Talk:Folk Christianity
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
UNtitled[edit]
Just a wonder on this, but how can the neutrality of a LIST be questioned?
Would it be appropriate for the Kakure Kirishitan to be included? TACO INSURANCE (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Folk Presbyterianism?[edit]
In "Other folk Christianity", there may well be such a thing as folk Presbyterianism, but I'd defy anyone to suggest it has anything to do with "holy water." Presbyterianism knows of no such category. That criticism ought to be carried through the whole section, which I could describe using Pauli's famous put-down as, "Not even wrong," or perhaps better, "not even original research." 144.32.100.77 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Popular Piety[edit]
While I've only read of "popular religion" and "popular piety" within the context of medieval European Catholicism, those terms do not imply an acceptance by the "official" church. Indeed, they are often times portrayed by historians as being at odds with a literary or official religion. Of course, the wikipedia article on popular piety also makes this mistake... Maybe I'll find time to gather some references and fix it, but I thought I'd just make a note of it here. Aibara (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Seeming unorthodox by someone != Folk Christianity[edit]
It seem that this article is currently trying say that any group that calls itself Christian but is not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or mainline Protestant is therefor a part of "Folk Christianity"; then it starts into how even the first two groups are suspect. In the end it appears that it's trying to define Christianity in a very mainline Protestant/Evangelical way by saying (in a nice way) that everyone else is just ignorantly following superstitious beliefs. This is ironically very unchristian, very much WP:OR, and is very poorly cited. For example, the only inline cite supports that LDS beliefs is not considered orthodox by some, but then doesn't then say that this means it is a "folk religion". This article needs to either be majorly cleaned up, or simple deleted (but not WP:SALT, as it is possible that a decent article could be written on this topic -- the current one just isn't it). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)