Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive4

Dominion

I don't like to get involved with topics like this, but I am suprised there is no section in this article regarding so called mans dominion over the earth. It seems to be one of the more controvertial parts of christianity. Anomity 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur - generally I think this would come under the title of criciticsm from anthropocentrism.Richard holt 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Richard Holt

Encyclopedia

This artical does not seem to be written formally enough to me. Someone needs to fix it,

Agreed - also it is incoherent, rambling and poorly organised, with topic headings that don't really create a logical structure.

---

Personally, the bulk of this article seems to be poor. It seems to be a criticism of the actions and beliefs of sects in Christianity and does not present the view as a whole. It generalises on many issues and as a Christian I don't believe in the majority of views put forward in the argument as 'christian beliefs'.

The case for Christian's and science seems to suggest that Martin Luther's comments epitomise the beliefs of Christians. In reality, the bible says nothing about the earth being flat so using that as a criticism of the religion is completely unfounded.

You seem to have missed certain parts in your reading! see Daniel 4:10; Matthew 4:8; Revelation 1:7 (probably a lot more too)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.164.63 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 17 April 2007.

The majority of Christian sects have no issue with contraception and are more intent on fighting the AIDs epidemic.

The within christianity section is not a criticism of the religion but of those who get the wrong idea or continue to sin, something Christianity itself does not in any way encourage, obviously.

The racial or cultural dominance section is completely based on individuals, and although there is a place for some it it in this article, it is poorly presented and much of it is completely irrelevant to this article in particular.

While parts of the persecution section could do with some neutral rewording, I dont think there's too much cause for concern but there must be caution that christians arnt generalised over this issue.

The section on Atonement is completely ignorant and uninformed but unfortunatly that is the nature of some criticisms of christianity, however maybe it should be revised to outline the doctrinal ignorance and assumptions of the arguments presented because the arguments are not in effect criticisms of christianity but instead criticisms of an incorrect portrayal of biblical teachings which overlook the fundemental beliefs of Christianity.

The part on the second coming starts off well but falls into irrelevance about atheist observations. Realistically, the article only needs the first paragraph.

I haven't read the rest of the article but will add any other observations soon.

Can someone explain to me how this sentence belongs in this article?

"Theologian Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, And The Meaning Of Life, is critical of Dawkins' arguments for atheism."

I'm new to this side of Wikipedia, usually opting to stay on the more rational and objective side of wikipedia (science, mathematics, history). So maybe I should stay away from reading articles like these where agendas are sometimes questionable. Anyways, I really don't see how this sentence, describing a theologian's criticism on a scientist's case for atheism belongs in an article called "Criticism of Christianity". Wikipedia brown 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages criticism of the point of view from within an article, as long as it is NPOV (by wikipedian definitions) and balanced in accordance with the current state of the appropriate published literature. Therefore, that sentence as it currently is (which has clearly morphed in the couple of months since then) seems absolutely appropriate for that section, since it's criticising that particular criticism.

BTW, I think agendas are 'questionable' in all areas of human knowledge - you always have people disagreeing, and if they've studied in any great depth they care a lot, so they're always biased. In religion, both believers and interested non-believers are generally especially passionate about their own POV, but I don't see that as proving anything.TheologyJohn 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence quoted above is without content and deserves deletion or elaboration. The current sentence still isn't very informative, but it carries a little information and so is worth keeping. It would be better if someone could summarize McGrath's rational criticism of Dawkins. Jonathan Tweet 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Though really that topic belongs on a Criticism of Atheism page, rather than here. Ming the Merciless 19:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the chaos

1. This article has become extremely disorganized and I have made some attempt to put it in order, by putting things in more suitable places, and shortening some of the sections where people have off-loaded large quotations from various authors. There is still a large undigested chunk of discussion relating to Professor Louis Pojman, which is far too long and too specific to be left thus, but I've run out of energy and time for now. Ming the Merciless 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Had another go. The section on Obayashi's views is, like that on Pojman, far too specific and not integrated into the article (it reads like a student precis which has simply been bolted into the text).Ming the Merciless 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Unless someone has strong arguments against, I propose (a) that the entire two sections relating to Obayashi's socio-psychological theory of the afterlife be moved to the article on Afterlife; (b) that the detailed list of examples of Biblical conflict be moved to the article on Internal consistency and the Bible. I think this would help focus this article. Ming the Merciless 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

billwilliams.org and External links

The latest addition is adding personal commentary to a link (a disclaimer if you will). If the link is problematic and doesn't meet our guidelines WP:EL, then we should discuss how it is problematic and then remove the link. Adding commentary like this is the solution to a controversial link. We either include it or don't include it. How many other links listed have commentary? I'm not against removing the link. What I am against is the 'disclaimer' added by the anonymous IP user.--Andrew c 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Contradictions?

Haha. I love this section of the article! It is a poor attempt by the uneducated to display apparent "contradictions" within the Scripture! Unfortunately for the creators of that section, there are no contradictions. The authors of the section insist on basing the contradictions on passages found in the Old and New Testaments. Yet an understanding of the New Covenant by any of those creators would result in the removal of that section! The New Covenant was all about the abolishment of the Old, as God fulfilled the promise of the Messiah. Of course any person with no understanding of the motifs and promises in Scripture would assume there are contradictions. On the surface, there appear to be contradictions. But if the educated delve a little bit deeper, to the historical context, the problems melt away!
There is no place on this article for Christians to point out the historical, contextual, etc, circumstances that void these "contradictions" (after all, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum)... But please, if you are going to post "contradictions" ==> actually have some.
These simply need to be removed, not just because I'm against them, but because if any Joe Uneducated saw this section, he would assume the Bible actually has contradictions without knowing that it doesn't.
Aren't Encyclopedias supposed to educate the general public? --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The easiest and probably least likely to be edit warred out of existance solution would be to counter-cite the whole thing, namely, to get good references countering the argument that the passages are contradictions, and then discuss the counter-references generally given for the particular verse in question. Homestarmy 05:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bible lists two complete different ancestaries of Jesus Step Dad if I remember correctly. That is a blatant contradiction, mentioned in Richard Dawkin's book the god delusion.

Also the chronology of the conquering of Canaan (books Joshua, Judges, and Samuels) isn't consistent.

I'm in the process of reading Kings 1 (and have read The God Delusion entirely), and as of yet having nothing else to report pertaining to contradictions.

Speaking of literal interpretation, Genesis says god couldn't overpower Jacob in a wrestling match, and Exodus says Moses convinced him to change his mind. So in the former circumstance he is weak, and in the later imperfect.

Literally interpreting the entire thing doesn't get you anywhere. And by the way, whomever that is above, talking about the ancestry, please do be more specific as to where you see alleged contradictions. I would love to see what you have put together. 70.119.231.92 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, more stuff not having to do with Christianity...

If I may have your attention yet again, I'd like to take a look at the beginning of the first section, "Criticism of Christianity as Irrational. Let's look at the first few paragraphs and quotes: "Many skeptics consider that all religious faith is essentially irrational, and incompatible with reason. Friedrich Nietzsche defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true." [1], and H. L. Mencken described it as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln)[2] The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason. (Benjamin Franklin) [3] When you know a man's religious complexion, you know what sort of books he reads when he wants some more light, and what sort of books he avoids, lest by accident he get more light than he wants. (Mark Twain)[4] Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. (James Madison) [5] The trouble with Faith is that it cannot coexist with Reason. When the religious beliefs run into a conflict with the senses, or with the world of science, we must either somehow accept incompatible ideas or we must choose. The number of intelligent people who attend church services regularly suggests that many people can live in a sort of schizophrenic reality, where the laws of nature operate at all times except when thinking religious thoughts. Or, they pretend to believe both but really only believe one. But some of us can't do that, and we are asked to abdicate our intellects as to preserve the purity of the dogma. Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue [6] Schopenhauer also criticizes believers for mistakenly trusting those who claim religious authority, rather than thinking for themselves. Alvin Plantinga defines a theist as "one who believes in God as basic albeit not on logical grounds". In Is belief in God Rational, he argues that religious believers do not believe doctrines in the way that scientists (at least in principle) believe theories—they do not have a readiness to reconsider their belief: The mature believer, the mature theist, does not typically accept belief in God tentatively, or hypothetically, or until something better comes along. Nor, I think, does he accept it as a conclusion from other things he believes; he accepts it as basic, as a part of the foundations of his noetic structure. The mature theist commits himself to belief in God: this means that he accepts belief in God as basic. [7] This committed belief is sometimes called "faith based on zeal". Most philosophers consider that this subordination of reason to emotional commitment is detrimental, as in Plato's Crito, where Socrates states to the naive Crito, "Your zeal is invaluable, if a right one; but if wrong, the greater the zeal the greater the evil." A similar sentiment is expressed by Bertrand Russell, who regards belief in the absence of evidence as harmful."

I would like to know where precisely any of this text criticizes Christianity explicitly. I cannot find the word "Christianity" in here anywhere, or "Bible", or really anything that necessarily deals with Christianity explicitly at all, many of these quotes could apply to Islam, Hinduism, or really any theistic religion whose adherants have faith in anything. And honestly, I have the feeling that's what many of them are, quotes applying to just any theistic religion based on some sort of faith. And while their certainly applicible to a Criticism of Religion article, they really aren't applicible to a Criticism of Christianity article, as they aren't directly criticizing Christianity at all. Just because someone expresses a view which is at odds with some form of Christian belief does not mean they are criticizing Christianity directly. Anyone have any other thoughts? Homestarmy 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree: much of the material in this article would be better moved to Criticism of Religion (which itself is rather in need of editing) though skeleton summaries might stay here with "main entry" links. This includes not only the critique of religious belief in general but also some of the half-edited section on Christianity as a psychological construct (though some of that probably is related specifically to Christian beliefs). Ming the Merciless 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of christianity webpage does not frequently receive administration edits which guarantee the quality of wikipedia is maintained. This was official after about a month ago. I've been monitoring the page for a year and a half now, it was the first time or so it would officially altered for standard wikipedia content. please leave the administration edits as they are in regards to faith. personal complaints about faith should be left on the criticism of world religions page. Faith in relation to christianity is promoted via Wikipedia's NPOV policy towards criticism pages - any critic page can mention criticism so long as it has sources and deals with an aspect (not neccessarily unique) to the position it criticisizes.

Biblical1 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also another individual edited the caption of God and Job. Please leave personal or secular religious interpretations out of general criticism pages. The caption of job lamenting to God happens before his second whirlwind experience. "Satan" or the devil is the *agent* of God, biblical scholars actually qualify satan as one of the *sons of God*. This is not a unique position considering the old testament and its themes of henotheism or the belief in many Gods, Yahweh, the chief father God, was a God amongst a devil council.

The other angry god caption seen by Michelangelo most generally has God condemning man. personal interpretations are encouraged via wikipedia on such secular pages, please leave objective content alone. Biblical1 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what does that first thing mean? I don't understand what you mean by "administration edits", or what official thing happened to this page a month ago. (I seriously doubt there was a WP:OFFICE complaint) I also can't understand if you're objecting to my commenting out of the stuff not talking about Christianity or not :/. On your second part, I edited the captions because they were compleatly wrong or pure speculation, it was neither a personal nor secular judgement of mine that Job was not protesting against God's actions, because Satan was only acting on God's permission, God was not personally doing anything to Job at all, whereas the former caption indicated the opposite. Yes, Job was lamenting "to" God, but was not lamenting "about" God's actions against him, as God, of course, had not done anything to Job. I don't know who possibly thinks they can argue against this with a scholarly perspective, but I know one thing, the former caption certainly wasn't cited anyway, it appears to of been compleate OR. While my change was also OR even though the Bible supports it with plain language, it certainly wasn't worse than what was before simply because I changed it. The "angry god" caption was also OR, as the mood of the face in the painting can be described with many different adjectives, so to remove this unsourced dilemna, I simply removed the speculative adjective. I have no idea what "Administrative decision" you think occured with this article, but I have no plans to leave content which is either purely speculative, has nothing to do with the subject, or is flat out wrong alone. Homestarmy 14:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing "Other Criticisms of Faith of Belief"

I'm going to remove the section, "other criticisms of faith or belief." It seems to be based entirely on one article by one philosophy professor, Louis Pojman, who is apparently not important enough for someone to have written more than a stub about him. No citation is given indicating that Pojman's views on this subject are in some way notable or influential. I conclude that this is not encyclopedia-worthy. Elliotreed 07:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ER, thanks for doing some housecleaning. I think there's some worthwhile stuff in some of the goop your shoveling. I rescued a reference to Clifford, which was legit. Jonathan Tweet 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions sectrion appears to contain original research

The "contradictions" section looks to me like improper original research. While I agree that many of these passages apparently conflict, there is no citation to any source arguing that those passages contradict each other. In the absence of evidence that anyone notable has ever argued that those particular passages conflict, we are merely posting the conclusion of this article's editors. That sounds like original research to me. See WP:NOR Elliotreed 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing novel about this material. It's longwinded. It doesn't give the reader much context. It belongs rather on Criticism of the Bible rather than here, where there should be only a summary. But it's worthwhile information for a reader who's curious, and you see much the same lists of Bible quotes on all manner of Bible-related pages. Jonathan Tweet 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Face of God

I have removed the image which had been captioned "The angry face of God". The picture was in fact taken from the panel of the Sistine Chapel depicting God imperiously commanding creation to come forth, and there is no indication that he is angry about anything. Ming the Merciless 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was considering doing the same. Jonathan Tweet 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried altering the caption myself to remove the OR, but as you might see from a section above, User:Biblical1 stopped me :/. Homestarmy 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor Choice of Words

It seems that "Criticism of Christianity" is a poor choice of words for this article. You are directly criticizing a religion based on the actions of so-called "Christians". For example, most of the criticisms are specifically based on actions by Christians, rather than by criticizing the religion like the heading says the article will do. This needs to be fixed. Either create another article, entitled Criticism of Christians or something good to that effect, or ensure that this article only has information that pertains specifically to the religion as a whole and its tenets, rather than by the actions of a few. We can not base our opinions of an orginization by the actions of sinful humans. Honestly, most of this information is garbage anyway. It completely lacks a historical, culture, and contextual perspective for many of these points, and therefore invalidates many of them. --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of your objections seem to be objections to the substantive content of the arguments. I agree that many of them are bad, but that's really not relevant. In any case I do not think it is illegitimate to criticize a belief system based on the actions of those who adhere to it. Elliotreed 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia article is to provide facts and truth--it is meant to inform people. I hardly think sheer speculation is educational or informative. If people view articles like this one, it will not only provide them with innaccurate or misguided criticisms of this religion, but will also negatively shape their worldview. And it would seem inappropriate to have counterarguments posted on the article itself... I guess people will just have to deal with incorrect information and form their opinions of Christianity on some half-baked article and overly biased article. --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Cal--if people read articles like this one, it will show them some of the poor, misguided excuses for criticism many immature skeptics use. Justin Eiler 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish that were true, but this article in no way conveys what you just said. People ignorant on the subject will consider this 'gospel truth', and encyclopedias are supposed to inform the ignorant of facts, not opinions --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone has a certain opinion, though, that is a fact. If certain criticisms or arguments have been raised by particular persons at particular times, that's a fact. If there's a problem with this article (and there are many) it concerns the poor sourcing, biased presentation, or non-encyclopedia-worthiness of some of the content. Elliotreed 03:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Europe Europe and more Europe

an entire section is dedicated to Criticism of concern for the weak, one mans opinion, yet look how thin cultural dominance is. One primitive mans opinion, a man who sidded with the most brutal aspects of human nature, kill the weak, will to power, just like Darwin. All the sections are about Europe perception and critic of the christian religion. from top to bottom, not a worldview.Latino and AA people not included, the white god on the churches that is a heated debate didnt make it, but FN did talking about "will to power and ego"--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 11:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of racial or cultural dominance

I remember adding thing about White God black devil and how art was used to make peole think God was a white person, has this section been deleted again? And i had ref stuff about madonna and the issues her video caused because (in part) jesus was shown as an African American RASTA. Also i added that the Rasta religion contrast itself my depicting religious people as African.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 10:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section which Ecto added that I removed:

"Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism. Christians such as Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader in the civil rights movement, have made it the mission of their lives to secure racial equality. Christianity is by no means a European or ethnic religion. Having originated among Jews in the Middle East, Christianity now has billions of followers throughout the entire world, making it the largest and most diverse world religion. -

-

"Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Today, there are more than two billion Christians. This means that approximately one out of every three persons on earth is identified in some way with Christianity. Naturally, a religion that encompasses so many people contains a great variety of beliefs and practices." (Religions of the World by Lewis M. Hopfe and Mark R. Woodward. Ninth edition. Pearson. 2005. p. 280)

- - As such, Christianity has followers from a wider range of ethnicities and cultures than any other worldview. Postcolonial Africa and Latin America have the two fastest growing populations of Christians. The three most influential figures in Christianity, Jesus, Paul, and Augustine, were not European. Jesus and Paul were Middle Eastern Jews, and Augustine was African."

I removed it because, in it's current form, it is original research. As explained in my edit comment, I encourage Ecto to find a notable scholar claiming that "Christianity is by no means and European or ethnic religion", and that "Christians such as Martin Luther King, Jr. a leader in the civil rights movement, have made it the mission of their lives to secure racial equality" \

thanks--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

u should allow the user to add refs, by adding citation remarks because that way others could contribute and expand based on the content, as a result the section is thin.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider those statements original research? A piece of original research is something an editor goes out and discovers that no one has ever written about before. That is how Wikipedia's policy defines it. You seem to have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's OR policy and what the term "original research" means, because the content you deleted does not fit that definition. I researched none of it myself. It all comes from secondary sources, such as the textbook I quoted, a quotation you ignored and deleted. I can cite all these facts if you want, but since they can by their nature be cited, that puts them outside the definition of original research, so you are in the wrong for deleting that content. With content that can be cited, the best thing to do is add a fact tag before removing. Maybe a step in the right direction would be for you to cease from removing the content that is cited, at least?

All of these facts have been so well documented that most have entered common knowledge, so I figured that only limited citations would be required. For example, from an article easily availible via the provided hyperlink: "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was the most famous leader of the American civil rights movement, a political activist, and a Baptist minister. " It should be obvious that I did not go out and ask Dr King about his life myself (I never met the man). Is the plural a problem? We could throw Al Sharpton in if it is. I provided a quotation from a textbook that sourced the statements in that paragraph regarding the extent and diversity of the Christian religion, and yet you still deleted it, claiming that it is original research. Something is not right here.

Are you doing this because you dispute the facts? If so, what facts do you dispute? If Christianity is an ethnic religion, what ethnicity? If it is a European religion, how so? Are most of its followers European? Is its founder European? Did it originate in Europe? We could just state that most Christians are not Europeans, Jesus was not a European, and that Christianity did not originate in Europe, which are all verifiable facts, to give the preceeding criticisms some factual relief, but that was the content you removed. I fail to see your objection. These are undisputed facts, and they have all been well documented. I will find citations for all of them if you would care to stop deleting content that is cited, like you did with the one quotation. Thank you. Ecto 12:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

just add refernces and they will not be able to delete it like that, it isnt fair, because i see all kinds of original research but because the mass like it no prob. 2 rules on wiki--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ecto, it doesn't matter if I dispute it or not. It is unsourced. The threshold of admission to Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you remove the sourced material? Ecto 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot simply add any old source. What your source stated was not what the sentence preceding it was implying. That's when the original research comes in.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

... comes in handy. Why suddenly, stiff requirements of sources on what could be construed as a perfectly reasonable addition, with a citation that was published in 2005? Actually, a conflictive theological branch of the catholic church seem based on precisely this point of view, the non-european, non-hierarchical approach to christian practice. I sorely miss the liberation theology point of view on this article: it is mentioned precisely in this context (the de-West-ification of christianity) in this article, which renders Ķĩřβȳ edit incomprehensible to me, but its criticisms are not mentioned, except to use as a source, an article with the astounding title of "Global gospel: Christianity is alive and well in the Southern Hemisphere". I fail to see how a theology, leaning toward marxists point of view, that emphasizes the "indignation about misery" and the need for a non-episcopal church, that, furthermore, has been converted by the Catholic church in an "official" critic by its condemnation, needs such a "bland" source.

The point of view of their followers on the "role of the Roman Catholic Church in the social and economic order that oppressed the communities...", as the Wikipedia article on Leonard Boff says is perfectly relevant, specially in view of the edit history. If Ķĩřβȳ fails to see the connection between this point of view and the mild criticism edited, well, you can't blame me. --Ciroa 08:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading that one cite again, I see what you mean now, Kirby, but being unsourced and being incompletely sourced are very different things, so please try to be more discerning from now on. I hope you find the new additions satisfactory. Ecto 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacking a World View Perspective

If anyone feels the article lacks a "World View", as per the existing warning header, could they please detail their specific concerns here. In the absence of any criticism the header would be removed in two weeks subject to agreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldenMeadows (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Question

Sorry this article is new to me. Could someone tell me ref; "its adherents have adopted practices now widely considered immoral, such as support for slavery" who is currently criticising Christianity because which adherents are currently supporting slavery where? Or is the support for slavery referring to William Wilberforce et al in which case perhaps it should say "have, in the past" to avoid ambiguity (of course he was a Christian but perhaps some of the opponents of slavery were not Christian)? --BozMo talk 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What should be in "Criticism of X" articles

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Views_please:_.22Criticism_of_X.22_articles. on "Criticism of X" articles. --BozMo talk 09:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why no criticism of Trinity

Is it just me or is there no criticism of the concept of Trinity. 202.168.50.40 03:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There would be no point because it doesnt conflict with anthng specificly requiring a scientific explination such as maybe the reserrection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.233.109 (talk • contribs)

That shouldn't be relevant by itself (although I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean in the first place), I think the actual reason is that not all Christians are trinitarians and even those who are can have very different veiws about what that means. That said, we should have a section on it. It is one of the more common criticisms. JoshuaZ 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Section header titles

I made a few changes to the headings. All the "Criticism of Christianity as..." and "Criticism of Christian..." titles were just repetitions of the article's title, and were implied. I think things the way there were went against Wikipedia's style guidelines. Do these changes work for everyone? Ecto 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

In the article, it says that the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of the Bible, which is not true. I am going to edit this part to correct the error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.247.167 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Good call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger233 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Christians

I changed the title of this section from "Example set by Christians" to "Christians", because it criticizes Christians directly without making reference to the example they set. I removed one sentence: "The behaviour of Christians has been subject to criticism through the bad example they set." It asserted that Christians do set a bad example, which is in violation of NPOV. Ecto 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler Edits?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Christianity&diff=115724746&oldid=115723142 This edit seems a bit dubious. This suggests Hitler was indeed a Christian of his own design. Probably need to copy some references to Positive Christianity there to emphasize while he dislikes some forms of Christianity he liked his own. --Quirex 05:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also why this edit? http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=115725210 The reason was pretty weak. --Quirex 05:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A Christian of his own design? A Christian is supposed to live by Jesus' design, not their own. For starters, Hitler tried to assassinate the Pope, so he certainly was anti-catholic. And here's just a few quotes from the fuhrer about his opinion of Christianity [1], like how he wishes it to die. He was most certainly not a Christian, not in thought, not in deed. Roy Brumback 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

When a fellow named Adolf and nicknamed "the Wolf" appeals to Christianity in public and denounces it in private, one thing comes to mind. 205.250.233.59 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did any of you bother to read Positive Christianity? --Quirex 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's positive alright....positively insane. Considering that, according to the article anyway, it was supposedly going to replace the "current" type of Christianity, it sounds to me like they wern't actually compatible at all, in terms of both being Christian. Homestarmy 19:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs has many references from 10 to 18 which assert he was indeed a Christian and considered himself a Christian. Notice how I backed up my supposed POV with actual references. The edit we're talking about also was backed up by a reference. Yet what do I see in response? A weak reference to primary source which does not synthesis or analysis in question. See the article need to be attributable, it does not consist of OR, sure we can argue here with OR but the fact is there are many sources which support the assertion that Hitler was Christian. The overall point here is a POINT was made without any references, an edit was made which removed SOURCED content and provided NONE and provided no argument. Even worse the excuse given in the edit text was "I have many citations to show this". Yet none were shown. --Quirex 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Although not highly familiar with the Hitler's religion dispute, from what i've seen of it, it looks like there are many references which indicate Christianity, and many references which indicate that he either wasn't, or was specifically pretending to be a Christian most of the time when he was in public. I know an editor who is much more well versed on this subject than I am however, i'll ask him about this. Homestarmy 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in these issues before. The problematic bit is how to define Christianity. WP must take a very broad definition because of the NPOV policy. Hitler did sometimes self-identify as Christian but his "Christianity" was a very peculiar one, the thing called Positive Christianity which was basically Christianity stripped of aynthing Jewish and/or disagreeable to Hitler plus a few modern notions about racism and survival of the fittest. There is basically no common ground between Christianity and Positive Christianity except for the use of the word Christ. Stripping away the Old Testament means pulling away the basis on which the belief that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah rests, even if one still uses the terms.

In any case, Hitler did criticize Christianity for this and that I do not really see how his own religious beliefs have anything to with this. Hence I think the removal above was perfectly in order [2]. Remember this is criticism of Christianity and not criticism of Christians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Adherents.com claims that they know of no published academic historian who claims Hitler was a Christian as an adult. More coming if this silly controversy persists. And the Hitler Religion wiki page clearly has the majority of info going against him being a Christian. Roy Brumback 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that source fails WP:RS, pushes POV, yet claims ignorance of references. Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs has many references which say otherwise. --Quirex

The link for the Hitler section seems to be from a pretty biased source. --Wombattery 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Messed up layout

Obviously somethings wrong with the article lay-out, I suspect a tag isn't closed. But I can't find out what tag is causing the trouble. Going to test some tags. Syrion 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the culprit! The tag {_{Christianity}_} (added underscores to sabotage it a.t.m.) ruins the page. Where can this inclusion be edited? Somethings wrong with it! Syrion 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey's comment

Didn't Salman Rushdie with the The Satanic Verses also say that the Quran too had also have revisions done to it? LoveMonkey 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post signatures or commentary in the main article space. That's what talk pages are for. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

"Most Christian theologians and Christian philosophers appeal to reason as an important aspect of the Christian faith. These include John Wesley, who included reason in the theological model known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and C. S. Lewis, who argued that religious belief has rational justification. Recent apologists for Christianity as rational include Tony Campolo, author of the book A Reasonable Faith, Alister McGrath, who offers a rational critique of Dawkins's arguments for atheism, Josh McDowell, who points to the archeological and manuscript evidence for Christianity, and Ravi Zacharias, who points to basic logic and reasoning as proof for God's existence and a way of seeing fundamental truths about our universe. Christian philosopher Thomas V. Morris draws a distinction between rationality and evidentialism (the view that all beliefs require evidence), and rejects evidentialism as irrational. Others posit that faith of some kind, even faith in reason itself, is needed to have any beliefs at all, given the potential power of radical skepticism."

I am deleting. This is page is "Criticism of Christianity", not "Criticism of Atheism". I am deleting this (since it reeks POV, and should not be featured in "CRITICISM of Christianity). If someone wants to move this to a different article do so, but I think the wording should be changed to make it sound more neutral. This article should have only arguments/criticisms against Christianity, and the "Criticism of Atheism" article should have only arguments/criticisms of Atheism. Sittingonfence 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Sitting. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

"However, other Christians see the relation between their Christian faith and reason in a rather different light.

From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason...In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith....It was and is the merit of the Enlightenment to have again proposed these original values of Christianity and of having given back to reason its own voice...In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational. (Pope Benedict XVI)"

I have also removed the above quote for the same reasons. Sittingonfence 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm uncomfortable with an article only being allowed to criticise in one direction, and (more to the point) it is directly against Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#POV forks. However, I would not object to the deleted paragraphs being trimmed for balance. Peter Ballard 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Section has been restored, and edited a bit. Peter Ballard 03:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Is 'Jesus Never Existed' really an acceptable site? If so, I'm very troubled by WP guidelines in this matter.

I used to read that site a few years ago, when I had been an atheist (and was somewhat of a fan), but I realized shortly that the site is mostly tenuous concepts tied together by an agenda, and quite a strong one at that: "Christianity is the worst disaster in human history" and "Heaven help us. The richest, most powerful nation in history has a psychotic infatuation with Jay-a-sus the Lawd!" are good indicators of what this site is attempting to accomplish, and to the lack of quality and even-handedness of this presentation- I may disagree with the historical perspective sites, but having a site like this in league with such sites is almost humorous to observe. I've seen a similar process on many Theosophism sites, where quotations from ancient sources are fabricated, forcefully translated, or taken entirely out of context (for example, one site in particular described a forced communion using machinery to hold open the jaws of unwilling communicants, but the site falsely presented the information by not noting that it was Arians in a particular incident who had committed this act; the site presented the information as if it were standard, orthodox cruelty).

I'm very open to critical sites, as long as they are somewhat respectable. (If what I now believe is wrong, I'd love to be corrected). But in this case, we have a non-expert with an agenda, who happens to use many of the same books I've read to come up with his own theories. Why should we cater to the musings of a geocities-quality site? Would it be reasonable to cite a site with a similarly-charged agenda, lets say a white supremacist site, as a valid external link on the Antisemitism or Criticism of Judaism articles? There comes a point where the information presented is unreliable and likely to be rather warped by Joe Schmoe's agenda.

This is just my opinion on the matter, because I'm a little concerned if such sites are really allowed. If they are, then so be it, but it's a foreboding mark on the credibility of this article and on Wikipedia's standards.--C.Logan 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as an atheist, I'd never bother with such sites (once a fiction - always fiction no matter how many web sites repeatedly call it a fiction IMHO), but it is allegedly the companion site for a book by Kenneth Humphreys called Jesus Never Existed publ. Uckfield, U.K.: Iconoclast Press, 2005. Now though he red-links here a quick google would suggest enough evidence to support a mention and certainly as a related link. Ttiotsw 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this isn't a personal website, and thusly, the link fails External link policy, specifically, the "links to be avoided" section and number 11 in that section. Therefore, I am removing it on that grounds, not all authors are notable or, more importantly for external links, reliable. Homestarmy 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

citations and article clean up

All parties please discuss citations here 74.128.175.136 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article, IMHO, discusses the criticism of the religion as neutrally as possible.--NinjaNoodles 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Major problems!

The article bases its criticism on biblical fundamentalism and literalism, or what athiests and others think Christianity is, probably based on what they learned as children. At best it caricatures Christianity. I'm not sure it can be salvaged. I would nominate it for deletion. Fremte 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Christianity exists in very many forms. Some forms of Christianity condemn other forms of Christianity, but both forms are still what is considered Christianity by the majority.

Christianity can be prefixed by "fundamentalism" and "literalism", etc., if one wants to talk about a specific form.

Since this article is about criticism just Christianity, that is all common forms of Christianity, there is nothing wrong in criticizing any specific form.

Taz0k (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Within Christianity section

This article is way too big for me to jump in and commit to helping work on all of it. However, I'm keen to discuss with any interested parties the first, Within Christianity section.

Two main thoughts I have on this are: 1. Excellent idea to cover Chrn v Chrn first. Whoever put it first in the article was onto the right idea imo. Any criticism of any idea should normally start with expressing what will be criticised in terms that would be accepted by those who hold the view. On this principle, Christian scrutiny of their own views is an excellent place to start. It is also helpful, because it makes the whole article less "adversarial" in tone. If Christians criticise their own views: 1. why shouldn't others be allowed to, and 2. Christians cannot be reduced to a dogmatic group that forbids debate. Therefore, a tone respectful of both non-Chrns and Chrns is facilitated.

2. Serious about humour. Despite the logic above, there are still strong emotions in this kind of topic. There is more we can do to address that. Although an encyclopedia is not a sit-com, it is still possible to present information neturally while adopting different kinds of tone. Presenting detailed arguments of opposing positions has a kind of intensity that dates, names and places do not have. Without getting bogged down by the details of theological arguments, the broad fact that such debate has occurred gives a sufficient impression of the history of criticism within Christianity. Matters like the thousands of denominations world-wide, and the letter "i" in the Nicaean debates focus on extreme elements that have a component of humour because they are so extreme. The humour actually arises out of objectivity -- stand far enough away from the issue, the intensity disappears and the numbers create the humour, not the text.

Well, there's me thoughts. Shoot 'em down. But please consider alternative suggestions for ways forward, and remember your view is only your view, as mine is only mine. But of course you'll do that, you're a Wikipedian! ;) Alastair Haines 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've greatly trimmed your addition, and have made an effort to clarify certain things, and correct others. There's a great issue of relevance in some of the things that you've added, and I've removed the most tenuous points. Here's my problem: as with all criticism articles, there's a tendency for users to add information which they themselves criticize, rather than reporting on the criticisms made by others. Original research is a problem, so we should be mindful that our job is to relay information in as neutral a manner as possible. With this in mind, the addition is not as relevant to "Criticism of Christianity" as it is to "History of Christianity". Additionally, equating certain elements of that section with "Criticism of Christianity" would be akin to equating the legislative process of the American government as "Criticism of Democracy".

A more appropriate section would first cover the New Testament records of admonishment and orders, and elaborate on the greater issues concerning the problems faced by the Apostles in the first century. The rest of the article should give specific examples of Christians criticizing Christians or Christianity, throughout history. While this may still have a weak presentation, it is apparent that the current state of this section is more of a jumble of text which insinuates the author's own thoughts of Christian history rather than reporting on actual criticisms shown by Christians.

The section is just too messy, and the only information relevant to the subject matter is shown in the last paragraph. This is why I'd originally deleted the content.--C.Logan 08:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your point of view. I won't quibble about your inclusion of "decades" of tension, which seems to me of dubious relevance, debateable and unsourced (some say centuries or generations, others years, Catholic encyclopedia says at least one generation).

I think your edits show a tendency to assume criticisms are relevant or not based on what you perceive to be the views of an editor. I am very likely wrong, and hope I am. However, you certainly don't know what my personal views are. Would you care to guess some? I'll confirm or deny them for you.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that we need to be neutral in our editing at Wiki. So when well known historical facts regarding internal Christian debate are placed under the heading "Criticism of Christianity -- within Christianity", these should be accepted for what they are. You may not personally like attention being brought to these things, however, they are facts, verifiable in literally thousands of sources.

If you wish to make a case for irrelevance, you need to demonstrate, for example, your belief that Protestants, or perhaps Catholics, are not actually Christian, therefore the Reformation was not criticism of Christianity within Christianity. I respect your point of view, however, it is a point of view. In Wiki context, both are Christian, both Criticize each other, hence they are relevant to "criticisms of Christianity within Christianity".

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but I can't see how reporting widely documented debates between branches of Christianity is irrelevant to the topic. Maybe you believe "criticism" means only "philosophical criticism" and you exclude the nature of the Trinity from philosophy. Do you really mean this?

I disagree with your way forward. I cannot see how the history of apostolic debate avoids your own criticism of being history. However, all verifiable debate is history. I'm not against history, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistancy in your case. Personally, I think detailed treatment of modern speculations about 1st century debate that is not actually documented is going into far too much detail.

As for the last paragraph, I think it irrelevant and non-notable. Criticism of the term Christian, is not criticism of the content of Christianity. It also makes the section untidy or messy, but that is just my taste. I don't delete sourced content at Wiki myself, except in extreme situations. I actually agree with the criticisms of Christianity as a term, but I don't think they rightly belong in this article, nonetheless I won't revert them.

I'm afraid I cannot accept some of your edits, because you make them without first making a case. You'll note I'm not reverting everything, like you I'm just reverting the parts I've seen you make no substantial case for yet. Alastair Haines 05:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't quibble about your inclusion of "decades" of tension, which seems to me of dubious relevance, debateable and unsourced (some say centuries or generations, others years, Catholic encyclopedia says at least one generation).

"Decades" is akin to saying "years", in the sense that there is no real limitation in the actual length of time described, as "years" can denote decades, and "decades" can denote a century or more. My preference for this term is because of the great ambiguity of the simple "after mounting tensions", and because there is some conflicting information in the sources presented as well (personally, I feel that decades would seem to be the least controversial choice for this sort of claim). It should at least be noted that these tensions developed not just in the course of a year, but in the course of many decades.

Nicely put, yes, decades has more specificity, without over doing it and being drawn into citing sources one way or another. I'm pursuaded.

I think your edits show a tendency to assume criticisms are relevant or not based on what you perceive to be the views of an editor. I am very likely wrong, and hope I am. However, you certainly don't know what my personal views are. Would you care to guess some? I'll confirm or deny them for you.

I'd prefer to explain that the vast majority of conflicts that I find myself in on Wikipedia (not to say that I gravitate towards conflict) have been due to the simple fact that individuals are mostly negligent of WP:NPOV, and tend to produce text which conflicts with this policy in word or in underlying presentation. The Criticism of Muhammad article suffers constantly by individuals reporting "criticisms" which are simply facts that the editor finds to be worth noting as criticism. For example, many individuals add that "Muhammad killed X group of people". But again, this is simply a fact, not criticism, and it would be apparent that its inclusion is based on the editor's own criticism of the occurrence. Thankfully, more vigilant editors have kept OR like this outside of the article as of late.

Lol, I know what you mean, Wiki draws people who know stuff, there's a bit of "bump" as we work things out. Feels like it's conflict situations, and sometimes it is. I don't know enough about Muhammad or the article to comment. I expect your judgement was correct, but a lot depends on having evidence for knowing what an editor thinks (hard to know unless he says), and enough subject knowledge to know which issues are prominent in published discussion.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that we need to be neutral in our editing at Wiki. So when well known historical facts regarding internal Christian debate are placed under the heading "Criticism of Christianity -- within Christianity", these should be accepted for what they are. You may not personally like attention being brought to these things, however, they are facts, verifiable in literally thousands of sources.

Considering that this is my primary focus in historical study, I'm rather aware of the fact that these are "verifiable facts". And considering the fact that I'm usually the one to enlighten my friends to these historical events, I certainly "bring attention" to these things well enough on my own. Unfortunately, it is very tenuous to equate internal debates on theology and ritual as being "Criticism of Christianity". The fact of the matter is that we are here to report criticism, i.e. if you could present a simple quote from an individual from this period, which should be relatively easy, it would make an actual relevant addition to the section. To give you an analogy which may help you to understand what I'm saying: noting the internal debates of a legislative body is not a "criticism of [x] government", but reporting the statements of an involved individual (perhaps a senator) who criticizes the process is.

Aha! Am I right to conclude you're an historian? I'm focussed on ancient languages, which is intimately connected to history, but I'm left-handed with it, language is my right hand. I've also specialized in logic, which makes me extra irritating. I understand the invalidity of the illustrative argument you present, if understood in a certain way. Parliment debated war on Nazi Germany is not a criticism of the Chamberlin Government. However, it is a straw-man. Christians (who later called themselves Protestant) criticised Christians (who continued to call themselves Catholic). That is certainly critism of Christianity within Christianity. In fact, on a pretty standard interpretation, the parlimentary debate = criticism within government is precisely the whole idea of the system. The two party system is supposed to generate debate, all members of parliment are part of the governing body in theory. The theory is this debate will produce better decisions. (Wiki has the loosely the same theory.)

If you wish to make a case for irrelevance, you need to demonstrate, for example, your belief that Protestants, or perhaps Catholics, are not actually Christian, therefore the Reformation was not criticism of Christianity within Christianity. I respect your point of view, however, it is a point of view. In Wiki context, both are Christian, both Criticize each other, hence they are relevant to "criticisms of Christianity within Christianity".

Again, you're presenting a general situation without enough meat to provide any useful information to the reader. Per the above reasoning, I would advise that you cite actual criticisms (that is, statements which are critical), rather than implying that the internal debate is "criticism" in-and-of itself. Again, it is not. But noting some of the claims of Martin Luther may very well express clearly what you seem to be implying with your present historical lesson. It would seem to be an echo of the Criticism of Muhammad article's problem, in that you are merely presenting cold facts which are not "criticisms", rather than presenting the views of individuals involved who may actually have vocalized some sort of "criticism".

Sorry, but I can't follow you here at all. Are you suggesting we should provide some "meat" like listing the 95 theses? That seems like "too much information" to me. If we don't list all, which would you select? Since you claim you can select from a list of criticisms which ones "really matter". I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

I'm also curious about what you think I'm implying in "my" history lesson. I just punted for the three best known examples of Christians criticising one another, as far as I understand church history. Someone else put the heading Within Christianity, I just tried to put under that heading something suited to the length of the whole article -- three points Schism, Reformation, Arius -- I provide the "meat" in Arius, because Schism and Reformation are very complicated. Before Nicaea the majority of bishops and Christians in the Empire supported Arius, afterwards it was the opposite. Christianity changed itself at Nicaea. Christianity changed itself in response to internal criticism at that point in time. That seems like "meat" to me.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but I can't see how reporting widely documented debates between branches of Christianity is irrelevant to the topic. Maybe you believe "criticism" means only "philosophical criticism" and you exclude the nature of the Trinity from philosophy. Do you really mean this?

I've explained this above. Please note sourced criticism instead of historical debate.

The 95 Theses is a source. I believe it is located at WikiSource, if it isn't it should be.

I explained this above. Historical debate is sourced criticism. I take it you don't believe Martin Luther critised Christianity. Or you don't believe he was a Christian. You are entitled to either POV but your POV is not needed in the section, sorry.

Another thought jumps to mind, have you read the heading of the section? It is not History of critism of Christianity it is Criticism within Christianity. So the heading is asking for debate. Within implies debate.

I've approached this historically, so far. We could also approach it from the perspective of current debate within Christianity. What things do contemporary Christians think could change? What do you think are the three big ones? Make a subheading and add them! ;)

I disagree with your way forward. I cannot see how the history of apostolic debate avoids your own criticism of being history. However, all verifiable debate is history. I'm not against history, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistancy in your case. Personally, I think detailed treatment of modern speculations about 1st century debate that is not actually documented is going into far too much detail.

I'm unsure what you're specifically referencing here, but again, let me note that "criticism" is the focus of the article, not "the history of internal debate in the Christian Church". Debate is not necessarily criticism, and criticism is not necessarily tied in with debate. Therefore, providing historical coverage of theological debates and disagreements is not the same as reporting criticisms.

As for the last paragraph, I think it irrelevant and non-notable. Criticism of the term Christian, is not criticism of the content of Christianity. It also makes the section untidy or messy, but that is just my taste. I don't delete sourced content at Wiki myself, except in extreme situations. I actually agree with the criticisms of Christianity as a term, but I don't think they rightly belong in this article, nonetheless I won't revert them.

I'm not speaking of the relevance of the subject matter itself, but relevance in presentation. As it is, it appears to be the clearest example of actual "criticism" of anything reported in that section. Quotation, or at least summation of views, is essential to reporting criticism on Wikipedia. "St.[X] claimed that the church in France was depraved in practice" is vague, but more in line of how things should be presented.

I'm afraid I cannot accept some of your edits, because you make them without first making a case. You'll note I'm not reverting everything, like you I'm just reverting the parts I've seen you make no substantial case for yet.

I can accept our disagreement, but we are encouraged to be bold. In other words, we are encouraged to make changes where we see fit, without going through legislation or taking baby steps in the process. Therefore, I'm not being particular in the fact that you didn't "make a case" before applying your changes, because neither of our edits were "in the wrong". Note this excerpt from WP:BOLD: However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. Although users often display ownership of the articles they've written, we all understand that Wikipedia is a place of collaboration. I feel that we should work past our apparent disagreement of things and flesh out the section in a more well-thought-out matter.--C.Logan 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Very nice conclusion, and agreed. I am also happy to try to think of a simple sentence or two to describe the criticisms that were leveled at the time of the Schism and the time of the Reformation. So that, as I think you are suggesting, we're not simply asserting de re that a criticism happened, but de dicto a taste of just what actual criticisms were raised. Alastair Haines 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that I'm just going to summarize instead of responding to things individually (as you have done and as I normally do), because it can lead to a hellishly long reply, and I often find myself late for appointments (as was the case today) because I get on a thought train and simply can't get off.

Anyway, I wasn't clear about a few things, namely the "sourced" thing. I'd simply used Martin as an example, because he was pretty vocal about the whole thing; I'm certain there are more than a few quotes on the matter. I wasn't disregarding the 95 Theses, or demanding they be quoted. I just happened to choose the wrong example to give, I guess.

Concerning the "government" example, you're certainly right in a sense. The problem with the application of such a thing is that it's still implicit, rather than explicit. Obviously, conflict and criticism will often be found in conjunction (and as it seems, much more so in politics). However, there remains the fact that the current presentation is hinting at conflict without ever explaining it entirely. I'm more supportive of direct historical example- given how Republicans and Democrats bash each other's imagery and character in our modern government, it's not unlikely that similar charges could not be found in opposing camps of Christianity throughout history (and even from within the same camps- I have a few in mind, if I can find the sources). Athanasios often leveled direct criticisms against those who supported other theologies (Arians being chief in this group, which may make a good example if they are considered "Christians", which I suppose is appropriate from an outside perspective).

To clarify my point, I'm not voting for the ejection of the historical coverage- I love this period of history, and the information provided should be more widely known- but I feel that the coverage here is insufficient as it is. I believe that the history should be a framework for the direct accusations made by the individuals from within these events. For example, the Protestant Reformation is given very little coverage, and seems reliant on the fact that "because they split up, they obviously disagreed and criticized each other". While that's certainly true, that's not enough information. Like I'd said earlier, there's reasons, and faces, behind these events. Luther, of course, can be cited for many of the charges he made against the church concerning its corruption, amongst other things. Criticism is ultimately a war of opposing ideas, and these ideas always begin as a seed in the individual. It's would be ludicrous, therefore, to report the movements and events without reporting the minds and ideas (and direct words) that may have initiated said events. Hopefully, it's something we can work on in conjunction.

I have some issues with the homo-i-ousios section, but it's not really fleshed out in my mind right now, and I have a case of book-head (the disconnected, disoriented feeling you get when you've been staring at fine print for hours), so I'll save that for later. (It may explain things if I wasn't clear with any of the above business).--C.Logan 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Dear C.Logan, good on you for using the online etymology tool, I love it and use it often myself. Even better, good on you for searching for more info on dokein and doxa. There is a problem though, and I hate to bring it up, because this area is like my "home ground". The problem is that there are certain things you can't do with etymologies, there's a classic which is ekklesia, the greek word for "church". It comes from ek + kaleo, which mean "out" and "call". Hence preachers have often said (and it can be found in books), the church is "called out", it has been "called for a purpose" etc. etc.

As it turns out, I complete agree with the theology of such preachers, I even agree that the Bible in both Old and New Testaments suggests this very point. However, it does not intend it via the etymology of ekklesia. What does "aweful" mean in modern English? "Full of awe"? It has had that sense in the past, but no longer. Did ekklesia still have a sense of "called out" in NT times. The best dictionaries based on comparative literature say "No".

And now for the final point. In the case of "orthodoxy", it does come from two separate Greek words -- orthos "straight" or "upright" and dokeo "to look like", each of those words evolved different patterns of usage over time. But it matters what they meant when they came together to make the compound word, and how that developed. You can't just mix and match.

Anyway, good thinking to concisely include multiple alternative translations, but I am not aware of orthodox ever having had the sense "right praise". Praise is actually a special sense that follows from doxa as "glory". Orthodox doesn't mean "right glory". I would recommend the Perseus translation, it is a very extensive scholastic database, "right opinion" fits with all three etymological citations we now have. I am quite happy with that change from my original "correct" as translation, but I'm uncomfortable about including "praise" as an alternative.

But please feel free to do what you think is best. I'm using too many sources in what I say above to actually cite them all, so its best you make your own judgement on the basis of what any reader has access to. Alastair Haines 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously the expert, here. I've seen both possibilities, and I vaguely recall one source explaining why both possible translations are cited; I can't remember it, but it may partly be due to a vague sense of the original meaning intended (again, I can't remember it well). I'll have to look further, but in all honesty, part of my preference for both possibilities is that I've been given both translations by the priests I've talked to (in various catechismal situations). I'll ask one of them on Sunday or Monday about this, and perhaps they can give an explanation for their preference. Again, its clear that the meaning which has arrived in English means "correct" (simply), but I'm unsure if there is such a restraint in Greek usage as well (although it seems from my experience that there isn't). It's not so much an issue of "today's meaning", I suppose, but of the intended meaning(s) of the term at the time it was presented- something that you may be familiar with. I'm convinced, at least, that both forms make sense (they believed they had the correct standpoint, and that they praised/glorified God in the proper manner); I'll just have to get back to you once I talk to the Greeks.--C.Logan 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything you say sounds right to me. Knowing just a little of Greek theological style, it is very much their style to think of "worship" as "truly glorifying" God in a semi-mystic way. It is also like their style, and I mean this kindly, to argue for this understanding from etymology, whether linguists would agree or not. Actually, the Bible has derivations of names with fabricated etymology. If the Bible's allowed to use a constructed etymology to make a point. How could I argue with them? On reflection, I'm happy for even "authentic glorification" as a translation ... I suspect there are Orthodox who would use it this way, based on etymology. Wide-spread usage is a legitimate definition of meaning (in fact the best definition).

I recently learned "supersede" does not come from "precede", it meant "to delay" in Latin, and English only moved to the meaning "replace" in 1642, probably because of it sounding like "precede". I learned that at Etymology.com! ;) Alastair Haines 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Long quotes of alledged biblical "contradictions"

So just recently, a user copy and pasted the huge list from Internal consistency and the Bible#Specific textual inconsistencies to here. I do not believe it is appropriate to repeat the list twice on wikipedia. The most logical place for it (based on content forking guidelines) would be to have the list in the article that deals specifically with that topic. This article in a sense is the parent article to Internal consistency and the Bible (in that we have a subsection that covers that topic). Therefore we should simply summarize the article, and allow the bulk of the content to be covered there, thus reducing redundancy. I'm not sure why the user felt it was appropriate to copy and paste here, and the rational that "I wrote it" seems to violate WP:OWN. Some I'm coming here to talk to find out the motivations and rational for having the content here, so then we can work towards a compromise. What do others think about having that long, quoted content in this article?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Duplication should be avoided and Internal consistency and the Bible is the right place for it. Besides which, the "I wrote it" comment not only reeks of WP:OWN, but betrays WP:Original Research. And it shows - some of the contradictions offered are very poor choices. So I support deleting the list. Peter Ballard 08:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right Andrew and Peter, but despite the original research, I think the list is precious in that it does reflect verses that have been claimed to be inconsistent. It would take work to source them, and more space to deal with how they are understood in standard commentaries.

Also, to be fair, the first example is only borderline OR. The sentences are contradictory in ordinary language usage, the textual history is not in doubt, and the Hebrew is accurately translated (I could cite sources). However, the usual reading of these verses notes that they are consecutive, and the contradiction is part of the point — i.e. the problem with dealing with fools is that you might only end up encouraging them, however, if they are not confronted they often go from bad to worse ... conclusion: it takes wisdom to know how to handle fools (again I can't take credit for the idea).

Regarding this article, I think providing a top notch ref for Bible inconsistencies is needed, and an equivalent source for replies. I've read several anthologies of the latter over the years, of varying quality.

Regarding the other article, I think it wise to leave the challenge public, inviting sourcing of the examples, and sourced responses. But I would defend them as being accurately sourced from the Bible, and as having self-evident logical tensions. Until we can source a shorter list of stronger examples, they are the best we have of a serious and important challenge to the reliability of the Bible. Alastair Haines 15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the text, as I don't think it follows Wikipedia's policy, here or at its original source. The entirety of the text is dependent on the author's subjective opinion concerning what is a "contradiction" and what isn't. Additionally, if such a claim is to be made, a neutral treatment should be presented, with resolutions made by scholars/sources which argue for a non-contradiction in the text. As it stands, I'm ultimately very suspicious of this user's contributions, considering the messages that have been left on my talk page- a clear agenda in the matter (proselytizing for his point of view on my userspace, and treating me as if I'm ignorant because I disagree with him) and a neglect of WP:NPOV and WP:OR leads me to doubt this user's intentions on the encyclopedia.--C.Logan 05:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a regretable state of affairs, and I have every reason to trust your judgement. Ironically enough, the Proverbs quotes may be applicable.

I just happen to have John W. Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Whitaker, 1992) sitting above my desk. On page 278 he quotes the text of both verses in full. (This seems to me to be absolutely essential in any treatment that takes a reader at all seriously, who are we to tell them which commentators are reliable or not?) He then offers two possible understandings of the verses that entail no contradiction. The first is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" understanding of the point of the verses. The second is the "it depends" reading, sometimes one method is appropriate, sometimes the other.

Now, as it turns out, I can think of at least two other ways to understand the verses. 1. The final editor of Proverbs had a low view of wisdom literature and was deliberately pointing out how contradictory it is. Just as we might note "many hands make light work" but "too many cooks spoil the broth". 2. There was no final editor of Proverbs, it just kind of came together and someone put the two verses together because they were similar without noticing they were contradictory.

I guess my point here is that at least the first example can be backed as a legitimately published "discrepancy" of the Bible. I bet there are literally hundreds of citations that could be listed to back it. I'm not personally keen to trawl through 25,000 hits on "answer a fool" at Google to pull out all those which contain a reliable citation. I think the same is true of most of the others in the list that we've deleted.

I highly recommend that someone select half a dozen of the best examples and source them. There are literally thousands of alleged discrepancies in the Bible, and every single one has answers. However, some of the allegations are very fanciful, and some of the answers are not completely satisfying. Let us not fool ourselves, either we put forward a small selection, which will be original research because there is no objective listing of "the best alleged discrepancies", or we silence this issue because of the impossibility of either a comprehensive, or objectively selected list. Frankly, it is the second option that worries me most. How can the Bible have any credibility if challenges are silenced?

I say choose three tough challenges with unsatisfying answers, and three decent challenges with very satisfying answers. "Answering fools" is short, sweet and famous and should be one of the six, imo. It should probably also be transcluded to Wikipedia:Handling Trolls. Alastair Haines 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I'd also propose the classic

• Romans 3:28 a man is justified by faith, and not by works.
• James 2:24 a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

I think Martin Luther rejecting James from the NT canon is pretty notable citation for a Bible believing Christian who saw this as a contradiction. ;)

My own favourite is:

• John 5:17 My Father is still working up to today, just as I am working.
• Hebrew 4:3 [God's] works were finished at the foundation of the world.

Alastair Haines 06:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, a few examples can be included if they're well-sourced. At the same time, we should (in the interest of NPOV) introduce opposing ideas on the verses (whether dealing with those verses directly or in the general sense).

On a side note, I've heard many resolutions to Romans 3:28 and James 2:24, primarily because it's one of the hot points of separation between traditionalists and the ever-so-vehement Protestants (i.e. Evangelicals, who are very vocal about things). As it stands, I feel that this situation is resolved by the context of each verse, as each one is dealt to a specific audience with specific needs (or misconceptions)- to me, anyway, there is no real contradiction there. I just thought I'd comment on that, because I'm used to seeing that one brought up.

In any case, I hope that we keep WP:NPOV and WP:OR in mind when adding possible "contradictions"- and preferably, we should rely on reliable, published sources (as there's just not much going for your standard polemic/apologetic website in terms of verifiable reliability). By the way, I enjoyed this.--C.Logan 07:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, glad you appreciate it. Wiki's not all hard slog after all. And yes, I agree Romans and James are reconcilable without breaking too much of a sweat. But that is an opinion you and I and published writers share, with the benefit of some considerable knowledge of the subject. I offer it as a famous example of biblical "discrepancy" that has stimulated important and helpful discussion. It is sad when people push such discrepancies too far to suggest the Bible is "full of holes", or over-react and claim everything's crystal clear unless there's some kind of bias.

P.S. I have been watching this page for a little while now, and on several occasions I've seen you act to defend it according to Wiki guidelines. As a fellow community member who cares, thanks for your (typically thankless) contribution to the project. Alastair Haines 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course; while the solution concerning these verses is apparent to some, it's only one view of things. It's certainly troubling to see individuals shifting towards either extreme when it comes to exegesis; such is life, however, and people typically only reinforce their beliefs by looking only at the evidence and arguments of their own bias.

It's certainly more troubling to see people pushing POV's here, as many individuals (I assume; I do) turn to Wikipedia as the "first opinion" on a topic; as such, great care should be taken to prevent abuse and to present topics in a neutral manner, even when it comes to "criticism" pages (which, many should be aware, are not allotted with special treatment from WP:NPOV).

I do appreciate the thanks; appreciation is something that comes rather rare here, although I don't really mind (as corny as it may seem, there's something fulfilling enough about simply improving and maintaining the encyclopedia).--C.Logan 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Epistemology 101

There are very major flaws in the first section. Christianity is more deductive than science, for example. This is a weakness of Christianity, not a strength. Science is an inductive discipline, it does not work a priori or it is not science. Science is about making the most educated guess possible. Data is sought, compared and experiments designed to test theories offered in explanation of the data. This is a fortiori. Scientists do not work out the results of experiments by deduction a priori, if they do, they are scorned for fabricating those results. Deduction is not evidence. The classic criticism of Christianity as unscientific is precisely that it works by deduction from its own premises. Critics argue that Christians start with God and work forwards from there, so of course they end up with God too. Christians do not propose experiments that could put their theories at risk of being proven wrong. Christians and non-Christians use deductive reasoning equally often, and equally badly! Christians however, tend not to think inductively (scientifically) about their own beliefs, if they are already happy with them.

Einstein's comments are not epistemological, and he is no authority on philosophy. Russell, on the other hand, is a classic recent philosophical critic of Christianity. There is a long tradition of debate about Christianity within philosophy. There are a dozen names on either side that come up in first year text books. That's the place to start.

There are other issues, but I really don't want to buy into this, got other things to do atm.

The best recent Christian philosopher is Alvin Plantinga, and he should be mentioned somewhere in the section. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Verse context in Hell and Damnation

The use of the partial quotation "He that doubted is damned" in the Hell and Damnation section struck me as taken horribly out of context in this instance when approached with any real examination of the Pauline passage in question, and as such I have removed it from said section for the time being. Believe me, I make no attempt to either defend or attack the Christian practice of ascribing sinfulness to the act of doubting, but such a principle is certainly not present (at least not in this sense) in Romans 14:23. It seems to me that any objective reading of the passage will make my point quite obvious, but if anyone has any particular objection to my removal of this quotation, they are free to dispute it.
- Kwub (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)