Talk:Christian

Roll

Rolled back anonymous IP seemingly POV edit. This is a definition of the word, and ways the word is used; not an attestation to the truthfulness of that usage. --Connel MacKenzie 05:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antonyms

wth no antonyms? User:75.118.149.244 21:55, 11 October 2008

• The antonym would probably be something like 'nonchristian' or 'achristian' similar to nontheist or atheist are to theist, however I am not familiar with anything in wide use referring to this. Ty 05:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Definition 2 for the noun talks of "Jesus Christ", but this is surely begging the question? A Christian adheres to Jesus's teaching because he or she believes that Jesus is the Christ. Is it this belief, rather than the Jesus actually being the Christ that defines a Christian, surely? User:Morosoph 02:59, 18 February 2009

---

Just some loud thinking (based on my memory): Given that there are so very many claimants to be Messiahs, or have been Messiahs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants and also given that the word "Christ" has been defined as meaning "Messiah" (see the proper noun) at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christ ..... Is it, therefore, correct to define the word "Christian" as a person who follows a Christ and his lifestyle on the understanding that not only Jesus, but any of the listed messiah claimants would be meant? That apparently very many, including clergy, who claim to be Christians are NOT Christians, while many who actually follow(ed) anyone claiming to be a Messiah and his or her lifestyle is a Christian as defined? QUITTNER, 02:29 PM, 5 April 2011

---

ianos?

This is mentioned as the end meaning 'slave of' or something. I can't find anything for -ianos though, have we studied the etymology of this suffix yet? Ty 05:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post this in the page yet, but this is an issue where there's a lack of reference. In particular, this IANOS issue isn't present at all on the Christianity page, yet it's here. Ty 22:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV 1

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

• Kind, charitable, or generous.
• Righteous, ethical or moral

I disagree with both definitions because other religions say the same thing. We would have to modify Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Eckist, Raëlian, etc. Pass a Method (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This challenge isn't very Christian of you. ;-).

Your disagreement is simply immaterial. Either there is usage supporting some definitions like those or there isn't.

I'd say that the first one has widespread use, certainly in the US, but we should have citations because of the inevitable controversy. We also should establish the usage context. Is it just Christians or a subgrouping thereof talking among themselves or is it the population as a whole? I think citations for the first sense or a combined sense should be easy to find. I'm not sure that it would be at all easy to find citations that support the second as distinct from the first. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't an opinion, saying "Christianity is kind and righteous": it is a definition, and it is how the word has been used (in a dated way); I doubt you could find any citation for e.g. "a thoroughly Muslim act" (of kindness). I checked Chambers and it has something similar: "(noun) ... a follower of Christ; a person whose behaviour is considered becoming to a follower of Christ; often a vague term of approbation, a decent, respectable, kindly, charitably-minded person; a human being; (adjective) relating to Christ or His religion; in the spirit of Christ". Equinox ◑ 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The predominant religion in the English-speaking world is Christianity so obviously it will be MUCH easier to find Christian refs. But Wiktionary as an international website should be balanced in its coverage of religion instead of giving one privileged/special treatment. The most practical thing to do is treat them the same. Pass a Method (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood what I said: the word Christian really used to mean "good, charitable, etc." and not merely "related to Christianity"; that is not true in English (the language we are documenting) regarding the other religion-words you suggested as examples. I've added some citations now. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. As far as "balanced coverage" goes, I don't suppose I'm the only person who's seen you methodically editing many religious topics, both here and on Wikipedia, to add your own personal biases. Equinox ◑ 21:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think this usage of the word Christian is biased, all you need to do is find a time machine and convince every single English-speaker across time not to write it in durable material. Until then, they are cited. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Other dictionaries (e.g. Chambers) have only one 'approbative' sense. I don't think the citations which have been added support keeping the two senses 'kind' and 'ethical' distinct; I favour merging them, as DCDuring suggested, to something like "kind, charitable; moral". Of the citations currently under the 'ethical' sense: the 1828 one is more likely using 'Christian' to mean 'relating to Christianity' than either other sense, the 1859 one doesn't convey 'ethical' as distinct from 'kind' and it's debatable whether the 1867 conveys a meaning really distinct from either 'Christianity-related' or 'kind'. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There might be some citations that reflect what was sometimes called "muscular" Christianity that emphasized effortful moral behavior. Give it a little time yet. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it all the time in the world. Or, if popular understanding of the Mayan calendar turns out to be wrong, I'll give it till January. ;b - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO, "muscularly Christian Milton" conveys that Milton 'muscularly' adhered to / practised Christianity (and its specific ethics), not broad ethics. The 2010 citation is easy to read the same way, and the 2009 citation is unclear. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably. We should probably reword the second challenged definition to exclude almost all explicit specific virtues. Perhaps that could get clear citations distinct from the kind/charitable/generous sense. Or perhaps in the fullness of 30 days and 30 nights someone more familiar with Christian literature than I could find citations for the sense as it is now worded. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure some of the citations are great; this does have the problem of making a distinction between (behaving in a Christian manner) and (behaving in a moral fashion). It's complex to find an example that clearly makes the distinction, since it's basically only used by those who conflate the two. The 2010 cite I think is clearly the first sense, IMO; he's saying the times were Christian, not moral.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a more NPOV definition would be something like "#Displaying virtues believed by Christians to be embodied by Jesus: ## Kind, charitable, or generous ## Righteous, ethical or moral" Chuck Entz (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think you need to mention Jesus. Just "Displaying virtues valued by Christianity: [+subsenses]". --WikiTiki89 13:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Jesus" is redundant. The subsense presentation seems good and it clarifies the issue. But I'm not sure that we can actually cite the second subsense or an evolution of that subsense, rather than the main sense and the other subsense. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about the mention of Jesus. It was just the first wording that came to mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have combined the senses, following the above discussion, like this. - -sche (discuss) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RFV 2

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

RFV-sense: "An individual who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." What, like, his BFF Pete? Or how is this distinct from the two preceding senses? - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just remove it. It's basically worthless as a definition. —Angr 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Really not an RfV issue - easily verified, but redundant to definition 1, since belief in the existence of such a relationship is an aspect of belief in the religion as a whole. Otherwise, we might as well add other senses for "An individual who believes the New Testament is true", "An individual who believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ", etc. bd2412 T 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  OK, I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess Alice of Battenberg at one point believed she was having a sexual relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps that's what the definition is referring to. Only kidding! But for all the sense the definition makes, I might as well be serious. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am so delighted to learn this, I'm actually looking forward to the next time a Christian tells me they have a relationship, not a religion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Creationist

As far as I know (and that may very well be quite regionalistic), most Christians consider creationists to be, ehh, less educated. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution. --80.114.178.7 02:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The account which reverted me without comment, hasn't answered yet. This time, I'll just remove creationist. --80.114.178.7 01:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion (3)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Christian

Rfv-sense: "One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely becomes^[sic] an adherent of an opposing system." If you work out the logic of this statement, it says that you can be a Christian by inheritance, and that furthermore, your inheritance is inherited by your children and so on. So basically, this definition says that people who have been agnostic or atheist for generations are nonetheless Christian if all of their ancestors were. I find that a bit ridiculous... —CodeCat 01:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it might mean born of Christian(sense 1) parents, rather than the recursion you imply. Think of old books that talk about "all good Christian men", meaning basically well-behaved Britons etc. rather than specifically religious people. Equinox ◑ 01:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think those are examples of authors using "Christian" in a new sense. I think those are either examples of authors assuming that (all/most/many) Britons are Christians (“believers of Christianity”) and disregarding the existence of non-Christian (and non-good) Britons, and/or examples of adjective sense 2, "kind, charitable; moral; a term of approbation". ("All good Christian men" does seem to be using an adjective rather than a noun.) - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think cultural Christian is the concept the definition is trying (and failing) to describe. —Angr 09:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Many so-called "Muslims" in Srebrenica and/or Bosnia and Herzegovina at large, had been agnostic or atheist for generations; that didn't save them. The Nazis didn't separate religious Jews from atheist Jews either. Why should that other Abrahamist sect be treated differently? --80.114.178.7 22:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an unsurprising definition. Christians, Muslims, and a few other evangelical faiths are strongly motivated to inflate their numbers for marketing purposes, and so are quick to count among their numbers those who ignore or reject their beliefs but who live in communities dominated by those beliefs. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Quote

Perhaps if someone could find some quotes for the second noun definition (an individual who seeks to live ...). I believe that this would help differentiate it from the first definition. If I recall correctly, there are some quotes by Thomas Jefferson using that definition. Zombiedude347 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible missing sense

Chambers 1908 has "(colloquial) a human being". I could imagine it being used something like "soul" (the ship went down with all Christians on board?). Seeing three RFVs here I guess I won't risk adding it. Equinox ◑ 10:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be tricky, but probably possible if the sense is real, to find citations where that could be distinguished from an assumption that all the people on the ship or whatever were of Christian faith (probably a common assumption in older texts about European ships where there probably weren't Buddhists etc onboard). The third RFV was for a somewhat similar sense. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)