles about religions are not meant to spread those religions' beliefs, but rather to give visitors useful background that will enable them to understand and appreciate things to do and places to visit - in this case, for example, churches, places of Christian pilgrimage, Christian music and art and the like. So this article should be informational, but not told from a pointedly Christian point of view, such as someone trying to evangelize others might do.

I hope all of this makes sense and none of it offends anyone, as no offense is intended, and respect for religion among travelers who seek to visit places that are sacred to others or observe or take part in sacred rites is something we should encourage, regardless of whether the travelers are believers in any religion or in none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly agree with this. And let's keep in mind that religion has had a huge impact on cultures throughout the world, even for people who no longer believe in the religion itself. Case in point here, many of the traditional Chinese festivals I celebrate have their origin in traditional Chinese religion. So while I do not actually believe in the religion, knowing the religious background certainly helps in understanding why particular things are done in my culture. And the same goes for all other cultures too. And let's also not forget that science was nowhere near as advanced as it is today in the ancient world, so for many people, religion was the only way they could explain certain phenomena that we can explain scientifically today. The dog2 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And a good example of the continuing effects of a religion very few people believe in anymore is ancient Greek and Roman religion. But I digress, as the number of Christian believers is in the billions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two important things to know about Christianity. 1. Christianity began as a Messianic sect of Judaism. 2. There are and have been deviant sects of Christianity. The first is described in lenght under the history section, the latter is somewhat tucked away under various paragraphs. It is crucial to understand that there are great lithurgical differences in the content of a Christian church and a Christian sect. This quote taken from the article summarizes it very well: "Some of these churches add a third testament — a post-New Testament holy book (for example, the Book of Mormon) — and are therefore sometimes considered post-Christian or non-Christian by others". This article should have a section of its own describing the main differences. Philaweb (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make the change if you feel it's appropriate. And I don't know if it's within the scope of WV to cover it in this article, but there were many Christian sects in the days before the Romans decided on the canon. The reason why they no longer exist is because the church ordered all the books that they determined not to be part of the canon to be destroyed, and killed everyone who believed in the "wrong kind of Christianity", but archaeologists have since rediscovered some of these lost gospels. For instance there's the Dead Sea Scrolls (though information about that is more appropriate in the Judaism article), the Nag Hammadi Libary, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas. The dog2 (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the scope of Wikivoyage is to let tourists know, many of them without prior knowledge of a subject, how to understand the basics of the subject in its current environment. To me it seems to be overkill to go into lengths on what the subject is not and what it was not. As a tourist I really just want to know what it is now, so I can understand it in a practical context. The rest can hopefully be found on Wikipedia. I will contemplate a bit on how to convey the current differences between the Christian denominations. Philaweb (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we should mention anything about the Mandaeans in this article. For those who don't know, these are the people who regard John the Baptist rather than Jesus to be the Messiah, so they aren't technically Christian, but unlike the Gnostic Christians, they have actually survived to this day, albeit in very small numbers. Since the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is a historical event, I can't really think of anywhere else more appropriate to mention he Mandaeans even if they may not actually be Christians. The dog2 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has little to no bearing on travel. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could technically still visit the Mandaean communities if you're interested. But of course, because not that many people know about them, there won't be as many people interested in visiting Mandaean places of Worship as there would be in visiting, say, churches. And since John the Baptist was carrying out his baptisms at the River Jordan, that's a place you can visit if you're interested in Mandaean history. The dog2 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, some countries classify them as Christians even though they are not technically Christians. The dog2 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're obviously not Christians. I don't see the point in mentioning them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christians don't even regard Catholics as Christians... just saying...

But unless there are some notable sights related to the Mandaeans (historical, etc.), I don't see a lot of point in talking about them. According to w:Mandaeans, there are very few of them currently, and if that's true, they may die out altogether. Anyway, they do not live in Christian-dominated countries, so I think considering them Christians is a stretch.

And if you think about it, "Christ-ians" is a pretty important factor in saying they're not Christians. Since Jesus is of course the central point of Christianity, and John the Baptist isn't (he "prepared the way"), I'd agree that they're not Christians. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How I would describe them is related to Christians but not Christians. To the Mandaeans, since it was John the Baptist who baptised Jesus and not the other way round, it is John the Baptist who should be regarded as the Messiah.

Besides, the River Jordan is significant to Christians as well as the site of Jesus' baptism, so it certainly can be added to this page. If we add it, I guess the Mandaeans can be briefly mentioned if people don't object. The dog2 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're irrelevant to a travel article about Christianity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Jordan River isn't a strong enough link to tie the two religions together. Also, they're in small numbers. If there were millions of them, it would be different, but when there are only a few thousand, they're not relevant to a religion with 1.7-2.7 billion followers. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I personally don't see the existence of one destination as justification for shoehorning needless encyclopedic information into a travel guide.

I oppose any expansion of the prose section of this article, which is already far too long and desperately needs to be shortened. If you want to add a listing of the River Jordan, then I'd support a mention of Mandaeans without defining who they are, or, preferably, omitting them entirely. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely on your first sentence, but if you want to eliminate some of the prose, please state what you'd propose to eliminate or summarize in another section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ARR8, I'd agree it's long, but IMHO generally it's a well-written article with plenty of information that is very important. It's OK if an article is long, if there's that much to say. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may come back to this in the future with some specific suggestions. There are several passages here of the sort that appear in too many of our travel topics: namely, those that don't even pretend to cover anything pertaining to travel, but seem to have been written so that someone could have an excuse to write a Wikipedia-style article without needing to bother with sources. A quick rule of thumb to highlight the obvious examples are the paragraphs of minutiae without travel advice, hyperlinks, or bolded text. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 06:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'll drop the issue on the Mandaeans. But I will say that while we don't need to go into the level of detail of Wikipedia, we should still cover enough to give people enough background to understand the significance of various religious sites and rituals. And the history of religions is useful to understand the background behind various conflicts, and some of these are still very sensitive issues today which travellers need to be mindful of. The dog2 (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict:] The use of an "Understand" section that lacks citations but gives the reader some background predates the fork into Wikivoyage and merger with the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's also something some printed travel guides have. We can discuss whether some things should be omitted or made briefer, but if you want to suggest that absolutely everything in every "Understand" section has to specifically reference travel, that's going further than we've ever gone before. I think it's a good exercise to connect as much with travel as possible, though, since this is a travel guide, and this article should be focused on travel, or it indeed wouldn't belong on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that, and I agree with the principle User:The dog2 outlined in his last comment, but I think we've strayed from it. For a specific example, look in the lead of the "Understand" section here: right before the very useful summary of Christian buildings, there's a paragraph devoted to a minor doctrinal point between Judaism and Christianity. In my opinion, this is totally useless. There are two categories a traveler can fall into: they are non-Christian, in which case they don't know what original sin is, and have no reason to, if they're, say visiting a cathedral; or they are Christian, in which case they know what it is and have absolutely no reason to know that it is not part of Judaism, if they're visiting a cathedral. What's worse, the comparison and explanation is, I assume, simplified and not entirely correct, as are most distillations of theology into a brief paragraph. So what we have here, in effect, is a digression in between two useful paragraphs of travel info to spread some useless misinformation that doesn't belong in a travel guide to begin with. There are plenty of passages like this. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 07:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘But that said, original sin is a core belief of Christianity. The one core belief that ties all Christian denominations together is that all humans are tainted with sin and condemned to hell by default because of that, and only by believing in Jesus can you be cleansed of that sin and enter heaven to be with God. That is the belief that defines someone as a Christian. The dog2 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dead sure all denominations nowadays believe that everyone who isn't a Christian is ipso facto damned to Hell? To my knowledge, that's not correct. Traditionally, of course original sin is indeed a core belief of Christianity, but unless we want to explain depictions of Adam and Even and the serpent or Devil to readers because they may see some in churches, etc., I think I agree with ARR8 that is isn't essential to mention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess things could have changed. But that's what Christians have said to me whenever they tried to convert me. But anyway, I think how we should approach this paragraph is by thinking about how we would answer the question "What is it that distinguishes a Christian from a Jew?" when it comes from someone with a casual interest in religious studies (and note that I used the term "religious studies", not "theology", because they are not the same thing). Since Christianity started off as an offshoot of Judaism, I think something brief mentioning key differences between the two is warranted. The dog2 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the answer to how we should answer that question is "we shouldn't." If someone wants information about religious studies, they can read an encyclopedia. I don't think any information on details of doctrine is warranted, because this is a travel guide. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] First of all, many denominations of Christianity would not have tried to convert you, so there's part of your problem right there. That said, I understand your logic in wanting to cover the main differences between Christianity and Judaism, but I think it's unnecessary to mention all of even the most important ones, for three reasons: (1) The number of Jews in the world today is small; (2) Virtually all Jews know what the differences are; (3) Those who don't are not going to be looking to a travel guide for such information. I think it's probably worth mentioning that Christianity doesn't proscribe the eating of treif food or require circumcision, because those are two major changes that greatly aided in converting the pagans, and therefore, they help readers who might not know about these things to understand at least part of how what was a new sect of Judaism spread so widely so quickly. You could make a related argument about original sin, but I think it would be better to put it in a historical context than as a difference between modern Christianity and modern Judaism. Clearly, some Jews did believe in original sin about 2,000 years ago, and most of them ended up later being called Christians. All that said, ARR8 has a good point that's a lot briefer than my remarks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. Trim it down then. But I will say there are four points that need to stay, because those are the central tenets of Christianity that all denominations agree on. By definition, if you don't believe in these, you are not a Christian. 1) All humans (except Jesus of course) are tainted with sin. 2) Jesus is the son of God, born of a virgin, and the only one free from sin. 3) Jesus' crucifixion was the price that needed to be paid to absolve humanity of its sins. 4) Jesus was resurrected in his body and subsequently raised to heaven, and he will eventually come back to pass the final judgement during the apocalypse. The dog2 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that your above points are the foundation of Christianity, especially the first three and the first part of #4. However, I remain in the view that the article is fine kept more-or-less as-is, with the exception of perhaps minor changes and the removal of a few sentences here and there (maybe even a paragraph or two here and there). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I made this edit and removed instances that said Jesus "of Nazareth" because I think it is unnecessary. Since the information about New Testament birthplace/Nazareth as birthplace is mentioned later in the article (listing format), I do not think it needs to be included earlier on since it is not very important for travelers. (Except as a historical site) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have:

The other Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith (whose Messiah came in the 19th century) and the now very small Mandaean sect (who believe John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the Messiah).

I think that is fine. Pashley (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to have an exhaustive listing of Abrahamic religions, I think the tiny Samaritan community also probably belongs, but why is any of this needed in this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. A complete list is not needed in a travel guide. Pashley (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is any list needed? I'd like to delete this sentence entirely: "The other Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith (whose Messiah came in the 19th century) and the now very small Mandaean sect (who believe John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the Messiah)." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think making the connection between Christianity and the two main others (Judaism and Islam) is important, but that can be done by linking "Abrahamic religion" to Religion and spirituality#Abrahamic religions. If we keep the sentence, I think we should leave out the smaller religions. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to accept that as a compromise, if people think it's necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Pashley (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I remember complaining about this article being too long and too encyclopaedic and in need of trimming down. We are a travel guide. You will tell me "yeah, you're right" and keep making it grow. I've given up about it, really. Whatever. Ibaman (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above. @SelfieCity: I've seen your last series of edits - thanks for making some needed adjustments and removing unnecessary text. I'm going to reply to your post on my talk page here: if you feel it's very important to have that sentence here, feel free to put it back in somewhere appropriate. However, if it were up to me, I'd avoid any attempt to define what Christianity is in this article. I would prefer a stance of self-identification: there are people in the world who call themselves Christians. The exact details of what they believe that separates them from other Christians, non-Christians, etc. isn't really in scope here, in my opinion, and the group of people who call themselves Christian and the group of people who would be considered Christian by some authority have almost complete overlap, so why worry about it? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why worry? The answer depends on why someone would want to read about Christianity in a travel guide. If one does not care, why read it? If one is interested to know, one also wants to know why Christian places of worship are that different etc. I can only agree that a lot of the information in this article currently is way too detailed, so a trim is appropriate. Philaweb (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philaweb: Good point; makes sense to me. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs massive trimming & will probably do some soon. Pashley (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What type of content should be trimmed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, since I just reread through "Doctrine/Disagreements".

(1) I think the "Disagreements" section, as phrased, is not useful. What's relevant to state is how services are different in different denominations. Starting with the descriptions of differences (and similarities) in church services, a minimum or relevant doctrine can be included to explain the reasons, but right now, the section is really more one of potted doctrine, with mentions of differences a visitor to a church service would experience a sidelight.

(2) The section on missionaries should go into less detail on their methods, rather concentrating on something more relevant to a traveler, such as the voyages of St. Francis Xavier, which can be retraced.

(3) I think the "Great schisms" section is instructive, and I'd hate to see it go, but I think things like Luther's vicious hatred against Jews, while definitely historically important, don't need to be mentioned. We should also include some more specific information on destinations. For example, I'll add in connection with the Papal schism the fact that you can visit the Palace of the Popes (Palais des Papes), which remains one of the more imposing buildings in Avignon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've really appreciated your edits, Pashley. Sometimes, it takes someone who didn't write or previously edit a lot of an article to look at it with a different pair of eyes and imagine how it could be streamlined and restructured in a clearer, more user-friendly way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user recently changed the words "Jesus Christ" to just "Jesus". Sure, that's fine, but no edit summary was left at the time. Just interested to know the logic behind the change. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because Christ is Greek for "messiah." The use of the name presupposes a Christian perspective. In my opinion, it's a good change. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've learned something today — I didn't know that before (or if I did, I forgot it). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was already mentioned previously that Jesus of Nazareth is also known as Jesus Christ. Therefore, in that sentence, I think we can stick to just "Jesus" as it is clear who we're talking about. Based on what someone told me (a user here, but I can't remember who), we use "Jesus of Nazareth" to refer to the historical figure, and "Jesus Christ" to refer to him only in a theological context. The dog2 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I'd generally agree that, in this case, only the short form of the name is necessary. However, I've more often heard the term "Jesus Christ"/"Christ Jesus" than I have "Jesus of Nazareth", but that would generally be in the Bible or a similar concept. Thanks for your thoughts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once introduced, just "Jesus" will be fine. Which other Jesus would we realistically be talking about in an article about Christianity? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narco Jesús? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about as real as Christ.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the joke... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You suck, McBain! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with this sentence:

There exists, however, a significant minority that considers the King James Bible (or King James Version, KJV for short) the only truly God-inspired English translation and, similarly, the Luther Bible is often considered a work of supreme linguistic beauty or even genius never surpassed by more contemporary translations among German-language Lutherans.

And I think it's quite important in the case of any tourist who decides to visit a traditional church, especially considering the sentence that comes before it:

However, many Evangelical megachurches use newer translations of the Bible that are written in modern vernacular to make their Bibles more accessible to youths.

There's nothing wrong with giving both sides of the issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A possible alternative would be

While many Evangelical megachurches use newer translations of the Bible that are written in modern vernacular, there exists a significant minority that considers the King James Bible (or King James Version, KJV for short) the only truly God-inspired English translation and, similarly, the Luther Bible is often considered a work of supreme linguistic beauty or even genius never surpassed by more contemporary translations among German-language Lutherans.

or

While there exists a significant minority that considers the King James Bible (or King James Version, KJV for short) the only truly God-inspired English translation and, similarly, the Luther Bible is often considered a work of supreme linguistic beauty or even genius never surpassed by more contemporary translations among German-language Lutherans, many Evangelical megachurches use newer translations of the Bible that are written in modern vernacular to make their Bibles more accessible to youths.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "King James Only" is more prominent than analogous movements in other languages... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is of very little importance to tourists because the previous previous sentence already states the KJV is used. The information I removed was just minutiae about how certain churches, in addition to using the translation, also think it's beautiful. Not only is it not particularly relevant, also seems a bit wv:obvious to me.

In my opinion, there is something wrong with giving both sides of the issue here, because we should be giving zero sides of the issue. It's not relevant. We're here to document the what of religious travel, not the why. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you are referring to is "Religious language is often a solemn, antiquated variety as evidenced by the still most common English-language Bible, the King James Version that was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew by contemporaries of Shakespeare." What travelers need to know, per ttcf, is something like, "which bible version should I bring to this church?" The sentence being referred to does not do that at all. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be modified.

As I see it, the point of that section of the article is that it should clearly say, what kind of churches use one kind and what use the other. Criticisms like "religious language is solemn [and] antiquated" do nothing to make a better travel guide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you bring a Bible to a church? Would you bring a stethoscope to the doctor's office? You'll find out when you show up what Bible they're using. Also, mentioning that archaic language is used in some churches is descriptive, not a criticism. If you want to rephrase it, do, but don't delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Just a second, I think a lot of Christians bring Bibles to church. When you see paintings of the pilgrims on their way to church, is it some unusual coincidence that they are holding Bibles? I don't think so.

To me and I would assume a lot of other people, it seems clear that I never intended to delete the above-mentioned text. Not to point fingers, but I started this discussion because someone else removed text, not me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the days when it could take you weeks to walk to a pilgrimage church, you brought your own Bible to read it on your way, if you could afford to buy one. How often do Christians bring Bibles to church, nowadays? And if they brought the "wrong translation", couldn't they just share with someone in Bible study? I'm unconvinced this kind of small detail is important, beyond mentioning that the King James Version is great poetry, though not considered authoritative by modern Bible scholars, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my stance on the KJV-NIV debate is that, really, it is not greatly important (though that is not to say that the content we include about it is unimportant). The way I would see it, for young children and those not interested in advanced, or serious, Bible study, an NIV Bible or similar translation is appropriate. But for a more advanced study, it makes sense to use the KJV, or for those who know the original languages (Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek, etc.), to use the original versions.

My position here is that, a sentence saying something like, "Traditional churches stick to the King James Version but modern churches use various versions with more up-to-date language" would be informative to the traveler without overwhelming them with information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the Catholic Church is a traditional church and doesn't normally use the KJV, but instead, the Douai Bible or others, I would disagree with your proposed wording. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to travel. "Antiquated" was not the important point of the sentence I mentioned, "most common" was. However, I think you (SC) are right that that sentence is poorly phrased, and I will take your advice and remove the unnecessary commentary. Whether it's antiquated or not is a judgment that does not belong on this page. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my comment on relevance, I was referring to the statements about advanced bible study above. Someone in a position to do advanced bible study will not get their advice from a travel guide. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, thanks for removing that phrase, since I think the sentence is now better without it. And, yes, definitely what I said about advanced study is irrelevant to travel, I was just saying it to clarify on my position. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to mention those? I think it could get messy because there were several types of inquisitions - see w:Medieval Inquisition, w:Spanish Inquisition, etc. It might take a fair amount of research to develop a good working list of places specifically relevant to inquisitions, too. I know in Spain, Toledo and Compostela were among them, but those are just 2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you know. They could make interesting travel destinations. The dog2 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know enough but may do some research. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As many of you know, the Russian Orthodox Church broke off from the Eastern Orthodox communion several years ago over disagreements on Ukraine. Should we mention anything about that? The dog2 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it's worth a line of text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line under "Great Schism" & deleted this.

====Moscow-Constantinople Schism====

In 2018, the Russian Orthodox Church severed its ties to the Eastern Orthodox Communion in protest over a decision by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to recognise the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which had previously been subservient to the Russian Orthodox Church.

It does not seem to me this rates more than a line (if that) & certainly not a heading. It has almost no effect on travellers. Pashley (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it might affect you if you're an Orthodox Christian, because it affects which church you are allowed to worship at. But I'm happy with the way it's covered now. The dog2 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pashley, Ikan Kekek: Should we perhaps create a list of the main denominations of Protestant Christianity? Also we should probably also remove the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons from the Protestantism section because those guys are not protestants; they're completely separate denominations that most Protestants would consider heretical. And one more thing is whether or not the Anglican church should be considered Protestant, because it has a separate history from the other Protestant churches, and if you go to an Anglican church, you'll find that the rites are still more or less the same as those in the Roman Catholic church. The dog2 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some Anglicans speak of "High Church" with almost Catholic rituals versus "Low Church" which is nearly Calvinist, both Anglican congregations. I'm very hazy on details & doubt they belong in a travel guide anyway.

Yes, the sort of people who killed Jan Hus or the Salem witches would probably execute Mormons & perhaps the others you mention. I believe some tried; Mormon history includes persecution. What a travel guide article mainly needs, though, is a few links to Mormon temples & historical sites. Also, all three groups you mention are much involved in missionary activity & might be mentioned in that section. Pashley (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of Mormon ranches within Grand Teton National Park, including the famous wooden Mormon Barn. Those aren't religious structures per se, but are certainly an important part of Mormon history. The dog2 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My girlfriend sings in a choir at a high Anglican church (the actually call themselves Anglo-Catholic - they are part of the Anglican Communion but their priest also sometimes says a blessing for the Pope). I thought that what makes an Anglican church high is that they have a high mass every Sunday, and in this one, they usually have their choir sing a composed Latin mass for all parts of the Ordinary except the Credo, which the congregation recites together with the priest in English. The style of the mass is similar in many ways to pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic masses, with a lot of incense and the priest bowing to the altar with his back to the congregation. Low-church Anglican churches don't do a high mass except on special holidays. But I may be getting this a little wrong. My girlfriend says that at least in the Catholic Church, whether a mass is high or low has to do with the number of candles and assistants at the altar. I know that at the church where she sings, there are 3 men who bow at the altar, the priest and I guess two deacons. She mentions, too, that they have low mass (with no chorus and she thinks maybe no hymns and possibly not chanting - I've only been to mass to hear her sing, so I haven't gone to any of the weekday low masses) all week except Sundays and holidays. I may do a little more research about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing some text which I do not consider relevant in a travel guide, but preserving it here:

The greatest threat to the primacy of Christianity in Rome was Mithraism, a secret religion of Persian origin in which it is believed that worshipers literally had to be washed in the blood of a bull, quite a close analogy with the Christian concept of being figuratively "washed in the blood of the Lamb", meaning Jesus' blood treated as a sacrifice that "saved" those who believe in him. The Mithraites were eventually totally wiped out, but there are some relics of their religion that remain. In particular, the crypt of the Roman church of San Clemente was a Mithraeum (Mithraic temple).

Luther was a vicious antisemite, especially later in life, and the Nazis would quote his antisemitic pamphlets to justify their persecution of Jews. While the Catholic church of Luther's day wasn't exactly Jew-friendly, some scholars on the subject of antisemitism consider Luther to have introduced a new, more vicious type of Jew hatred which showed the beginning of "racial" instead of "merely" religious hatred.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I think it's fine to remove this bit about Luther, because though it's certainly historically important, it's not too specifically relevant to anything a visitor to a Lutheran church is likely to see or experience today. I see your point on deleting the paragraph about Mithraism, because it isn't Christianity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

The issue came up when a non-Jew asked Peter to come to his house to share a meal with him, which would mean eating treif (non-kosher) food, in violation of Jewish law. According to the Biblical narrative (Acts 10), Peter had a dream in which God gave him permission. After that, Peter ate treif food for the first time, and began preaching to non-Jews; his host became a new convert.

In general, I want to delete more-or-less all the history or theology that has no link to travel. Pashley (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are already mentioned briefly, but how far should we go? I think perhaps Nag Hammadi can be listed as a POI, since that's where many of the lost Gnostic gospels were re-discovered (eg. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc.). The dog2 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Pashley (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They now have a section at Christianity#Gnostics. Pashley (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that the listings about Cairo and Alexandria are both describing the same Alexandria cathedral. Perhaps Cairo should mention the church built over Babylon Fortress in Cairo/Old Cairo? --Ibaman (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done adjusted the listing. --Ibaman (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the head of the Coptic Orthodox church is known as the "Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria", which as the name suggests, indicates that his historical seat was in Alexandria. However, in practice, his current office is in Cairo. And the cathedrals in Cairo and Alexandria are both known as "Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral". The dog2 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from the article because it's not travel-related, probably way too simplified if you really want to get into theology but also too detailed to explain anything basic about how you'd experience a mass or service in different churches. I'd suggest that parts of the first paragraph of "Disagreements" might belong in some kind of a section on basic aspects of church services in different denominations that might stand on its own or go somewhere in "Do" or something. Or not. Or some of it might go in a "Prosperity Gospel" subsection of "Understand" - maybe that would be best. Anyway, feel free to glean from this what you can, but let's not go overboard in explaining theology. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

=== Doctrine ===

==== Beliefs ====

Even though all denominations and traditions that believe in Jesus Christ are labeled as Christianity, the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity are less explicit than the differences between both of the latter and Nontrinitarians. Nontrinitarians are Christian denominations that do not believe in the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit), and most of Nontrinitarians have also added a post-New Testament holy book to their belief. The typical Christian sign of the cross is not a part of Jehovah's Witnesses' belief, since they believe that Jesus Christ died on a single upright post (a stake or a pole).

==== Disagreements ====

Even though the Bible says "that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation", some Christian denominations disagree about what certain sections of the Bible mean and try to compare this to the general Biblical message. For example, some Evangelicals believe in prosperity theology (sometimes called the prosperity gospel), the belief system that financial wealth and good health are God's rewards for one's faith and monetary contributions to the church. Other Christians, though, point to Bible verses like Proverbs 23:4, which states that you should "work not to be rich". If you go to a large, modern, charismatic church, you will more likely hear prosperity theology than you would in a traditional church. Many Evangelical megachurches also practice faith healing, in which medical interventions are eschewed in favor of prayer, as they believe that getting medical attention is a sign of lack of faith in God. Of course these practices are hardly universal among Evangelical Christians or Christians in general, and many denominations deplore them.

While there are many differences between Christian denominations, the basic principle behind Protestant church differences is judgment vs. forgiveness. Those who emphasize judgment do believe that God forgives, but mainly emphasize that God punishes sin, and that even Christians can suffer because they have sinned. Meanwhile, the Christians who emphasize forgiveness tend to not be as strict about Biblical rules and may believe that it is not so bad to sin as long as you sincerely repent later, because God will forgive you if you repent. Generally, those who emphasize judgment are the Evangelical churches that study the Old Testament more than the New Testament, while churches that emphasize forgiveness, such as some Methodist churches, tend to spend more time studying the New Testament than the Old Testament. Evangelical Christians also believe that it is their sacred duty to bring about the apocalypse by fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Revelation, and thus tend to be some of the staunchest Zionists, as they believe that they need to get the Jews to demolish the Dome on the Rock and rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem in order to bring about the second coming of Jesus. At the same time, Evangelical Christians sometimes engage in religiously motivated antisemitism, and replacement theology (the belief that they are now the true Jews and the Jews who rejected Christ are accursed heretics) is sometimes found among them.

Meanwhile, the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals are largely based upon tradition vs. Scripture. Catholics see customs and traditions as the basis for Christian living and use the saints as guidance, while Protestants, particularly in the Evangelical community, rely primarily on Scripture and therefore have fewer traditions and less symbolism. Because Evangelicals rely on the Bible and not history and tradition, they point to many Bible verses that argue in favor for born-again Christianity: these include Romans 10, which states that "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

(end of quoted text)

So tldr version: Should we put a "Prosperity Gospel" section in "Understand" and move most of the first paragraph of "Disagreements" (shown above) there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say deleting that was a good call, but we do need something for travellers about Evangelicals. I know I've offended some & been baffled by others. Pashley (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything that needs to be said on non-trinitarians is at Christianity#Non-trinitarians. If not, better to expand that section than to restore the above text. Pashley (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that knowing more about what to expect if you attend a service in x kind of church vs. y kind of church can be useful information. Come to think of it, I should check Judaism and see if it covers Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist and different kinds of Orthodox services sufficiently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a travel guide is not a place to get into detailed theological discussions. But I agree with Pashley that there should be some more information about Evangelicals. And we should mention faith healing and the prosperity gospel, especially those are huge in the U.S., and travellers will notice that televangelists typically preach these. Maybe we should also mention something about Zionism, because Evangelicals are often even more hard-core Zionists than even many Jews. Some Evangelicals I have met have told me that they want Israel to conduct a genocide of the Palestinians as part of fulfilling the prophecy in the book of Revelation, and they are pushing very hard for the Israeli government to demolish the mosques on the Dome of the Rock. And to advocate for Palestinian rights in front of an Evangelical is extremely offensive. The dog2 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what we can say, though. Would advising travellers to avoid hot-button topics like evolution or Palestine be Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious? Pashley (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could just mention briefly that they tend to be strict Biblical literalists and very staunch Zionists. We do summarise the beliefs of fundamentalist Muslims and Hindus in their respective articles, so I don't see why we shouldn't do so for fundamentalist Christians. But as for whether or not it's Captain Obvious, I say perhaps yes if you're from a Western country, but no if you're from a country like China or Japan that doesn't have many Christians. I won't be surprised if the average Chinese or Japanese isn't familiar with Evangelical beliefs. The dog2 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the hot buttons are not obvious. In most of Europe there is one dominant church, and if you haven't happened to stumble upon some fraction, you generally don't know their views. I was already at university when I got aware of the Christian Zionist thing (by having an argument about Palestine with a devote Christian! – in school we were mainly taught some theological differences). So, even in a country with a Christian state church, you need not be aware of the no-nos in other churches. While I know some of the issues, I wouldn't know where to avoid them. –LPfi (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all satisfied with Christianity#Evangelical Christianity at this point? I certainly agree that some information about this form of Christianity is very important to include in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Looks fine to me for now. What I've tried to do is to make it more traveller-oriented by focusing on the experience you can expect to have if you go to an Evangelical church, and adding some information about its geographic scope. One further change we could make though is moving the part about the charismatic movement under the Evangelical Christianity sub-heading, because pretty much all charismatic churches are Evangelical churches. I'm just not sure what's the best way to do this. The dog2 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also charismatic Roman Catholic churches. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that. Do you have any examples? Because so far, all the Catholic churches I have been to are very traditional. I've never heard of Catholic pop or Catholic rock. And neither have I heard of the Catholic mass being set to pop or rock music for liturgical use, but if such things exist, I'd like to be educated on them. The dog2 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My girlfriend's father has been to at least one and took her once. She found it spooky. I don't know the name of it, but I presume it's in Central New Jersey. There's apparently a charismatic movement within American Catholicism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Wikipedia article (caveat: I haven't read most of it): w:Catholic charismatic renewal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you're bringing up modern Catholic church music, my girlfriend has often talked about the post-Vatican II sort of pablum-like urban folk/poppish hymn settings with guitars. Some Catholics criticize those as having cheapened the mass, but their intention was to make it more accessible to the younger generation. Her point of view is that most of it just isn't good music, but she appreciates that she grew up with a mass in English that she understood. Of course, now she is very intimately familiar with the Latin mass and sings it pretty much every week at the super-High Church Anglican church whose choir she's in. Their masses remind her mother a great deal of pre-Vatican II Catholic mass. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for that info. And certainly, simply the act of using modern music for liturgy doesn't make you a fundamentalist, and given that most if not all Catholic schools teach actual science (including evolution), I wouldn't regard them as fundamentalists even if they prefer to sing the Ordinary of the Mass in a pop style. The dog2 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't suggesting that. Charismatic Catholicism is not related to the use of folk-poppy music post-Vatican II to appeal to youth and other congregants. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, though, I'm getting the feeling you think Catholicism is more monolithic than it really is. There are some very conservative Catholics (a minority, to be sure) who remain opposed to Vatican II and have varying degrees of skepticism about Pope Francis, all the way up to those who consider him a heretic and not legitimately the pope. How they square that with a claim to be Roman Catholics, you'd have to ask them, but these same people are only part of a movement of hard-right Republican Trump-supporters who counseled people to overlook his personal immorality, involvement in capital punishment and violations of immigrants' rights because of the single issue of abortion, which if you've listened to Pope Francis at all is not his world-view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm definitely aware of the existence of both liberal and conservative Catholics, and many people somewhere in between on the spectrum. And yes, I am aware that except for the New Orleans area, most of southern Louisiana voted for Trump despite being majority Catholic. The part about them not recognising the Pope as legitimate is strange though, given that part of what makes someone a Roman Catholic is the recognition of the Pope as Pontifex Maximus. But of course, the vast difference in governing style between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis certainly shows that there are differences in ideology, and even theological debates within Roman Catholicism. The dog2 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as a very personal note here, I'm Roman Catholic by family tradition, as a child I went to Catholic school etc. and very non-observant nowadays, however, I have deep respect for Papa Chico and his righteous attitudes, and not infrequently need to defend him in front of assheaded Evangelics that, you know, have been fed white-power propaganda. Let's not, pretty please with almonds and honey, not diss the South American pope in the main text. Ibaman (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read you loud and clear, but dissing him would violate WV:Be fair, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two sections titled "Pilgrimages", one under Destinations & the other under Do. They should be amalgamated, but where? I'd combine them under Destinations, but what do others think? Pashley (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're kind of both, but "Destinations" seems best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section about them? I think so, since they are different from any other sect & travellers are likely to encounter their missionaries; e.g. I see them in the Philippines. Pashley (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We already cover the LDS Church to a degree, but could do so more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should perhaps cover them the Jehovah's Witnesses bit more too, since you are likely to encounter them going door to door evangelising. As for the Seventh Day Adventists, I haven't encountered their missionaries yet, but I personally know people who subscribe to that brand of Christianity. And one thing that makes them unique is the insistence on observing Jewish law, including by observing the Sabbath on Saturday like Jews do. The dog2 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines has quite a few Adventist churches. Pashley (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. 7th Day Adventists also practice a form of kashrut. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Witnesses, Adventists & Mormons should be handled as listings under Christianity#New_American_churches, not as separate sections. That keeps the overall structure simpler & makes it easy to add WP links. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've moved them, as well as the Evangelical Christians under "New American churches". If you know about them, we could perhaps also cover the Christian Scientiests, Quakers, Amish and maybe even the Moonies. I know the latter are South Korean, but they are still clearly based on the newer American branches of Christianity. The dog2 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon fits into New American churches. Also, when you talk about them, their professed ideology, while of some political importance, is less relevant than their practice of mind control, which makes them more related to other destructive cults, regardless of claimed ideology, such as Scientology. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be good to mention speaking in tongues and other things that may feel odd and confusing, and in what kind of congregations you might witness them.

We should also write more about visits (not only in Respect, but probably in Do). Old churches can usually be visited like museum and you can admire the architecture and art without any religious thoughts, as long as you are suitably dressed and behave calmly. But what about the less traditional churches? And what about attending services? Is there something special you should do or avoid as non-believing visitor?

–LPfi (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mostly the Evangelical churches that practise speaking in tongues. As for visits, I think most mainstream churches allow non-Christian visitors, but if you are not a Christian, you shouldn't take communion when attending a service. There is some variation in that though; Roman Catholic churches only allow Roman Catholics who have been baptised and confirmed to take communion, while Anglican churches allow any Christian to take communion. The dog2 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missionaries are important to cover in this article, but I think the paragraph starting with "In the course of proselytizing, the Catholic church in particular used combinations of carrots and sticks that might seem surprising to modern observers" has too many non-travel-related specifics about historical Catholic missionizing and not enough about the kinds of missionaries (mostly Protestant or Mormon) people are likely to meet today, but I also think part of the problem is that some points could be made a lot more briefly. Take this example (current vs. proposed edited version):

Looking at some festivals purporting to honor some saint or other, it takes little imagination that they might just be a "converted" festival of some pre-Christian deity. Missionaries also had and continue to have widely varying approaches to the non-religious aspects of native cultures, from appreciating them to a degree that they were rebuked by the church in Rome, as happened to some Jesuits in China, to stamping them out and burning even their non-religious texts, as sadly befell the Maya culture which lost all but three codices to religious zealotry.

There are many instances of pre-Christian festivals and traditions being coopted into a culture's practice of Christianity, with or without the approval of missionaries. On the other hand, while some missionaries steeped themselves in local cultures to the point of being rebuked by the Holy See, others destroyed all records of local culture they could find, including secular ones — for example, missionaries wiped out almost all ancient Mayan literature.

I'd like for us to cover all the basic points included in this paragraph but do it more briefly and with tighter sentence structure. We might also subdivide the section into different periods of missionary work or different denominations (Nestorians, Catholics, historical Protestant missionizing during the European colonial period, current-day missionizing by Evangelicals, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Catholic missionaries need to be mentioned though give how historically significant they were. The Jesuits in particular founded many schools, and quite a number of prestigious schools worldwide; you probably know of Notre Dame University in Indiana, which is quite prestigious. And in many parts of the world, Catholic missionaries set up some of the first schools of girls, which I'd say is pretty significant at least in Singapore at that time, because the society was very patriarchal, and it was extremely rare for girls to get a chance to go to school in those days. The dog2 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did it seem like I was suggesting not to cover Catholic missionaries? That said, are you really suggesting that the Jesuits are solely a missionary organization, and therefore, that all Jesuit universities are mainly missions? My mother used to teach anthropology at Fordham in the Bronx, and I assure you, she was not a missionary and didn't have to take some kind of religious purity test. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Jesuits do a lot of charity work, and that the current Pope is a Jesuit. As I mentioned, one of the reasons why the Jesuits are important is because they played a huge role in providing education to the poor. The dog2 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and at universities. The most important orders of the Catholic Church should be mentioned because there are a lot of attractions that can be visited. The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) have their mother church at the Gesù in Rome, a great Mannerist masterpiece. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the above discussion, the important Roman Catholic orders should be covered. If the section gets too long, we can always split Roman Catholicism off into a new article. The Dominican order has already been mentioned, but some more important ones I can think of include the Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits, Hieronymites, Augustinians, Trappists, Sisters of the Infant Jesus, Opus Dei and perhaps Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity. If you go to Portugal, the pastel de nata (Portuguese custard tart) was invented by Hieronymite monks, so that is certainly worth a mention. The dog2 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current list does not have the Trappists & they might be important to travellers because they make excellent beer & I think some famous cheeses.

I think we should probably move the Catholic orders section to its own article; there's getting to be a lot of material. Not sure if it should be a general article covering monasteries of other traditions as well -- the Orthodox Christians have some, Buddhists a lot, not sure about anyone else -- or just the Catholics. Pashley (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans have some. See w:Anglican religious order. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss whether this should be placed under "New American churches" or "Protestantism". Given that it fits into both categories, I think it should be a sub-heading of one of these. The dog2 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Like the Anglicans, I think it is important enough & different enough to get its own heading. Pashley (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the w:Baptists date back to 1609 in the Netherlands, so it is neither new nor originally American. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they are most certainly Protestants, even though many moderate Protestants may disagree with their interpretation of the religion. This is analogous to Wahhabi Islam; while Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni Muslims, many moderate Sunnis will disagree with the Wahhabi interpretation of their religion. The dog2 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with handling them separately. We do not follow a strict historic or theological division. The first sentence of the section mentions both Protestant and USA, so there is little risk of confusion. The only problem is that we have 11 headings under Denominations, which is not solved by making one a subheading. –LPfi (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been made a sub-heading of Protestants. I want to revert. Other opinions?

A rule that is in many style manuals is that a heading with only one sub-heading indicates a formatting/organisation blunder. Protestants is that now. I'd give it three sub-headings — Hussites, Lutherans & Calvinists — but not Evangelicals. Pashley (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Hussites be considered Protestant? That's the question. If we are to have separate headings for the Lutherans and Calvinists, then sure, go ahead. Evangelicals should most certainly be counted as Protestants. Sure, there are different Evangelical denominations; you have Pentecostals, Baptists and some who call themselves non-denominational, but all of these trace their roots to the Protestant reformation. And in fact, they all agree that faith and only faith in Jesus can save you from eternal damnation, and nothing else matters. The dog2 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "It is a very good idea to learn a bit about the local rules before visiting a place of worship". I think this advice should be removed. On some level it is Obvious (knowing more is better), on another it means you cannot visit churches on a whim. I think this article should tell everything you need to know before you go there, except specific things it tells to check separately.

What faux pas still need to be included?

–LPfi (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have an easier-to-spot warning that if you wear a skimpy top and shorts, especially but not only if you're a woman, you risk being thrown out of a church you want to visit? I personally know people who were thrown out of Catholic churches in Italy for wearing shorts, and some were men. Many churches show pictures of acceptable and unacceptable clothing, but in general, it's best to simply dress in long pants and tops that don't show cleavage or your midriff, as a church doesn't have to post a picture of what you shouldn't wear in order to throw you out or for you simply not to be welcome there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section Christianity#Taiping_Heavenly_Kingdom. Arguably the topic does not belong in an article on Christianity (though I find them no weirder than some other sects), or in a travel guide (though there's a museum to visit). Later User:The dog2 expanded it with an edit comment "revert if you think it is out of scope". I do think it is out of scope.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to belong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that this is a fairly important sect, at least in North America, but we do not say much about them. Should we? Does anyone know enough to add some text? Pashley (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the split between the Southern and Northern Baptists over slavery is important to mention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Several months have gone by & Nothing added. Pashley (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be added here. w:Armageddon has quite a bit of info & we have some at Jezreel_Valley#See. Some people, perhaps especially Evangelicals, might consider the place important.

I will not tackle adding this; it looks too complicated. Pashley (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this site in Tasmania might not be directly related, the temple up there is pretty significant, and believe it or not, it's called Damascus. Should I add it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, SHB2000. Sorry for the delayed reaction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone, and Happy New Year! I find the lines all across Mary Magdalene's face in the image that's now in the article distracting. How about one of these two Quality Images of her? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like your second image. It seems a bit odd to depict her as a redhead, but I suppose they had henna back then. Pashley (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they did. Anyway, I don't think we really know what she looked like. If there are no objections, I'll substitute that image later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pashley: Since you added information about the Baptists, I wonder if you know enough about the Pentecostals to add something on them. If I'm not wrong, they're a major branch within Evangelical Christianity as well. The dog2 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I don't know about them. Pashley (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Evangelical Christianity we say:

In addition to the aforementioned branches, many Evangelical churches claim to be non-denominational.

What does "non-denominational" mean in this context? Isn't a church (in this sense) by definition denominational? And an Evangelic church? What makes it Evangelic if it is non-denominational? Is this about letting everybody decide on their faith based on the Bible alone? –LPfi (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They welcome for anyone to come and pray, but their message is Evangelical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that non-denominational. Is that common terminology? I think any church over here would welcome anybody to come and pray. –LPfi (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they don't call themselves Baptists, Pentecostalists or any specific denomination, but the message is Protestant, certainly not Catholic, and at least small-e evangelical. It's certainly a common term in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's common in Singapore too. Singapore's two most largest churches by congregation size, City Harvest Church and New Creation Church, claim to be non-denominational. They're most certainly Evangelical Protestant, and we can debate all day about what denomination they fall under de facto, but it is true that they de jure consider themselves just Christian but not belonging to any denomination. The dog2 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pashley: The Church of England does not to share the same Lutheran or Calvinist origins as other Protestant churches. It was added that "it even has bishops" – but so do the Lutheran churches of the Nordic countries. w:Lutheranism says that all of the Porvoo Communion churches have an episcopal polity. I don't think these are marginal outliers, so the sentence should probably be changed. –LPfi (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Orthodox churches have bishops too. I know that Evangelical churches don't have bishops, but I'm not as familiar with the other Protestant churches. That said, the head of the Lutheran church in Singapore uses the title "Reverend". The dog2 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish Lutheran church is formally Evangelic-Lutheran. Are you talking about Protestant churches in the USA (or Americas) or generally? Here Orthodox churches don't use the term "bishop", but they do have a hierarchic system (belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Moscow Patriarchate), consistent with the Catholic/Orthodox with bishops vs Protestant without them – only that also the Protestant have bishops. –LPfi (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who wrote it though, so let's see what Pashley says. There are no bishops in Evangelical churches in Singapore or Australia either. Each church is in theory run independently. And besides, the pastors are fabulously rich. In Singapore, they typically live in huge mansions and drive expensive cars like Rolls Royces and Ferraris. In the U.S., things get even crazier; these guys have entire fleets of private jets, and even their own personal airports in their homes. The dog2 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Nordic Lutheran national churches are run independently, but the congregations are not. The archbishop is theoretically a primus inter pares, but there are national bodies (among them the bishops' meetings and the "church meetings", the latter with the power to regulate the doctrine and to veto changes in the law on the church). –LPfi (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it out, I suppose. I thought Anglicans were the only protestants with bishops, but it seems I was wrong. Pashley (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, by The dog2. –LPfi (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our text currently includes:

While Easter eggs and Easter bunnies have religious meanings, they remain popular in secular Easter celebrations.

I doubt they have any Christian religious meaning. I'd say they are fertility symbols from pagan spring festivals, much older than Christianity.

I'd therefore delete the above text. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should mention that they were Pagan fertility symbols that were later adopted as Easter symbols, but I don't think they have any Christian religious meanings. Even today, some non-Christian cultures still have eggs as fertility symbols. For instance, eggs are common gifts at Chinese weddings. I will tweak it accordingly. The dog2 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC story Jesus baptism site makeover aims to draw a million Christians in 2030. Pashley (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Do you think anything should be mentioned about Byzantine chant since we mentioned Gregorian chant? I'm not an expert on this, but supposedly, it is the default musical setting of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Greek Orthodox church. And I believe the Russians also have their own style of plainchant which is distinct from the Byzantine chant that is used by the Greeks. The dog2 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not familiar with Byzantine chant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ttcf and WV:Tone and WV:Goals and non-goals: this page is getting REALLY long and detailed and encyclopaedic and a true bore to read and copyedit. WV:fun is also not present here. Ibaman (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest we cut out, or would you mainly like to edit for style? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]