Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

OK, I'll start: "By Fisher-Price."
 

Hey, they have a whole page(!) on Church doctrine and debates!

http://www.wikichristian.org/Christian_doctrine_and_debates

A whole PAGE! Wow.

At least Fisher-Price makes toys that resemble reality. Their toy kitchens and vacuum cleaners and chain saws look like they might even work.

Perhaps "Hello Kitty presents WikiChristian"? :)
 

"When I was a child......"
That's where it starts.
Contribute and see if it grows up.
 

It looks to be pretty early in its development and doesn't really have much to comment upon, seems to me.

They listed Billy Graham, but not Martin Luther King, Jr. I tried liberal, liberation theology, Walter Wink, Leonard Ravenhill and others I tried, all turned up blank. They had a little, but not much, about anabaptism.

So, it seems too early to tell much of anything.
 

I clicked on "random page" and wouldn't you know it I got a verse related to exercise- well loosely related...

http://www.wikichristian.org/1_Corinthians_9:25
 

Well, I thought I saw on the site where it was created in 2004, but now I can't find that. I thought it was pretty weak if it had been up that long. But from what *is* there, it seems pretty narrow. Plus, there's this:


"Wikichristian:Beliefs
From Wikichristian
Jump to: navigation, search

"WikiChristian is a website dedicated to presenting information about the world and Christianity. For this website, a denomination is considered Christian if it agrees with the following:

"A loving God
The Nicene Creed
The Bible is God's word"


Well, now, right off the bat it's staking out specific positions and calling them "Christian," which is OK if they mean "an example of" Christianity, but *not* if they mean "this IS" Christianity.

Loving God? What does *that* mean? I know what I think it means, but EL, and others, think it means something else.

The Nicene Creed??? Traditional Baptists are already totally out.

The Bible is "God's Word"? Well, OK. But what I mean when I say that and what EL, and Neil, and many others mean when they say that are very, very different things.

I just think therre is no way to present anything as "Christian" without qualification, if people are involved with it.


And there's this:

"Articles that are not specific personal opinion articles may be written from the perspective that WikiChristian's Statement of Faith is true. Where there is debate about further details of doctrine, the debate should be presented explaining (in non-emotive ways) both sides of the argument."


Um, well, "from the perspective that ..." etc., etc. No thanks -- not without further definition of terms.


But, then there is this:

"Personal opinion articles are welcome however, where any opinion may be voiced and argued. These articles need to be labelled as opinion articles, and the author named (using his or her real name). See Wikichristian:Opinion articles ..."


Anyway. There it is. It is what it is.
 

The part I don't get is why someone thinks Christians need their own wikipedia. Wikipedia already has far more detailed articles on any topic than wikichristian. What's the point?

(OK, so I'm not that naive, I think it's pretty clear what the point is...)
 

Well it isn't as bad as conservapedia, which is actually just a search engine for exploring homosexuality, so I give it that much. It looks like a bible concordance or maybe just "The Bible for Dummies".
 

Oh, Conservapedia is far more than a search engine for homosexuals, although the top five topics searched all have to do with homosexuality (What in the world is "gay bowel syndrome"? Does it even exist outside the conservative universe? I was too disgusted by the term to check it out). I have read stuff on-line that people have pulled from Conservapedia, and it's crap. Pure, unadulterated crap. If I were a teacher, and students handed in papers with this garbage in it, it would fail. Not because it's conservative, but because . . . crap is crap, whether it's liberal or conservative crap.

Thanks for the details on the parameters for posting. Yeah, they do limit what potential topics might be. What about Unitarians? Quakers? The whole thing is pretty bizarre, if you ask me - whether it's wikipedia, conservapedia, or this. I use wikipedia for quick references, but I take it with a half a grain of salt at best. I suppose a quick reference guide is better than none.
 

Gay Bowel Syndrome: It is a condition often found especially in males with a strong homophbic midset, who tend to defecate any time that someone accuses them of hateing the ones they love.

Lobowickedpedia
 

And here I thought gay bowel syndrome was the malady the fundie homophobes get that requires them to hang out in airport bathrooms.
 

Alan's words - "And here I thought gay bowel syndrome was the malady the fundie homophobes get that requires them to hang out in airport bathrooms."

RFLMAO. Seriously, a tad of throwing up in my own mouth, spit take coffee all over screen, etc. etc.

Game, set, match, to the undisputed champion, Alan. I bow to your superiority. May I learn at your knee?
 

awwww shucks. Now you're making me blush. LOL