Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism

Currently (Thanksgiving night 2012) the Criticism section has the referenced authors comments on ethics and the bible in quotation marks, the way it is currently phrased and formatted could very easily give the impression that these are quotations or paraphrases from the bible itself rather than commentary on it. There is also the issue of having a Criticism section but no "Defense" or "Response to Criticism" section. These flaws make this article deeply biased rather than NPOV and somewhat misleading. Wouldn't it be better to put the parts of the bible that are objected to on ethical grounds in quotations with objections listed beside them rather than a summery and interpretation of those passages? And this could also allow a counter-viewpoint on the passage to be presented right along side the passage and it's criticism, giving the reader well-rounded and highly informative information instead of what comes off as vague but forceful disapproval of biblical ethics. Also since the article is dealing with specifically christian ethics and already points out that there are major differences of opinion by christians on wether the mosaic law is applicable to christians or merely instructive perhaps the old testament section should be moved somewhere else. I think these measures could vastly improve both the article's objectivity and informative-ness. What do you think? PlatinumBeetle (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

update!

Christian ethics did not die out with Aquinas or Bonhoeffer. Can we maybe include some sections on influential modern Christian ethicists? Stanley Hauerwas of Sam wells for example. We really just need to broaden the scope of this article.Dirtbike spaceman (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Change title to "History of Christian Ethics"

This is an excellent article, but it seems to outline the history of Christian ethical thought, rather than predominate or modern ethical teaching. If there is no objection in the next few days, I will make this change. Quantumelfmage (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable Article on "Christian Ethics," Biased and Unsubstantiated

One of the serious weaknesses of this article on Christian ethics is the complete absence of anything but a tendentious treatment of Catholic ethics in Western Europe. Nothing is said about the Orthodox tradition of moral thought and practice. Nothing is said about the lively developments in Latin America, Africa, or Asia, where some of the most important developments in Christian ethics have occurred.

It is appalling that people might come to this article to learn about Christian ethics, only to be given the impression that it is nothing but a minor wrinkle in the ancient Catholic Church, updated by Scholasticism and its heirs. Oh, that, and a minor off-shoot of some obscure and unimportant thing called Protestant ethics.

His treatment of Catholic ethics, which he assumes IS Christian Ethics is biased with the enthusiasm of the partisan: Augustine and Aquinas have established the truth for all time, he implies. But, assuming the author is Roman Catholic, has there been nothing of note out of the Catholic Church regarding ethics since the 16th Century? The Social Teachings of the Catholic Church, a multi-volume work of great breadth and historical value is completely absent. All the Papal Encyclicals on social issues of the last 150 years, are they irrelevant? The profound revolution of Catholic ethics originating in Vatican 2? Absent. Liberation Theology, Humanum Vitae, economic life between socialism and capitalism? the Arms Race? Immigration? Not a word. Yet the Vatican and Catholic ethicists have had a lot to say about them.

Another weakness is the lack of awareness of modern ethics outside of the churches and how they have affected the development of Christian Ethics. How can you have a serious discussion of Christian Ethics without any reference to philosophical currents after the 13th Century? The absence of any mention of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, continental phenomenology or Anglo-American analytic and process philosophies, let alone what is going on in the Law, renders this article worse than useless. It misleads. How can we understand even the moral thought of the previous pope John Paul 2 without understanding both Marxist and Phenomenolgical moral philosophies that are part of his intellectual background?

I realize that you can't include everything in an article. Choices have to be made and we rely on other articles to which we may link to complete the picture, but the parochialism and ignorance of the barest outline of issues beyond a fleeting glance at the Bible, Augustine and Aquinas makes this article unacceptable.Comsources (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Section on Protestant Ethics is Polemical and Ill-informed.

The section on Protestant ethics is not up to scholarly standards. It is too vague and has claims that are unsupportable. For example, it is simply historically wrong that for Protestant ethics all authority resides with the solitary individual and his or her private interpretation of the Bible. That judgment is a polemical caricature of Protestant thought. It sounds like a bad memory from Catholic School in the 1950s. "With the rejection of the Church's teaching authority" is a polemical, biased statement. Is there only one Church "teaching authority?" Protestants would find that view parochial, at best.

"Protestant ethics" has to do with three great streams of Protestant ecclesiastical and theological development out of the 16th Century European Reformation: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist. Add to those three continental European streams the Anglican stream out of the United Kingdom, containing within itself both "Protestant" and "Catholic forms." And still further, out of Anglicanism the Wesleyan Churches develop in the UK and the US.

Complicating the picture further is the development-- first in the United States and the United Kingdom and spreading rapidly to Europe and around the world-- of "Evangelical" or "Conservative-Evangelical ethics" (distinct from Lutheran, which is also called "evangelical"). Arising out of Anabaptist and Reformed traditions, "Evangelical ethics" moved from being an ethic of personal conduct rooted in an idea of holiness (separateness from the sinful world) and moral purity to addressing some of the social concerns of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Early forms of what is today called "Evangelical ethics," however, had already opposed slavery, promoted women's rights, and even supported the newly emerging labor movement1. Some mention might be made of perhaps the fastest growing Christian phenomenon: "Pentecostalism," or spirit movements, as well as syncretistic movements (esp. in China and Africa). Whether "Pentecostalism", spirit and syncretist movements can be properly considered "Protestant" is an open question since they tend not to refer to the 16th Century Reformation as part of their identities, and may as easily have Roman Catholic immediate backgrounds as Protestant. That stream should perhaps have a section of its own.

All of these streams-- Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Anglican, Wesleyan and Evangelical-- spread around the world and developed new ecclesiastical and theological forms in response to the concrete specificities of their location (culture, religion, colonialism, liberation movements, ethnic conflict, dictatorship, poverty, et.al). And for all their differences, one stream from another, there were tributaries that tended to connect even rival theological traditions, especially on issues of practical and public life, notably German Lutheran Pietism and its influence on British Reformed and Anabaptist thinkers and later on the emergence of Evangelicalism in Scandinavia and the United States. It is in their continuing development of ethical thought and practice that the transplanted Protestant traditions through their many denominations have shown their greatest creativity and deepest motive for ending ecclesiastical divisions.

In the twentieth century, especially in the post-World War 2 period, those great Protestant streams, began to seriously encounter one another in dialogue, debate, and collaboration. The emergence of what Paul Abrecht of the World Council of Churches in the 1960s called "Ecumenical Social Ethics" was itself a product of that Protestant convergence. Ecumenical Social Ethics is a form of "Protestant Ethics" that working collaboratively across denominational and confessional lines attempts to address the global issues of war, social and economic justice between and within nations, the environment, and human and civil rights. While much of the development of this new ethical debate occurred in and through the World Council of Churches, especially its section on "Church and Society" headed for most of its history by Paul Abrecht, there were many other venues, as well: national, state, and regional councils of churches, universities, and theological seminaries. During this post-war period Protestant theological seminaries began to create teaching positions and graduate programs in the new academic discipline of "Christian Ethics."

The giants of this period who shaped the self-understanding and agenda of many, if not most of the major seminary ethics programs in North America were the brothers H. Richard Niebuhr (Yale University, New Haven, CT) and Reinhold Niebuhr (Union Theological Seminary, NY, NY) Both the Niebuhrs were engaged in the growing ecumenical movement, both domestically in the US National Council of Churches, and internationally in the World Council of Churches. In fact, it was Reinhold Niebuhr who recommended that Paul Abrecht, one of his graduate students, himself a Baptist pastor and economist, take the post of the newly developing WCC program on "Christian Action." Thus, Protestant Ethics as taught in the mainline seminaries was almost from the beginning connected to the international ecumenical dialogue of ethics, understood at the time as promoting the "Responsible Society." The development of the academic discipline "Christian Ethics," which mostly meant "Protestant Ethics" in the mainline theological schools, was primarily ecumenical, social, and international, as many of its professors were students of H. Richard and Reinhold. What was important, from an historical point of view, was that this new form of Protestant ethics --in seminaries, ecumenical organizations, and denominational programs-- took shape under the press of world events, themselves understood as sources of normative inquiry and deliberation and not strictly out of the traditional bases within the theological traditions themselves.

It must also be added that the new ecumenical ethical debate that began to develop in the World Council of Churches, as well as the many national and regional councils of churches, was not a strictly Protestant enterprise. While the Roman Catholic Church had some institutional official involvement after Vatican 2-- but ended by Pope John Paul 2-- with the WCC's developing discussion of social ethics, the Catholic involvement was limited. It's contribution to the ecumenical discussion (at least after the pulling back of Catholic participation in joint Catholic-Protestant programs) was primarily through informal contacts of Catholic moral theologians with their Protestant counterparts in university religion departments and various venues of ethical discussion such as the Society of Christian Ethics and through journal publications in ethics around the world.

However, a significant voice in the development of international ecumenical social ethics was that of the Orthodox Churches. Eastern Orthodox Churches were involved with Protestant Churches from the beginning of the Ecumenical Movement at the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century. The Orthodox Churches helped to found and shape the World Council of Churches that was officially created in 1948. In fact, at the end of World War 2, the Orthodox Churches had millions of their adherents in Communist-controlled countries. For the most part, the Orthodox Churches in Communist-controlled countries were oppressed, attacked, marginalized, and sometimes compromised. This reality of ongoing oppression gave a dose of reality to what might have been simply academic debates among theologians and ethicists who were instrumental in the development of ecumenical social ethics. However, the Orthodox Churches have not always been pleased with the direction of the Protestant-dominated ecumenical social ethics. They began to voice their criticisms in the 1970's, charging that the WCC-led ecumenical social ethics was undermining its own Christian theological foundations and had become overly influenced by secular Western ideologies. This Orthodox criticism has created an interesting new ecumenical connection with an unlikely partner, for it was similar to the critiques raised by Conservative Evangelicals (discussed below), and has since yielded extraordinary dialogues and cooperation between the two on both ethical and ecclesiological issues.

Most often the results of Protestant moral deliberation in an ecumenical framework appeared not first or primarily in works of private scholarship, but in reports written for ecumenical working groups devoted to special topics. This "ecumenical study method" was developed by the Scottish Protestant missionary-theologian, J. H. Oldham, in response to the world crisis at the end of World War 1. Experts from around the world were asked to examine issues of moral and theological importance facing global humanity, write papers analyzing issues such as "nationalism" or "economic life" or "piracy on the high seas" and deliver them to an international ecumenical conference. The ecumenical conferences would use these individual studies as the basis for extensive dialogue and debate across national, ethnic, and religious-confessional lines as a means of hammering out statements to the churches and the world on matters of great moral urgency. The process originated by Oldham and developed and refined by Abrecht has continued to develop as it has tackled new issues of climate change, threats to the environment, human rights and tyranny, human trafficking, ethics in science and technology, immigration, global finance and many other concrete issues of global life.2

The preposterous statement of the writer of the section on Protestant Ethics that Protestant ethics is private and individualistic reveals the author's complete ignorance of Protestant ethical thought from its inception in the work of Martin Luther "Treatise on Good Works"(1520),"The Freedom of a Christian"(1520), "Address To the German Nobility" (1520), "An Ordinance of a Common Chest" (1523), and "To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany" (1524) to the latest issue of "Sojourners Magazine". I use these two examples, almost 500 years apart, for two reasons: 1. because the author implies that Luther, on the one hand, and Evangelicals on the other, have no authority but private opinions about the Bible to guide them, and 2, to demonstrate that the dominant character of Protestant ethics is NOT individual good deeds or private individual interpretation of the Bible, but concern for the whole community and the responsibility of secular authorities to provide justice. I could just as easily have pointed to John Calvin and the Reformed Churches tradition and to the lengthy tradition of social ethical thought in Anglicanism, or to the Anabaptist movements whose ethical teachings, especially around issues of non-violence, pacifism, and non-cooperation with governmental power are central to their very identity. Not to mention the historic Black Churches in the United States shaped by slavery, oppression, and racism, themselves standing in the great streams of Anabaptist, Anglican, Wesleyan, and Holiness traditions.

Assuming the moral and theological legitimacy of historical circumstances as sources of and starting points for Christian ethics has not been without severe criticism from more conservative Protestants,3 especially, but not limited to those from the Evangelical tradition. The argument against this new Protestant ethics ("Ecumenical Social Ethics") is that its moral deliberation and pronouncements are derived from secular and ideological interpretations of society and history rather than from properly theological sources within the Christian tradition, itself. This critique of the new turn in ecumenical protestant ethics argued that the proper sources for moral deliberation are instead found in the Bible or the historic Confessions and Creeds, and the tradition of their interpretation in ecclesiastical and theological history, or in the great stream of official teaching and papal encyclicals from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. This critique of the new ecumenical social ethics argued that the task of ethics is to take the theological-moral insight of faith and apply it to world problems, not try to generate ethics from the problems themselves. By the second decade of the 21st Century, however, this critique has lost many of its supporters in the Evangelical camp that had provided much of the opposition to ecumenical social ethics. It has been left primarily to fundamentalists-- both Protestant and Roman Catholics-- and right-wing movements that have allied themselves with fundamentalists, while important representatives of the Evangelical stream have taken their places in the Protestant ecumenical dialogue on ethics.4

Confronting such concerns ecumenically did not eliminate the distinctive theological commitments and foundations of the great Protestant traditions. Lutheran and Reformed ethicists still debated the "uses of the Law" in the formation of ethical judgments, but they often arrived at similar positions when it came to action in the world. For example, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed theologians disagreed about foundations, but all spoke out and worked against apartheid in South Africa, the nuclear arms race between the former Soviet Union and the United States and its European allies in NATO, world poverty, and social injustice.

The classic "Protestant" debates of the 16th Century, that this current article assumes, have not been simply set aside by ecumenical social ethics, but have been included, built upon, and transcended. In a way, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the only mention of post 16th Century Protestant thought and life, was at the beginning of this new ecumenical development. Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran, was influenced by Karl Barth, a Reformed theologian and developed an ethic that is not alien to either Lutheran or Reformed ethics, and is himself recognized as a saint in the Anglican calendar. And important Evangelical theologians and ethicists have been influenced by Bonhoeffer, as well.5

I would hope that an article on "Christian Ethics" would eschew the misinformed but subtle name-calling of the current article and include some of the richness of "Protestant Ethics" that I have highlighted here.

1. Donald Dayton, Discovering an Evangelical Heritage
2. J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction
3. [Paul Ramsey], Who Speaks for the Church
4. e.g. Ron Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger; Stephen C. Mott, A Christian Perspective on Political Thought; The Evangelical Environmental Network; Evangelicals for Social Action;
5. David P. Gushee, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Evangelical Moment in American Public Life
Comsources (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

References

This article badly needs inline citations to reliable sources. In some cases, it may actually be better to remove the unsourced material, as noted by others above. If you watch this article, please consider improving it—ideally by citing the material already in it. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Blackburn

I think giving such substantive credibility to Dr. Blackburns musings in a book of 130 pages called "Ethics; A very short intoduction" is problematic. Firstly, the criticisms seem quite patently unfair. In both sections labeling Jesus as "racist" the verse cited gives credence to the claim only if read out of context of the rest of the chapter (Jesus testing the womans faith and then granting her relief for her faith). Likewise the claims of Anderson in a "handbook on Athiesm" seem to me far more based on Athiest ethic and wanton misrepresentation of biblical verses than a valid criticism of Christian ethic. I think better sources should be selected for this section, as the ones there currently are rather petty and for the most part, intentionally deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.253.169 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources listed meet Wikipedia's requirement as reliable sources. As for the "unfair" part, Wikipedia represents verifiability, not necessarily "truth". I'd suggest that a better way to improve this article would be to provide references for the other sections, which feature nearly no secondary sources. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity itself based on Christian history

Bertrand Russell is not offering a criticism of Christian ethics per se, but rather a criticism of historical Christian behavior, it is a criticism of Christian history-- or to be more presice-- it is a criticism of Christianity itself based on Christian history.

While ethics concerns behavior, many things concern behavior; history also concerns behavior.

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) involves recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Like all people, "Christians" have done things in history that do not necessarily match or even relate to Christianity's recommended concepts of right and wrong behavior. While I am sure that Bertrand Russell has said many things that are criticisms of Christian ethics, this is not one of them. Maybe you want to look for a different quote. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Bertrand Russell passage he was talking about Christian morals I don't think he used the word ethics in that particular work. But many writers specifically note that they do not differentiate between the two, such as Peter Singer in Practial Ethics.

I propose that, since we disagree, we enlist the advice of some other editors here. I suspect that, before coming to an agreement, we will have to agree on a definition of ethics. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We have other places here on Wikipedia to criticize Christian behavior and criticize Biblical ethics.

Now if you want to propose changing the article into one on Christian behavior, then I will point out it is too unwieldy a topic to make out of this, but I will not stop you from making such a formal proposal. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 03:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't move other editors comments on talk pages, as the original intended context may be lost. Thanks.

Although I already answered below, some of the points you make here are fair. Here is what I propose. I will look again at the sources to see if they are most clearly criticizing Christian Ethics, or Christianity itself, (or simply the Bible). If, as I remember, they are focused on Christian morals and ethics, I will clarify that in the article here. If the link the authors are making seems to point more to the other articles, I will move the relevant passages. Agreed?

It may take a couple of days to do this. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Since clarifing coments on on Christian morals and ethics would rewrite said parts of the article anyhow, I propose they should be just removed, and then we can add text back in in a few days once the text addresses the article topic. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 12:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the burden of proof is on someone suggesting that passages from a book called "Ethics" are not about Ethics. Again, I don't mind going into the book(s) and pulling out a sourced sentence or two that clearly establish the link. There is no need to delete the passages in the meantime for the reason I mentioned. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on a WP:Consensus system, not a trial system. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity itself based on the Old Testament

I reverted the edits you made. Perhaps you could point to the specific passages you disagree with. For example, did you object to the biblical passages because they are not apparently linked to Christian Ethics? If so, I can add sourced passages from the original works clarifying that the authors are talking about Christian Ethics when they use these passages. Perhaps that was not clear before. Just let me know. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because the authors you quote say they are-- or even if they really think they are-- discussing "Christian ethics" doesn't mean that they really are. The items are is only dealing with Biblical ethics and are off topic here. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 03:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where it notes that Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. If the authors are reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies and they are talking about Christian ethics, the material can be captured here. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We've done Bold and Revert, now it's time to Discuss. (See WP:BRD). Editor2020 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. You did bold. I reverted. Then it's time to discuss. Carlaude, It's not WP:BRD-and-then-revert-again. That is not the best way to get results here.

Please undo your removal of properly sourced material that is related to this topic. Then, I will discuss IAW Wikipedia's policies. If you'd prefer not to, I'll ask an administrator to intervene until we can sort it out through discussion. Thanks.

Per verifiability of ethics... Airborne84 you have not verified anything yet. You have just said that you can post more from such sources in an effort to do so. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor2020's

And Editor2020, I thought you would simply join in the discussion. Please read through the above and feel free to do so. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Editor2020's point is that you reverted his edits but made no comments as to why. We can not discuss things that are a mystry to us (your reasons). I think many or all of his edits are unrealted to the edits I made and your comments on them. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I would prefer that my latest version be used, but Airbourne84 is well within his rights under WP:BRD to revert my edits to the status quo ante, which reflected the existing WP:CONSENSUS.

I tried to retain all of the New Testament information in this article, as I think it is relevant to the subject, while moving the Old Testament material to Ethics in the Bible and providing the reader with an easily accessible wikilink there, as I don't think that is relevant. I think my version retains the gist of the argument, while being more direct and clearer to the reader.

But I think the more important issue is to improve the rest of the article, by providing a referenced definition for Christian ethics, references for all the rest of the unreferenced claims and expanding on the material we now have. I don't wish to get involved in an edit war, so Airborne84, please do as you wish. Editor2020 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I also have no desire to get into an edit war. So I won't. Since Carlaude's re-revert violates WP:BRD, and he/she is obviously not planning on reverting, I'll bring it to the attention of an administrator for adjudication. And Carlaude, my point to you is that being confrontational is not the best way to get results here on Wikipedia—at least in my opinion.

Editor2020, I apologize for the apparent lack of explanation of my revert as part of WP:BRD. I thought that referring you to the last few threads on the talk page would explain my objections to removing the material in the sense of it not being related to "Christian Ethics". My objection to removing the Old Testament material is that the authors (as I recall) pointed to that material specifically as a criticism of Christian Ethics. I understand why they did, but there is no need for me to explain the link, and we all know that's not the purpose of this talk page. Whether we, as Wikipedia editors personally feel that their opinions are misguided or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the material is from a properly referenced source that fulfils the requirements of WP:V. As I mentioned to Carlaude, I planned to go back to the sources and verify that they are specifically making the link to Christian Ethics. I know Blackburn does (Ethics is central to his book), but it will take me a couple of days to check them all again. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that the current passages from Blackburn can be considered about ethics, Biblical ethics, as I have already pointed out.

Let me ask you this. Does Blackburn cite any principles of ethics from a text on Christian Ethics when he makes this criticism? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Blackburn discusses Ethics related to various religious groups, including Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity in a section of his book. In the portion where he discusses Christianity, he points to the Old and New Testament, as well as other secondary sources, such as Nietsche, who also criticize Christian ethics and morals.

For the sake of discussion the opening sentence in the lede says, "Christian ethics is a topic of Christian theology that recommends concepts of right and wrong behavior from a Christian perspective." One of those ethical foundations is the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament. (On a side note, the sentence might be reworded since it's not clear how a "topic...recommends").

Some observers, including those I added, criticise the fact that Christians use the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament/New Testament passages as ethical guidelines today. Yes, the same argument could be transferred to Judaism and the Bible in general. What is important about the Blackburn passages(and the others that I have not re-dug into) is that he relates these passages to Christianity.

You could certainly make a valid argument that those passages fit into an article on Biblical Ethics. That argument would not preclude their use here in light of how Blackburn describes his discussion. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point there. If Christians claim an Old Testament basis for their ethics, then that would make the OT relevant to a discussion of Christian ethics. I might have to take another look at that. Editor2020 (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This view requires a WP:RS that calls the Old Testament a basis for Christian ethics, and an important basis for Christian ethics. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Only what is explicitly renewed from the Old Testament can can be considered part of the New Testament "law of Christ" (cf. Gal 6:2). Included in such a category would be the Ten Commandments, since they are cited in various ways in the New Testament as still binding on Christians (see Matt. 5:21-37; John 7:23), and the two great commandments from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. No other specific Old Testament laws can be shown to be strictly binding on Christians, valuable as it is for Christian to know these laws. Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Douglas (2003). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Zondervan. pp. 169. ISBN 0310246040.

"This view requires a WP:RS that calls the Old Testament a basis for Christian ethics." Yes, that's true. And I added them to the article. They were removed.

Again, if an author such as Dr. Blackburn points to the Old Testament in a discussion about Christian Ethics, those passages are relevant here. It seems as if you're saying that if a reliable source says "I am now talking about Christian Ethics: let me point to the Old and New Testament as part of the discussion," that there is something else needed for that discussion to be included in this article. That is a view that is not in line with Wikipedia policies. I think Editor2020 sees this. If there are continued objections that fall outside the realm of what we do here at Wikipedia, perhaps an RfC is the best way to go. I don't think it is necessary yet, as I'm sure this should be fairly clear. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't really claiming that Blackburn is a WP:RS on Christian ethics are you? That would be really silly. Has Blackburn ever written a book on Christian ethics? or even read one? Just look at the table of contents of any book on Christian ethics. Like this article, they start with Jesus and work forward. They don't start with the Old Testament and then end with Jesus. Attacking Biblical ethics and implying it is about Christian ethics is called "attacking a straw man." ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted Carlaude. Try doing a Google search for "Old Testament Christian Ethics". It's enlightening. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to lead

I changed "topic" to "branch", copying what is at Ethics. I am beginning to think that Christian theology should be changed to Christian philosophy, as ethics is a branch of philosophy, not theology. Editor2020 (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an important part of Christian theology books and courses, so it is really a branch of Christian theology and Christian philosophy. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament section

Although more time consuming for me, this issue seems to easy to resolve. The first two books I looked at that focus specifically on this topic clearly point to the Old Testament as one of the foundations of Christian Ethics. I added a few passages from one to the article. I'll add some more material from Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction by D. Stephen Long and published by the Oxford University Press. For example, "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative and especially the call of Abraham and Sarah, etc....These sources were essential for the emergence of Christian ethics...Without it, Christian ethics would be unintelligible." And later, "Christian ethics arises from the calling of Abraham, which is found in Genesis 12." There is further and lengthy discussion about "The Noahic covenant", other elements of the Books of Genesis and Exodus, the Ten Commandments, and 613 other commandments that guide behavior in the OT, among others. Discussions surrounding Jesus appear also in a later chapter. But "Christian Ethics" does not start with him in this book.

I think that should establish the link fairly clearly between the Old Testament and Christian Ethics IAW Wikipedia policies.--Airborne84 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the link between the Old Testament and Christian ethics has been adequately established IAW Wikipedia's requirements. If there are no further objections, I will reinstate the passages from the criticism section that related to the Old Testament. The passage from Bertrand Russell is another matter, so I will omit that until its relevancy is agreed on through discussion. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I can look over the book, but it seems very much that Long only finds a few passages that-- even to him-- that relate to Christian ethics. Since you don't want to quote any passages to illuminate how the call of Abraham could be "essential for the emergence of Christian ethics", the quote to only claim that it is "essential..." does not serve much purpose.

I am sure Long does discuss the Noahic covenant, the Ten Commandments, and the "613 commandments." But so does the book I quoted that points out that no specific Old Testament laws are part of Christian ethics unless they are explicitly renewed in the New Testament. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Since you don't want to quote any passages..." Please assume good faith. You had only to ask. And it does serve a purpose: it addresses your assertion that the addition of Blackburn's passages would first require the following: "This view requires a WP:RS that calls the Old Testament a basis for Christian ethics, and an important basis for Christian ethics." In your own words, I have now provided two reliable sources that clearly fulfill the criteria you stated. You didn't say they should say how, and neither do Wikipedia's policies require that. So, I chose to be concise.

On a side note, Long's chapter on the "Sources of Christian Ethics" is 39 pages long. Jesus appears in the last seven pages. The rest of the chapter is Old Testament material.

And I offered two references—not just Long. Besides specifically stating it in various places, Old Testament passages and themes are seen throughout the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. This is obviously not an idiosynchratic position.

Lastly, your final point does not preclude inclusion of criticism based on the Old Testament. One source does not cancel another out here at Wikipedia. I'm sure you know this already. Both are included, if they come from reliable sources and are notable. Thus, both ideas can exist in this article. Besides, your reference uses the word "laws". Laws do not comprise ethics in their entirety. Stories, vignettes, guidelines, etc. can also inform ethics, as noted throughout the other source I provided. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the above is an interesting aside. But if there are no objections within Wikipedia's policies to the restoration of the Old Testament criticism passages, I will restore them. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I restored the passages. As a side note to Carlaude, if you're going to peruse the Long book and the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, you might check out some other works as well, such as The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics which discusses the Old Testament's influence on Christian Ethics, as well as Bruce C. Birch's Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life. The chapter in the latter, "Foundations for Christian Ethics in the Old Testament", is of interest. You might also consider reviewing some of the other works at this page. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay please tell us how Long sees the call of Abraham could as "essential for the emergence of Christian ethics". Thank you.

Also, please note that calling the call of Abraham could as "essential for the emergence of Christian ethics"

• does not clearly calls the Old Testament an important basis for Christian ethics
• does not clearly calls the Old Testament a basis for Christian ethics
• does not call the Old Testament a basis for Christian ethics
• and does not even call the call of Abraham a basis for Christian ethics

Now I do not even know which of the many quotes Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics you think supports your ends, but if you think there is one please point it out. In your own words, you are not even close. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but at this point I'd simply prefer to hear what other editor have to say. Your "requirements" were and are beyond what Wikipedia requires, IMO. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've listed this disagreement at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements --Airborne84 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you've established enough of a connection to include the OT. Editor2020 (talk)

All right. Carlaude established the precedent here that 2 vs. 1 = consensus, but I'll wait to see if anyone from the "Third Opinion" page weighs in before the six days runs out. If not, I'll restore the passages as per the new consensus. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Czarkoff (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Airborne84

Criticism of Old Testament ideas and passages by reliable sources IAW Wikiepdia's standards, (e.g., Dr. Simon Blackburn in his OUP-published book Ethics, A Very Short Introduction), are relevant at this article in the "criticism" section.

An objection was raised by Carlaude that Christian ethics does not draw on the Old Testament because Christian ethics starts with the New Testament. Thus, criticism pointing to the Old Testament did not belong in this article. I added additional material in the lede of the article and added the section called "The Bible and Christian Ethics" with sourced material to clearly show the link between Old Testament scripture and Christian ethics as noted by reliable sources. There are now further objections by Carlaude that go beyond beyond what Wikipedia requires. My assertion is that (1) there is no requirement to establish a link in the first place; if a reliable source criticises Old Testament material and ideas while discussing Christian ethics, that is sufficient to include in the section here called "Criticism of Christian Ethics," and (2) that aside, I clearly established the link as per reliable sources anyway. IMO, there should be no further objection within Wikipedia's policies to the restoration of these passages. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Carlaude

• Since I consider Airborne84's viewpoint too vauge and ill-informed, I want for his to be posted first. His purpose seems only to show any kind of link he can between the "Old Testament" and "Christian ethics" so as to justify insertion of texts that criticize Biblical ethics (of Old Testament), really just certain parts of the Old Testament, as this is done so as to a attack a straw man, an informal fallacy, as he implies here that Old Testament Biblical ethics are Christian ethics and/or a part of Christian ethics.
• To be sure, some Old Testament ethics are renewed in the New Testament and are thus part of Christian ethics. But as anyone with even a very basic familiarity with the Old Testament (such as just one high school level class on the OT), or even basic familiarity with the New Testament, can tell you, there are many Old Testament expectations that are not part of Christian ethics. In fact, all of the criticized practices from the OT are those not part of Christian ethics. Some criticized practices were not even part of the Old Testament expections. Many stories are and always have been negative examples of Biblical ethics.
• You will find that authors, even in books on Christian ethics, rarely state clearly what they consider to be the exact relationship between the Old Testament and Christian ethics (as Fee & Stuart do, see below). I also agree that the relationship is somewhat complex. Yet the professors of the Old Testament still need to pay their bills, and so they emphasize any connection between the Old Testament and Christian ethics that there is, so as to sell any books that they write. Not everyone agrees, either, when there is a clear statement made (all the more reason to be careful).
• Per Fee & Stuart, only Old Testament imperitives that are explicitly repeated in the New Testament can can be considered part of the Christian ethics.

Only what is explicitly renewed from the Old Testament can be considered part of the New Testament "law of Christ" (cf. Gal 6:2). Included in such a category would be the Ten Commandments, since they are cited in various ways in the New Testament as still binding on Christians (see Matt. 5:21-37; John 7:23), and the two great commandments from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. No other specific Old Testament laws can be shown to be strictly binding on Christians, valuable as it is for Christians to know these laws. Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Douglas (2003). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Zondervan. pp. 169. ISBN 0310246040.

• Even Fee and Stuart would technically agree that the OT is a "basis for Christian ethics," since it is inspired by God. For example,they point out that the immediate OT context of the few commands that are renewed in the NT (such as Leviticus 19:18) can help us understand and apply those few commands. Relying on a dictionary on Chistian ethics that can only call the Bible (as a whole) the basis for Christian ethics is almost damning the usefulness of the Old Testament with faint praise. It is a bland, uncontroversial way to say something that seems to include the OT as important to the subject.
• This Wikipedia needs to cover all of Christian ethics, especially current Christian ethics, not just what has been called "a basis for Christian ethics." Christian ethics today is informed by many, many Christian writers that discuss earlier Christian writers, both since the Bible, and from the Bible. All these writers (hundreds, thousands) are potentionaly a basis for Christian ethics, but not all will be important enough to discuss in one encyclopedia article on the subject.
• Note that no one here has found information on how OT ethics are part of Christian ethics to Christians (as opposed to it critics), and made from it an "Old Testament" section for this Wikipedia article.
• Even if Airborne84 or someone else found more RSs that address the question clearly (and he hasn't), and together our RSs showed that parts of the Old Testament are part of Christian ethics in a way that is clear, clear enough to make the OT worth writing about in the article, then that would still be the limit (at most) on what would be worthy criticism of Christian ethics from the OT. For example, a RS might say that one of the Seven Laws of Noah (a) is a basis for part of Christian ethics, (b) is not shown to be renewed in the NT, and (c) apply it to the Christian view of abortion. If so then the OT Seven Laws of Noah (or at least that one law) could be important enough for the criticism section to address it. But currently the article does not even address the Christian view of abortion, or other such issues, to begin with. Currently the only part of the OT noted is the call of Abram (without a hint of how or why), but the OT criticism section would only criticize other some of the parts of the OT. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion by Czarkoff

As I currently see it, the question is mostly about the subject of the "Christian ethics" discipline. As long as we stick with the "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics" quote from the lead as a commonly accepted view, the position of Carlaude (as I understand it), becomes the violation of WP:NPOV; if this quote is wrong, the situation answer is the opposite. Thus, as I see it, this discussion should focus on the question "What is the primary source of knowledge about the christian ethics?", and once this question is answered, no room for this argument is left. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So, after hearing from Carlaude I am pretty sure that my initial apprehension of the argument was pretty correct. Indeed, this article shouldn't dismiss the numerous changes the christian ethics has gone through since the creation of Old Testament and up to these days. Thus, unless christian ethic dismisses Bible as a source of knowledge, the referenced critics of any single word of the Bible (including any single word of the Old Testament) is an unavoidable part of this article. If any further comment on this argument is required, please notice my via my talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Reliable sources point to a variety of sources for Christian ethics. However, the Old Testament is certainly one of them: the OUP-published book Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction by D. Stephen Long highlights this. For example, Long states that "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative and especially the call of Abraham and Sarah, [etc.]....These sources were essential for the emergence of Christian ethics...Without it, Christian ethics would be unintelligible." And later, "Christian ethics arises from the calling of Abraham, which is found in Genesis 12."

There are also a variety of works that discuss the Old Testament foundation for Christian ethics. For example, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics discusses Old Testament vignettes and ideas throughout its entries; The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics discusses the Old Testament's influence on Christian Ethics; and another useful work in this discussion is Bruce C. Birch's Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life. "Foundations for Christian Ethics in the Old Testament" is a relevant chapter in the latter book.

I might also note that a second editor who originally sided with Carlaude's position (Editor2020), reversed his/her stance when I added the sourced passages in the article establishing the link between the Old Testament and Christian ethics. Editor2020's last statement above was, "As far as I'm concerned, you've established enough of a connection to include the OT." However, I thought it would be reasonable to let the Third Opinion request run its course. Thanks for taking it on. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And, if I might, the question (to me, anyway) appears to need only be, "Is the Old Testament one of the sources of Christian ethics?" A previous (and unsourced) definition in the lede stated that Christian ethics generally started with Jesus and his story in the New Testament. I replaced that with the sourced material in the lede. The answer to the question I propose then seems fairly clear, and that should be sufficient to merit inclusion here, it seems. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible, off-topic

You seem to think that (certain atheists' views on the) ethics in the Bible is the same as Christian ethics. This section of criticism of (perceived) ethics in the Bible is off-topic. While these two would overlap in many cases, the "ethics" chosen to be herein criticized are 90% or more different from Christian ethics.

For example, people today-- Christians or otherwise-- do not go around seeking to burn witches. That some did in the past is an issue of history-- and could be added to a criticism section of the article Christianity in the 17th century, or even to a Criticism of Christianity article, but it would still be off topic in this article. tahc ^chat 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section reflects the current consensus that it is not off-topic. As far as the link between the criticism section and the Bible regarding Christian ethics, I invite you to read through the above. I asked a third party to arbitrate on this discussion as well.

I am also unclear as to why you appear to suggest in your second paragraph that this article should only focus on a current snapshot of "Christian Ethics" (as difficult as that would be). This article provides coverage of Christian ethics, past and present. The third paragraph of the article's lede talks about the origins of Christian ethics in history, and the first section is a discussion about the early church and Christian ethics. There is no reason why any tenet of Christian ethics since it's inception should be excluded.

Also, people today do go around accusing others of being "witches". And they do kill them. You can read about this on Wikipedia (in more than one place) or just do an online search. Here is an article that provides a link between churches in Africa and "witchcraft belief". There are more; you just have to look.

But that is just an aside. Let me assure you that I do understand your point, but the link between the Bible and Christian Ethics has been clearly established by reliable sources as noted in the article itself as well as above, and it has been accepted here by consensus in light of that. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the current consensus, arrived at above, supports the inclusion of any part of the Bible in relation to Christian Ethics, I've removed the "off topic" tag. Airborne84 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEDE

The article's lede does not adequately summarize the article. That's why there's a tag on it. There is criticism listed in the article but it is not summarized in the lede. WP:LEDE says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

I made an attempt to improve the lede by repeating one of the quotes in the criticism section. It certainly wasn't sufficient to remove the tag, but it was a start. I thought perhaps other editors would consider making additions or adjustments to refine it or better summarize the criticism and thus the tag could be removed. However, what I added was simply removed and the edit summary stated that it was "undo weight, fridge, and ridiculous". I assume that is meant to be "undue weight" and "fringe" as I am not aware of a policy on fridges.

I'm not going to address the edit summary. And I really don't care how the criticism is summarized. But the tag remains, so simply removing an attempt to improve the lede is not constructive. I welcome comments. Airborne84 (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has weighed in here, I decided to try a more abstract approach to summarize in the lede the content that exists in the criticism section of the article. Since this version provides (IMO) a broader summary, I feel that the WP:LEDE tag is no longer appropriate.

Having said that, I'm open to further adjustments. Airborne84 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tahc has changed the summary in the lede of "criticism of Christian ethics" to a POV interpretation of the criticism. The summary in the lede must summarize the WP:RS ideas in the criticism section according to WP:LEDE, not represent an editor's interpretation of them. Thus, I have reverted to what seems, at least to me, to be a fairly vanilla summary of the criticism. Airborne84 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Title/Merge with "Moral Theology"

The "Moral Theology" page is a two-sentence stub that directs the reader to this article. Is there a useful difference between "Christian ethics" and "Moral theology" as fields of study? Perhaps the title should read "Christian ethics, also called Moral theology"?

As a secondary question, is "Christian ethics" the more common name for this field? My impression is that the evangelical world tends to call it "Christian ethics" while in the Catholic tradition it is more normally termed "Moral theology". If "Moral theology" is the more common term, then we might want to adopt that usage in the title, with "Christian ethics" in the "also" spot. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Theology is not limited to Christianity. So Moral Theology and Christian Ethics are not the same. The latter is a subset of the former. Airborne84 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are, of course, theologies in different religions. None of them aside from Christianity, as far as I know, use the term "moral theology" as a term of art, or as the term for the ethical branch of that theology. And the stub for Moral theology only refers to Christian ethics. The article Religious ethics appears to be the catch-all article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the article on Moral Theology needs expansion then, and perhaps it would then be evident a merge with religious ethics is warranted. Unless we have reliable sources (including non-Christians) who state that this term is only used by Christian denominations. My 10-second glance at a search engine result shows only Christian discussion. But we should be careful here as I am only searching in English. That creates an artificial barrier for this term coming up in Arabic or Mandarin, for example. Airborne84 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be assuming "Moral theology" has the broad, equivalent meaning of "Religious ethics", when there's no evidence that that's the case. And it's an english term, on english wikipedia - why should we have an article that reinvents the meaning of a term on the chance that there is a similar term in a different language, which, if translated, could lead to confusion? Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable assumption. When I look up the word "theology", I see a general term relating to religion in general or belief in God, not solely a Christian idea. It possible that by putting the two words "moral" and "theology" together we come up with a term that is only used in the lexicon of one or more Christian denominations, but that doesn't seem intuitive to me. I'd like to see reliable sources state that it is limited as such. As for why we try to eliminate or reduce western bias on Wikipedia, please see WP:WORLDVIEW. Keep in mind that English is an official language in India, among many other countries in Africa and Asia, so the articles we are discussing may well be of interest to a Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, Bahá'í, or other religious person. But that wouldn't stop one of them from writing about moral theology related to one of those religions in Hindi, for example. Airborne84 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a reasonable assumption, you admit that there's no evidence it's actually the case. My own investigation showed no connection between buddhism, hinduism, islam or judaism with the term "moral theology". Also, I'd point out that "moral theology" is not simply the term "theology" with an adjective stuck on to it, such as "green pasta", but an established term of art within Christianity that has a fairly defined meaning. I'd also (gently) suggest that you can ease up from your high horse - using english terms according to their established meaning isn't a function of western bias. Moreover, where there's a small minority usage of a term (if it turns out the Jains share the term), the general practice is to use a disambiguation note, not shift the subject of the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

My high horse? I didn't realize I was on one; I just thought we were having a conversation here. Please familiarise yourself with this page where Wikipedia (gently) suggests that we comment on the content, not the contributor. I'll again state my position that if reliable sources state that this term is solely one used by Christian denominations, then I am OK with it. You don't have to like my position, but it is grounded in how we do things here at Wikipedia, so there it is, for what it's worth. Airborne84 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While common sense indicates that the term "moral theology" might be used by mostly in Christian theology, it also indicates the term might be used in other theologies. We cannot claim either of the two views is "the better view, unless we have a WP:RSs to say otherwise". We have to go by what ever the best availabile source(s) indicate, and not by our own logic and study.

Please note that moral theology at the Encyclopædia Britannica says, "moral theology... [is the] Christian theological discipline concerned with identifying and elucidating the principles that determine the quality of human behaviour in the light of Christian revelation."

I also oppose a merge currently... but if we did merge it should certainly be the other direction-- a merge of Moral theology into Christian ethics, as the more common and more clear term. tahc ^chat 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Airborne84: Very well, I apologise for saying you were on a high horse. Getting back to the issue at hand, WP:RS does not stand for the proposition that article titles need to have a reliable source that defines the title as referring only to the subject matter of the article. What we currently have are reliable sources which tell us that "moral theology" refers to the Christian study of ethics within the realm of theology. Even if there is another topic under this phrase, that would fall under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where we'd make two articles and use hatnotes to disambiguate from the primary article. By suggesting that we need a reliable source that says the primary topic is the only topic, you are in essence asking for a proof of a negative (which is proverbially difficult to provide). Even general reference works rarely make a point of saying that, for example, "United Arab Emirates" is the name of a country and nothing else. But more importantly, requiring negative proof of the exhaustive meaning of a term simply isn't policy. Again, if we find that "moral theology" also describes a discipline within Jainism or Buddhism or Mormonism or whatever, we simply make a new article and make whatever appropriate disambiguation page or hatnotes necessary.

@Tahc: Thanks for your contribution. Brittanica is always a good starting point! I certainly agree that the merge would certainly be de facto Moral theology into Christian ethics. I was trying to suggest that there might be discussion over the appropriate title of the merged article, and a subsequent title change. That, however, is admittedly a discussion best left until after a hypothetical merger. I will try to make a formal merger proposal when I have time, despite the current scepticism, as I think it is worthwhile getting additional viewpoints. Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, people write articles all the time discussing the meaning of terms. It's not quite in the realm of "proving a negative" for a reliable source to say "Xyz is a strange term. It appears intuitive that it would apply to all religions, but it actually has been used only since [insert date here] and only in terms of Christian denominations."

However, I'm OK with Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for this term in the absence of that. Based on that, I agree with Tahc regarding the direction of the merger and have no issue with the remainder of what you suggest Gabrielthursday. You are correct that if additional sources come to light indicating otherwise, then editors here can deal with it then. You may want to give it some time to let other editors weigh in, but if there are no other comments I won't object to merging Moral theology into this article.

And I certainly accept your apology. Thank you for offering it. Airborne84 (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian influence on secular ethics

While it is true that many Christians draw influence from secular ethics ("Christian ethicists often engage with and draw from secular ethics"), I was always under the impression that a great deal of "secular" Western ethics was based on Christian ideals of right and wrong which have permeated the society during Christianity's long period of dominance. Whether they admit it or not, many atheists have grown up being taught a general sense of right and wrong that is similar to a Christians. That's why they are so easily outraged at things that are done in some non-Christian countries, except instead of saying "it's wrong for them to do that because the Bible says so!", they say "it's wrong for them to do that...because...it just is!" If Western society hadn't adopted Christianity 2000 years ago, it's likely that our whole society would be very different now. I'm no ethics major, but that's how I always saw it. AnnaGoFast (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that at least some secular people would replace the words "it just is" with "it damages the well-being of others" in appropriate circumstances. That aside, if you can find a reliable source that states that secular ethics are influenced by Christian ethics, please add it to that article. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Responses to criticism

This sentence needs work. "It is debatable[48][49][50] whether or not it should be considered wrong to condone slavery practices that meet the descriptions provided by Paul within letters that were written to people of Colossae and Ephesus, such as slavery practices which correspond with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth where greatness and leadership are exemplified by having the very attitude a servant or slave.[48][49][50][51][52] "It is debatable" should be changed to "Some commentators state that" and state clearly what they are saying.

However, I find it strange that there is even a "Responses to criticism" section. Why aren't these statements simply listed in the sections describing Christian ethics? They can be juxtaposed with the criticism section easily enough. The section tends to add an essay quality to the article, which is undesirable on Wikipedia. Presumably, adding a further section called "Responses to responses to criticism" would not be welcome. And so on. I propose the material in this section be moved to the sections above describing Christian ethics. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Airborne84: Normaly Wikipedia would have the Responses-to-criticism-type material in the main parts of the article, but the difficulty here arises from the Criticism section does not deal with (the criticism of) Christian ethics. The Criticism section (except with one phrase) is about the ethics in the Bible; by this I mean not just behavior advocated under unclear or outdated circumstances in the Bible, but also behavior of people in the Bible that were never meant to be a positive example in the first place.

While not even all Christians are going to agree what exactly is "Christian ethics", the Criticism section is not even trying to deal with what is in (the rest of) this article. It is pretending that slavery is part of "Christian ethics" today, even thought it is clearly not.

There is plenty of people criticizing actual Christian ethics that could be included here, and there is plenty other space elsewhere on Wikipedia for this sort of criticism of the ethics in the Bible. The solution would be limit the criticism in this article to those "ethics" actually advocated by (Christian) authors today in the name of Christianity, and move the criticism of behavior in the Bible to Criticism of the Bible and/or Ethics in the Bible#Criticism. tahc ^chat 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see above on the talk page. This has been discussed at length already. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Since this section acts as a rebuttal to an opposing point of view, it appears to create a POV within the article. This violates Wikiepdia's policy on NPOV. Points of view should generally be presented within their respective sections, not juxtaposed with other points of view presented by WP:RSs with the intent of rebutting or negating the other. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the POV section tag in place until the criteria for removal are met. If the editors here agree that the article should read like an essay and rebut other points of view in favor of one, fine. But there has been no agreement on that, and thus the existence of the section appears to be POV. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed tag for criticism

I don't feel like getting into an edit war but Tahc insists on re-adding the citation needed tag regarding criticism, stating that no WP:RS provides a link between Biblical ethics and Christian ethics and repeating the same argument that has been discussed before. Wikipedia operates on the consensus system. This has been discussed at length above and was arbited by an outside party. The current consensus is that the criticism based on scripture is not off topic. You will need to establish a new consensus, not simply re-add tags, repeating the same argument. You also state that no WP:RS provides the link. This is incorrect. They have been noted above at length. There are also multiple sources within the article clearly establishing the link. One is below.

"The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics" D. Stephen Long. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, The Westminster Press.

Please see the talk page above and the article for additional sources that provide the link between Biblical Scripture and Christian Ethics. Also, please remove the citation needed tags to reflect the current consensus on this topic. Then, please establish a new consensus before re-adding the tags. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Some things on Wikipedia are subject to consensus-- like whether or not to merge articles. Many things-- like objectionable claims within articles-- are subject to RSs. These cannot be "subject to consensus". I also don't think a "third opinion" is the same as "arbited by an outside party."

I agree that the Bible contains (some) fundamentals of Christian ethics, but it also contains many things that are not Christian ethics-- indeed it contains many things opposed to Christian ethics.

Please look at WP:SYNTHESIS. The article has an (unsourced) claim that "Christian ethics have been criticized for... ideas that exist in Biblical scripture...". That claim has been combined with various criticism of Biblical texts that are (and or claim to be) ethics in the Bible. These imply that "ethics in the Bible" is equal to (or sub-set of) Christian ethics.

No informed person ever claims ethics in the Bible is equal to (or sub-set of) Christian ethics. Christian ethics is (either) a sub-set ethics in the Bible (or they are two intersecting sets). Since WP:SYNTHESIS is "combine material from multiple sources to... imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" you have synthesis of sources at best!. You fail at synthesis of sources at your lack of source for the first claim. The Christian ethics‎#Criticism section even reads like Ethics in the Bible#Criticism section. It has much of the same content and is (only) orgainized by the parts of the Bible it criticizes. tahc ^chat 18:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate the part of WP:Consensus that shows that this policy cannot be used in this case. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability as a policy states "anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."

If you want to change the policy Wikipedia the you must gain new WP:Consensus at policy page(s) such as WP:Verifiability or WP:No original research. In such a way the policy WP:Consensus could be used. But even if you did have consensus to ignore policy Wikipedia here at Christian ethics (and you don't), it would do you no good, because the Verifiability policy still applies here.

As it says at Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Verifiability is a policy on a wider scale. tahc ^chat 20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible and Christian ethics

You keep claiming original research and that no RSs supports the link between Biblical scripture and Christian ethics. In the process to achieve consensus above, and in the article itself, there are multiple reliable sources listed to make the link. That was how the consensus was achieved: that the WP:RSs in question were sufficient to establish the link.

You don't have to like this, of course. And you could even disagree that the reliable sources are sufficient to make that link (someone else argued this as well). But you can't say there were no reliable sources considered in the consensus process. And it doesn't fall on editors here to re-establish that consensus if someone disagrees. It falls on that editor disagreeing to establish a new one.

Having said all that, I do understand some of your point. And I don't mind discussing future improvements. However, you'll find that when you ignore consensus and how it was achieved and just re-add tags and insist they belong anyway isn't the best way to stimulate dialogue that will achieve the best results. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not claim "that no RSs supports the link between Biblical scripture and Christian ethics". I agree there is a link between Biblical scripture and Christian ethics. But a link between Biblical scripture and Christian ethics are not the same thing as each being equal to the other, or each being criticized in the name of the other. To put it another way, you keep claiming "a link".... but you keep thinking as if and editing as if the two are the same. It would seem any past consensus ignored this difference in its haste (and was also looking at a different but related issue).

You can see Wikipedia has two different articles on two different but overlapping topics-- Ethics in the Bible and Christian ethics. You have never seemed to admit to any particular difference between the two, but if you understand how Wikipedia works then you have to agree to one of these two choices:

A : Ethics in the Bible and Christian ethics are the same topic, the two are a content fork, and we two should work together to merge them... or

B : Ethics in the Bible and Christian ethics are two different topics, and we two should work together to make the two articles have more difference in content from each other.

If you can pick which view you have, then we can work together about how to improve things on the article. If you do pick B then let me know which areas that you can agree are different, and we can we have a consensus on what can go, instead of just a consensus on what has to stay. tahc ^chat 07:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently we are making some headway then. We agree on some things. To be clear, neither of us think that Christian ethics is a subset only of Biblical ethics. I don't agree that there are only two choices as you present above. I would go with choice C: the topics overlap considerably and, while they may have similar aspects, also have some different aspects. But that shouldn't prevent us from moving forward agreeably, I think.

As I said have said before, I do understand the point you are making. In fact, I'm the one who added the quote in the lede identifying that "comprehensive Christian ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience broadly conceived". I will note that most of the criticism of Christian ethics I have seen centers on scripture, and that is likely why it figures so prominently here. For example, it is hard to point to Christians specifically for employing science to determine right or wrong since non-Christians of many flavors do the same.

So, I am agreeable to introducing other criticism of Christian ethics while reducing the size of the criticism based on scripture. Criticism within the other categories as well as of disagreeable behaviors that result can be added, past and present (this isn't an article on current Christian ethics). However, rather than removing the current material, I would prefer to summarize it in the article while moving the passages into footnotes.

Having said that, I haven't canvassed the literature to see what's out there on non-Scriptural-based criticism. So, I wouldn't be in favor of a drastic reduction in the criticism section up front with the intent of someone filling it in with the other material later. Rather, a discussion would be preferable as we go for best results.

In any case, these are my thoughts. I await the input of others. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am still hopeful we can work together but you have totally failed (so far) to admitting any "areas that you can agree [the two] are different". You have agreed (in theory) that Christian ethics is a subset only of Biblical ethics, but seem to not have any interest in finding what part of "Biblical ethics" is not part of Christian ethics. I hope you will say more why you avoid this, since and cannot think of any reason avoid to do this.

But this is an article on current Christian ethics-- or at least it needs to be an article on current Christian ethics. Just as Christianity is about current Christianity, Jewish ethics is about current Jewish ethics, and Islamic ethics is about current Islamic ethics. That doesn't mean it can't have some sort of history section, but (to the degree Christian ethics has changed since then) if people want to know something about Christian ethics in the Middle Ages, they are unlikely to look at this page and much more likely to at Christianity of the Middle Ages. Likewise your desire to criticize "disagreeable behaviors" from the past would be off topic here. Feel free to criticize Christianity for its past over at Criticism of Christianity.

While there are several "distinguishable" sources of Christian ethics, and the page is somewhat organized by source, sources are neither the best way to organize a Christian ethics article, nor a sensible way to criticize Christian ethics. For example, just as some parts of the Bible do not meaningfully impact Christian ethics and are thus unsuitable to criticize in the name of criticizing Christian ethics, some philosophical principles and methods do not meaningfully impact Christian ethics and would also be unsuitable to criticize in the name of criticizing Christian ethics. (For organizing the article Jewish ethics would be a good model.)

We also should not try to keep unsuitable content just for the sake of filling space. If the content is unsuitable for being original research, then let's remove it now.

Overall your plan seems to be to keep all the current criticism (eventually in shorter form), but add more that may also be criticism of not-Christian-ethics in the name of Christian ethics. All you really need to do is read something about actual current Christian ethics (here or in any of the many books on the topic) and then limit criticism to those actual Christian ideas. I also don't object to criticism of actual Christian ethics that originate in scripture. tahc ^chat 06:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

universal source and Christian ethics a subset

Apparently we still have a disagreement. I don't really want to rehash the consensus achieved above, but I have to ask, have you read through it? If you did, as well as the quote I put at the top of this thread, and others in the article itself, you could see that a number of sources point to "the Bible" as a primary source of Christian ethics. That includes everything. The fact that WP:RSs say this, and that this is sufficient to include scripture in its entirety, is a matter of consensus here. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bible is not only the "primary" source of Christian ethics, your D. Stephen Long quote goes so far as to call it the "universal" source of (specifically) Christian ethics. But his calling it the "universal" source does not mean all parts of the Bible are the source of Christian ethics-- it means that from the Bible come all (specifically) Christian ethics. All (specifically) Christian ethics must tie back to writtings there in the Bible. Christian ethics cannot just come from the words of Francis of Assisi or Joseph Smith unless that persons words also source ethics from the Bible.

Yet as we know Christian ethics is a sub-set of Biblical ethics, so we know that not all Biblical ethics are Christian ethics. Christian ethics does not "include everything" in Biblical ethics.

Ethics that Christianity has in common with other systems of ethics may still come from things outside the Bible. tahc ^chat 22:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't split my comments. In general, you should avoid modifying others' comments.

At this point, other editors can weigh in as they see fit. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

tahc seems like an editor with a strong biased POV. This isn't his only target article. Lipsquid (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please limit your comments to ways to improve the article, rather than making personal accusations. tahc ^chat 22:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

current Christian ethics

I do not understand your insistence that this article is only about current Christian ethics. It manifestly is not, nor should it be. There is an "Early Church" section of this article. Nearly every section of the article contains historical material. Also Christian ethics have changed over time, within various denominations, so that is necessarily part of the story. I also don't understand when you point to the Jewish ethics and Islamic ethics articles. Both pages have historical discussion. Finally, Featured Article criterion 1.b. identifies that featured articles should be comprehensive and provide context. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The current article does (and should) have an "Early Church" section, but the whole page is in very poor shape. Currently it doesn't even have the "Early Church" and "Bible" section in the correct order. These sections are primarly on how the ideas from those time periods developed into the current Christian ethics. Ethical expectations from the early church that did not carry out to later times (and ever time period had these) are not discussed.

Pages on Jewish ethics and Islamic ethics are good examples here. Some 18% of the page on Jewish ethics is about the devlopment of currect Jewish ethics by time period (Biblical and rabbinic ethical literature, Medieval ethical literature, and Modern ethical literature) and the rest of the page is orgainized into currect ethical principles and currect areas of applied ethics. The page on Islamic ethics is less organized but still covers these three areas, with not too much on the historical devlopment of currect Islamic ethics. I hope this helps you understand why I point to the Jewish ethics and Islamic ethics articles. tahc ^chat 22:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Anarchism

As I said, the ethics of Christian Anarchism has had very little imapct on Christian ethics as a whole. Christian Anarchism is also far to small a group to include just for there own importance. If the text was better intigrated into the rest of the article, it would still be Undue weight. If you want to retain it you would have to discuss it here and content-related reasons for its retention. tahc ^chat 22:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter, what matters is the opinion of reliable sources. Lipsquid (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you must have reliable source on Christian Anarchism being important to Christian ethics as a whole. Currently the section has two unreliable sources, that do not even support Christian Anarchism being important to Christian ethics. tahc ^chat 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither you nor any other editors are claiming ethics of Christian Anarchism has a larger significance, so there is no reason to tag as needed sources unless you yourself are (hoping to) go and find the sources for it's importance. Improving cites for it as it is will still leave it as Undue weight. tahc ^chat 13:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

When making a comparison one must always include both a first AND a second object for comparison. Christian Anarchism has, or doesn't have, a larger significance compared to what? I have no idea what you are talking about, I just know it needs a citation. Lipsquid (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Anarchism is so minor this seems obvious too me. It is just very difficult to prove a negative. If no one claims an idea (that Christian Anarchism is important to Christian ethics) then it does not need a citation. Citations are only needed for ideas that some editor is claiming to be true.

To give you (the comparison) that you are asking for we would need to know first which Christian groups have (in general) sufficient importance to be included in an article that is a broad a topic as Christian ethics. That information would depend on many things and would be unlikely to be found in any source. Since Christian ethics is a very broad topic, it would have to be limited to very large groups.

Neither Jewish ethics nor Islamic ethics have sections on subgroups within them (and if any religious ethics articles talked about pages the ethics of subgroups, I would think they would). My guess is that-- once Christian ethics is better written-- either only groups like Protestantism and Roman Catholicism would need a dedicated section or no group would need a dedicated section. Of course there is no way to source an idea like how many groups are important enough to merit their own section in this particular Wikipedia article.

Of course groups with a notable contributions in an area of Christian ethics could still be talked about in that section, but there are several other Christian pacifism groups that are both older and larger. Now while Protestantism and Catholicism together make up most Christians worldwide, Christian anarchist is so small that Wikipedia only tells about only a single local church that is specifically Christian anarchist.

If you want share more on Christian Anarchism maybe you should do it by creating or expanding other more specific Wikipedia articles. If you still have no idea what I am are talking about, I don't understand why you want to fight even the tiniest and most obvious improvements to this article. tahc ^chat 03:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not against improving the article, the historical importance of Christian Anarchism in shaping Christianity speaks for itself, (Martin Luther was the first Anarchist), though I am not defending Christian Anarchism, I am only questioning people who make 1,500 and 4,500 word deletions with using the talk page. It is not really fair to claim that one section needs to be deleted due to lack of sources in an article full of POV and Original Research with no real sources. Lipsquid (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that you want to keep the section on Christian Anarchism mainly (or only) because I deleted without asking permission. That is not how Wikipedia works.

(1) You should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Unless there is a real reason to keep such text, that is what you are doing.

(2) We are supposed to act boldly, including boldly deleting things that do not belong here -- unless we actually anticipate controversy beforehand. It is just fine to discuss this after reversion per WP:BRD, if there is an objection. There is also no set limit to the amount of bad text one can delete at once.

(3) Few (if any) people would agree that Martin Luther was an Anarchist, or the first Anarchist -- and most of all you don't have sources for this idea -- but even if true it would not really matter by itself. Luther was from Saxony. Should we also have a section of the ethics of Christians from Saxony? How about a section about the ethics of former Christian monks? Luther was from former monks too. Etc.

(4) This page is not filled with original research. The body is very largely verifiabile. If some of it needs sources, then it just isn't verified yet. Also, Christian ethics is -- by its nature -- a topic on the POV of Christianity.

(5) I am not asking to delete this due to lack of sources. It should be deleted because it is being given very, very undue weight. This page is not a list of the key ethical ideas of all movements within Christianity; therefore we should not let it be a disjointed group of the ethical ideas from any and every movement within Christianity. tahc ^chat 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There are better ways to handle material that an editor views as problematic versus outright deletion. It can be tagged to identify an issue, integrated with other like material, or even moved to the talk page for discussion if other editors agree that is the best option. Outright deletion of a significant amount of material is a drastic step.

Tahc, although you do have a point that trying to list a paragraph on every Christian denomination and sect won't work, this is a work in progress. At some point, it wouldn't be out of order for a section that summarizes the positions of a variety of denominations and sects, past and present. But it's easier to do that with material to work with versus no material.

I suggest that a better way to improve this material would be to integrate it with a summary of positions. That way, the material is retained, given appropriate weight, and you are adding encyclopedic material. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Airborne84: If you want to try to rewrite it until it fits better until the article, then I am willing to look at it, since it would presumably make it better than it is now. I still think it will be undue weight, but it may (or may not) make it good enough that it is not worth fighting over. tahc ^chat 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to move around material and not delete, that is fine. In the long run, anything not sourced should be considered garbage on Wikipedia until it is sourced and you, or any other one person, don't define what is allowable material on ANY article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. You should know better you are a long time editor. Lipsquid (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: I agree that no one person can define what is not "allowable material", but that is why I am discussing the text with you. You also cannot define what is "allowable material". In fact, since you fail over an over to give any reason to keep the section, I don't really see the point of your complaint(s) here.

If you still want to talk about me and how I can be a better editor, I recommend you go to my talk page instead, and leave this page for ways to improve this article. tahc ^chat 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if you delete it, how many times do I have to say that "I only object to people deleting thousands of words without using the talk page"? Delete at will not, I do not care, (though I would prefer that you spend your time first adding sources for other material and deleting second). The edit is being discussed on the talk page, I am a happy camper. Lipsquid (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Organization

This article is in poor shape. To clarity, let me state here that I think it should be organized (somewhat) like Jewish ethics in the following way.

• (1) historical development of (current) Christian ethics over time
• (2) virtues and principles in Christian ethics and
• (3) areas of applied Christian ethics. tahc ^chat 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian

The section labeled "Judeo-Christian ethics" is not on the topic of Christian ethics and needs to be dropped. It also says nothing about Judeo-Christian ethics. The main quote is really about (one president's) view of the importance of (any such Judeo-Christian) "faith" to American politics.

Even if written to really be about "Judeo-Christian ethics" that would (at best) be a larger category into which Christian ethics fits-- not the other way around. tahc ^chat 23:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3607

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Continued disagreement with consensus

@Tahc, this is at least the third time you've added a tag to the criticism section, asserting that the topic is off topic and/or reliable sources do not provide a link between scripture and Christian ethics. Unless there is a new concern, please stop. There is a consensus addressing this. Establish a new consensus. I've generally left it alone in order to allow you to generate discussion on the talk page to establish a new consensus, but there has been little discussion save you and me and there is no new consensus. At this point, I won't revert you if you add a tag again for the same reason. I'll notify an admin about Tendentious editing. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the page from July 24 you will see it the tag(s) for [citation needed] was still there from before. I have not added it in durring the many changes I made this weekend, because I didn't need to. I do seem to have added the Refimprove section tag to bring attention to in-line tag (as you yourself seem to be hoping others would join the above discussion on this topic) but if that make a difference to you we can leave out that section tag.

It was you Airborne84 that here removed the [citation needed] tag without a consensus or resolution. If you have given up on finding citations for your claim, we can remove the claims, but we cannot remove the tag just because you don't want to find WP:RSs for it. We also cannot ingore the need for WP:RSs just because you think there was a past consensus among two editors for a unsourced "fact" that is also claimed by the article text itself. Because this is still the case I am restoring the inline tag. tahc ^chat 01:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the only unsourced sentence in the section. I don't really feel like arguing over it.

I know you don't like that there is a consensus that the material in the Criticism section is not off topic and that reliable sources support its inclusion here. (By the way three editors arrived at that consensus, not two.) That doesn't change that the consensus exists. And those references have already been noted multiple times. You will have to convince other editors of the merits of your assertion by trying to achieve a new consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you prefer to not pursue a new consensus. However, if it will make it easier for you to do so, I won't object if you add an off-topic tag to the criticism section with the intent of drawing editors to the talk page to facilitate your effort to achieve a new consensus. After a reasonable amount of time, if you have not achieved a new consensus, I'd ask you to remove the tag. I'd suggest 30 days is reasonable. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't prefer to pursue a new consensus, because there is already a long-standing consensus at the policy page on WP:Verifiability that states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." and long-standing consensus at the policy page on WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

As I said above, if you want a pursue a new consensus, you have to do it at one of those policy pages. You cannot use "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" per as it says at Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus.

I don't need any tags to seek a new consensus, but I thought you might want tags to help find WP:RSs for these still uncited claims and implications. On that issue, since the criticism section now implies its idea that Christian ethics has been criticized for those ideas (of the criticism section), I am changing the tag to WP:Synthesis. tahc ^chat 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not going to argue this anymore. Happy to leave the tag on for now as perhaps it will provide you with more editors to try to convince. If there is no new consensus in 30 days, please remove it. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of properly sourced material

@Tahc, please explain your deletion of properly sourced material on changes on Christian ethics regarding celibacy. You stated that this material on Christian ethics is off topic. It is not off topic. You appear to be acting as if you WP:OWN this article and get to decide what can be included. I'll list the material below for other editors to comment on. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In the fourth century the "approved Christian course" was abstinence, even among married couples. A few centuries later this changed, and married couples who practiced chastity in this manner risked persecution and even death in areas of Europe. This view shifted over time to the Church's eventual indifference on abstinence for married couples as long as they did not attempt to prevent the conception and birth of children.

1. This is off-topic as it never lead to any noteworthy trends since that time. It is about fourth century Canon law not about current Christian ethics nor about the historical develoment of Christian ethics. If we included this be would have to consider hundreds (or more) ethical trends that exsisted in Christianity for a short time in its history.

As I said before, this article is also not where one would look to find this information either. But, assuming that it really happened and if it does or will become well-sourced, try adding it to Catholic teachings on sexual morality. If there is room it might also be added to Celibacy and/or Christianity in the 4th century. It seems to have never been part of those more specific articles.

2. It is not properly sourced material, since a 1937 Yugoslavia travel book is not a WP:RSs on the historic Canon law. tahc ^chat 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

References

WP:BRD

@Tahc, the section on criticism is properly named. It is criticism of Christian ethics, supported by reliable sources. I've reverted to the original version. Before changing the name again, please review WP:BRD. If you want to change the name of the section, you'll need to get consensus. It seems to me that this is yet another way for you to insist that the criticism listed is actually off-topic criticism of Biblical ethics.

I continue to be bewildered by why you insist on adding tags and making tendentious edits rather than simply trying to achieve a new consensus. I think at this point you've established a clear pattern of disruptive editing and disregarding an established consensus. I offered you a chance to generate discussion for a new consensus above. I'm not going to edit war with you if you insist on continuing down this path. I can only suggest at this point you do what I recommended and attempt to develop a new consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are bewildered why I do not "simply try... to achieve a new consensus" here please see these comments from a few minutes ago. Since they are already a repeat the above, I will avoid posting them a 3rd time (in this section). In short-- this is not the right place to seek such a consensus.

But even if this was the right place to seek such a consensus-- your idea of what a consensus would be seems unrealistic. Maybe I just don't understand it. Should I ask people to not draw on any ethics or criticism ever in the Old Testament. That would require a no Christian ethics ever to draw on the Old Testament-- and I am not sure a WP:RSs whould agree. Should I ask people agree to list of Old Testament books, or list of Old Testament ideas, or list of Old Testament genre as the limit of Christian ethics? Even if you and I did want to do that anyone could come along and rightly claim the list does not have WP:Verifiability.

To me, the only way make to make the article suitable is to seek out actual reliable sources for each and every claim and/or issue. Why would we have to agree in advance that the criticism section is either all suitable or all unsuitable?

If you are so sure that the various writters quoted in the criticism section really think it is Christian ethics that they think they are criticizing (and not just criticizing the Bible or certain Christian groups) why don't you just find and quote such evidence. I still may or may not agree it is Christian ethics but I would still agree that they think it is Christian ethics. tahc ^chat 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, I am not sure it even makes sense, just get some consensus please before deleting stuff or changing section names if you think the change could be controversial. Lipsquid (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy & Paste Job

This section [1] appears to be almost a copy and paste job from research.omicsgroup.org[. I suspect there ought to be a tag added to the main page to note this misuse, or the content changed, but sadly that's beyond the limits of my knowledge. Anyone able to advise\correct? Thanks. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The [research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Christianity_and_homosexuality omicsgroup.org] page is based on the Wikipedia page Christianity and homosexuality, not vice versa.

Each section of Christian_ethics#Areas_of_applied_Christian_ethics also folows the lead on the linked separate article by design.

Please do not change the section on Christian ethics#Homosexuality unless and until you have WP:CON to make the same changes to the lead of Christianity and homosexuality first. tahc ^chat 16:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay found where that claim is made. Frankly I'm surprised OMICS is relying on Wikipedia but there is a tiny note right down the very bottom of the page. I'd not think to scroll past the references, external links, and corporate info usually. 人族 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Even the main page of this website is attributed to Wikipedia. Is it anything other than a mirror site, or does it also feature other content? Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus Check

Since tahc said don't change content without consensus, what's the issue(s) with the version by 118.208.30.191? Changes made were to provide 2 references, and correct an inaccurate slant on a passage referred to. I'd not have thought this needed discussion but since apparently it does, what's the issue(s)? If nobody raises anything I'll assume a reversion is approved. I know how to do that much at least :-) 人族 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Any inaccurate slant or other changes in meaning should be made (in this case) at Christianity and homosexuality. Same with adding primary sources (as these are). If you make the same changes there and no one objects after a short time, like a week, or edits otherwise gain consensus there then I will agree to changes here.

In the mean time, I will assume that the most verifiable and npov text is the text currently in the lead of that page. tahc ^chat 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218195040/http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm to http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008122958/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#-2C6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114072804/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074259/http://www.theplatonist.com/cardinal_virtues.htm to http://www.theplatonist.com/cardinal_virtues.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724064758/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724064758/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107084725/http://www.jr-miller.com/other/sheldon/in-his-steps.html to http://www.jr-miller.com/other/sheldon/in-his-steps.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)