Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Religion 2 God Hates Fags 3 Rwanda section 4 Christianity and Morality 5 Bush picture 6 Inconsistencies within Christianity 7 HIV/AIDS 8 Homosexuality 9 Horribly unbalanced article 10 "Relevance" section 11 Very frustrating 12 Genesis/creation 13 Education? 14 Redo? 15 Fringe minorities 16 Role of women 17 Historicity 18 Responses section 19 Suggestions for a rewrite 20 Redirect? 21 Incon. of Christianity 22 Story Logic? 23 Neglected or refused? 24 Rendering this article neutral 25 Merge from Christianity, tolerance, and equality 26 moved here from the main page 26.1 Ethics in the Bible 27 Proposed merge with Anti-Christianity 28 Christianity and Women 29 What is Criticism? 30 AIDS and fundamentalists

Religion

We need to be careful that the criticisms and links concern Christianity specifically, and not religion in general (there are other articles for that). KHM03 16:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if you are speaking of the {{main|}} under Christianity and Science, the referenced article does expand on the issue in specific terms. Perhaps it would be better though, as a "see also". I'll attend to that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

God Hates Fags

The God Hates fags movement is avowedly Christian. The fact that some Christians do not accept the movement and do not like it does not alter the fact that they regard themselves as being Christian. Please do not delete sections without discussing it on the talk page User KHM03 it is getting tiresome. I have not removed your clearly nonsensical POV section about Dawkins "ignoring reason"

The Dawkins criticism isn't mine; it was made by prominent Anglican theologian Alister McGrath. It's hardly POV to mention it. The "God Hates Fags" movement has been pushed by a small sect and disavowed by every major denomination. To say that it is a fair representative of Christians is completely inaccurate. KHM03 10:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There are many pictures available of Christians protesting homsexuality (or same sex marriage or any of a number of related issues). Please choose one that is actually representative of Christianity, and not part of some fringe sect disavowed by Christianity. That's POV, especially, again, when many other pcitures are available. KHM03 14:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks. I’m new here but I see the same folks here from Christianity who I've been debating (KHM03, Str1977, and ML/Ann. I see some of the similar issues here and wish to be involved in contributing my help in improving this article, as well. I think the topic is a very important one. I don't know if this issue has been settled yet, but I did read Alister McGrath’s book on Atheism, and Dawkins, and while I think A. McGrath does a very poor job (which is easy to prove but besides the point here) I just wonder if its appropriate to quote McGraths views on Dawkins atheism here, since while McGrath has standing in the history of Christianity, we really should really instead on an authority in Philosophy that makes the case that Dawkin's arguments are not based on reason, etc. Like I said, Alister might have something to say regarding points of this history of the Christian movement, but when he argues science, philosophy, and even sociology, he is not suitable as an expert to quote here. Besides, he does an embarrassingly terrible job in these other areas. If you want examples, how, let me know.64.121.40.153 13:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is downright wrong to title this picture "A christian protestor". It doesn't matter what qualifications follow if the protestor is not representative of Christianity on the whole. The very minimum of a balanced caption would be something on the lines of "A protestor from the ringe Christian "God Hates Fags" movement, which is disavowed by most Christians." Str1977 14:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

OR, as I suggested, just get another picture...there are many online to choose from...why is the anonymous user so committed to this one? I hope it isn't for POV reasons. KHM03 14:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment. The "God Hates Fags" movement clearly believes itself to be christian, and who is anyone else to say whether they are Christian or not? The fact that they are on the fringes of a movement doesn't mean they are not part of the movement. This article is about criticsms of Christianity, and the "God Hates Fags" movement is both Christian, and criticised by others. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here guys. Shall we just pretend the "God Hates Fags" movement doesn't exist, because some Christians don't like it? Markyjanet 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The movement is not Christian...their claims don't change that. If a self-proclaimed atheist says, "There may be a god," then he/she isn't really an atheist, because they have violated a primary tenet of "the faith" (for lack of a better term). Whether or not they claim to be an atheist isn't the point...they simply are not, by definition. The appalling "God Hates Fags" "movement" (if it is such a thing) isn't Christian because it violates a primary tenet of the faith. Their claims don't make them any mor Christian...they simply are not, by definition. Every major denomination agrees with that. There's consensus on this one. To criticize the movement (which is entirely appropriate) is fine...but this isn't the right article to deal with this one. KHM03 14:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why they are not Christian, simply because you disagree with their doctrine. Can a catholic claim a Protestant is not a Christian simply because they do not agree with each other over thelogical issues? Clearly not. The "God Hates Fags" movement goes to Christian Church, read the Christian Bible, and are in every sense Christians. I'm sure I could point to a large number of sections in the Bible that any one Christian ignores - for example the sacrificing of pigeons, as set out in the bible. Does the fact that they ignore what they consider to be God's Word over the sacrificing of pigeons mean that they are not Christians? Clearly not. So the fact some Christians disgree with the views of other Christians does not mean they have a right to dictate who is and who is not in that faith.

Would it make sense to distinguish between "Criticisms of Christianity by non-Christians" and "Criticisms of Christianity by Christians"? In that case, we would have both non-Christians and the vast majority of Christians criticising the 'God Hates Fags' movement; it's a criticism of Christianity in general only when that movement is held up as representative of Christianity, in which case it becomes almost a 'straw man' criticism. It would be like criticizing Christianity for believing in an infallible Pope, when only the Roman Catholics believe that yet the RCC is far larger, with a longer history, than this 'God Hates Fags' movement. Wesley 16:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wesley--I don't think it makes sense to separate "Criticisms of Christianity by non-Christians" and "Criticisms of Christianity by Christians". It implies a kind of privilege for the group with the inside information, don't you think? The former could be interpreted as "Only non-Christians would make these criticisms because non-Christians don't get it." I think the separation that needs to be made is along the lines of "Criticisms of Christian doctrine" (which should come first) and "Criticisms of the actions of Christians"--which would have information on the Spanish Inquisition and so on. But this could be equally dicey. Christians would widely disagree on whether homosexuality is allowable by doctrine, for example. --The Famous Movie Director 23:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Markyjanet, above--God Hates Fags may be misguided, but it is a Christian organization. If a Christian committed a murder, you wouldn't say that made her suddenly not Christian, would you? Christians "violate the primary tenets of their faith" every day--you're supposed to set them back on the right path and forgive them, not exclude them. However, I agree that they're not to be held up as representative of Christianity, and the article should make this clear. It already says "It is impotant to note that many Christians strongly disagree with the tactics of these antigay Christians", so with this caution I think there could be a case to include a bit on God Hates Fags. If only as an example of how extreme fundamentalism can go horribly wrong. --The Famous Movie Director 23:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to set some parameters for this article, and they need to be spelled out in the introduction. What is or is not included under the head "Christianity"? Does it mean Catholicism, Orthodoxy, "liberal" Protestantism, "conservative" Protestanitism, or what? Does it mean Christianity as a belief system or Christianity as a religious practice? Is there such a thing as a single, united Christianity to criticize? Finally, is it an article on criticism of Christianity or of Christian people? Like others, I want to know. Logophile 13:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rwanda section

This section is way too long, and I plan on cutting it considerably, if not deleting it altogether. There ought to be a concise section mentioning political issues (Rwanda being one), linked to other articles. But if the entire page is simply that, then it's a wasted article. Where are the meaningful theological critiques? KHM03 12:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The section was, in my view, irredeemably POV and inaccurate, blaming Christianity for the genocide in Rwanda. I deleted it. KHM03 12:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The section did not blame the Rwandan genocide entirely on Christians, but pointed out that Christians had a major part in it. The fact that User KHMO3 is unable to acknowledge the fact that these criticisms exist from a wide range of different sources, does not mean he has the right to come and vandalise the article by deleting the whole section.

If anyone wants to refute any of these facts then please try to do so.

Please remember that this is an article on Criticisms of Christianity, of which there are many in relation toi the Rwandan Genocide. That does not mean to say that Christianity is entirely to blame for the tragedy.

In fact some Christians did not actively participate in the killing, they just stood idly by, and not all of the Christian preists were directly involved in the killing.

Enough were involved however for it merit serious criticism from a range of different organisations, which is why they were listed. Having lived and worked in the country I have a great deal of familiarity with the issues involved, and simply trying to pretend that Christains had nothing to do with the genocide is a bit like trying to say that Germans had nothing to do with the Holocaust. - Davebenson32

People do bad things. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists...all have done their share of bad things throughout history. The section failed to show how the Rwanda tragedy was distinctly Christian, and not just related to people doing bad things (either by killing or doing nothing). How did Christianity (the subject of this article) play a role in the genocide? What doctrines? What teachings? I have no problem with criticisms, if they are supported accurately. KHM03 10:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop trying to pretend that this didn't exist, and a number of people were not critical of it.

No one is pretending it didn't exist. But not anything is relevant to any article.

• For a start, the vast majority of those conducting the killing were Christians. This article serves as both "Criticisms of Christians" as well as "Criticisms of Christianity".

No, the article is called "Criticisms of Christianity" and not "Criticisms of Christians". Please stop trying to re-interpret the meaning of the title. Unless you can show how a certain action by Christians stems from the Christian faith, it is off-topic here.

• Secondly, their was an appeal to religious belief by many of the leaders of the Genocide, talking about the Virgin Mary who they claimed had witnessed and agreed with the killing.

This is still wrong-doings of individual christians. Unless ... (see above).

• Thirdly, the Christian Church was absolutely involved in creating some of the conditions for the Genocide to flourish, as the article details: educating one ethnic group and ignoring another and creating a deep social divide in society that was never healed.

Were the German missionaries in Ruanda Catholics? Why no genocide in Burundi? The missionaries' faults are relevant to an article on the genocide, or Ruanda, or Burundi, or something like Church and colonialism, but not here. Unless ... (see above).

• Fourthly I am slightly apalled that you can simply dismiss what was the third biggest atrocity of the 20th century, an event in which an overwhelmingly Christian population butchered nearly a million innocent people as simply "related to people doing bad things (either by killing or doing nothing)".

Don't pretend to be shocked to shift the argument. No one was trying to downplay the genocide at all. And IMHO it was a "bad thing" - bad means bad.

• You may disagree with the actions of the Christians who took part in the killing (and the majority were Christian). You may feel they took Gods name in vain when they said that the Lord was in favour of the killing. The fact remains however, that the Church did do all of these things, and we should study it and learn from it. We should not try to pretend that Christian involvement did not exist.

So know we have the claim that "the Church did do all of these things" - so the Church got together and went to Ruanda and committed genocide? Please!

Perhaps we should not mention the Pol Pot masssacres in a history of Germany and we shouldn't mention the Holocaust in a history of Germany as lots of people do bad things and we shouldn't try to pin the blame on anyone? For pity's sake man, Christians were involved in an apalling atrocity here, and a number of people have criticised them for it. If you want to express a counter point of view then please do so, but to simply delete it as if no criticism exists is an act of intellectual vandalism.

202, who forgot to sign 13:56, 12 September 2005

I guess you mean Pol Pot and Cambodia? Yes, we should mention these events in the respective articles. Of course! But do we find the "killing fields" in an article "Criticism of Buddhism" because Cambodia is a Buddhist country?

Str1977 14:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. KHM03 14:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to ignore the disaster. But this article, isn't "Criticisms of Christians", which could be a very different piece...it's "Criticisms of Christianity". So, what doctrines or teachings or poisitions of Christianity caused or aided the Rwanda genocide? All I'm asking for is that you substantiate your claims. KHM03 14:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit lost trying to follow the above post. Who is critiquing Davebenson's position? Is it KHMO3 or Str1977? I think KHMO3 is right, please sign your posts.Markyjanet 13:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we all get a bit of moderation here. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the Church sat down and said "lets start a genocide". But I do think its important that we don't just try and hide this issue away, as its clearly quite important. Perhaps a Christianity and Politics section where Rwanda is included. I think a lot of Criticism was directed not at Christians, but at the Christian Church. I agree that we should not have this article as "Criticisms of individual Christians". But this article should include balanced Criticims of the Christian church and its actions or lack thereof. Markyjanet 13:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think both KHMO3 and DaveBenson would benefit from reading each others posts properly, and calming down a bit. This is an encylopedia not a shouting match. I think you both have some valid points to make, but lets express them out in the open, in the article itself, rather than deleting sections. I'm going to put it back in, and then maybe we can moderate it if people think it is overly POV. Markyjanet 13:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that the section seems to have been deleted a few times in the past, and User KHMO3, it seems that you were the one that did this. Yet you also state that you don't want to ignore the issue, and it should be in a seperate article. I think a lot of us would be a lot happier - particularly Davebesnon who seems to have written most of it - if you put either moderate it or put in a seperate article, and let us know of the title. Markyjanet 14:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll give a little time for any interested editors to edit the section, showing how Christian teaching caused the genocide, but if that doesn't appear soon, the section will be remain POV and inappropriate and ought to go (it also ought to be shortened, for reading clarity). That seems fair. Remember, this article is "Criticisms of Christianity", not "Criticisms of Christians" or "Appalling things Christians have done". Show how Christian doctrine/teaching caused the Rwanda tragedy. KHM03 14:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am increasingly convinced that some version of this information belongs in this article. While there might not be a direct connection between Christian doctrine and the genocide, the role of church leadership seems like an appropriate topic for the article. 209.145.162.130 16:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a connection if this criticism belongs on this article. Also, the critique seems to be of Roman Catholic clergy; what about the Protestants? If it's a specifically Catholic criticism, then it needs to go to a more sepcific page. More impoortantly, please show how Christian teaching affected the tragedy. This is not "Criticisms of Christians", a page which could be MASSIVE in length...it's a critique of Christianity. Please show the connection. KHM03 16:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe several of the bishops, priests, etc. are Anglican, rather than Roman Catholic, so we do have some Protestant involvement documented. (Forgot to sign) 209.145.162.130 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's half the battle...now cite the impact of Christian teaching/doctrine on the tragedy...what teachings led to or contributed to the genocide. KHM03 16:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A few points: Rwanda is a country, Ruanda is not. Burundi did have a number of massacres. The majority of missionaries were Belgian, not German.

Also, I think the point about the Virgin Mary keeps being brushed aside. A miracle was claimed: that the Virgin Mary appeared and had witnessed and agreed with the killing. Noone wanted to question this belief. Regardless of whether it says in the Bible or not "The Lord says go and massacre lots of Rwandans" which it clealy does not, the Bible is based on not questioning religious authority. And when a miracle was claimed to have ocurred, noone wanted to question it. By questioning the miracle they would be questioning their faith in Christianity itself, and so noone did.

Markyjanet 05:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and Morality

I question the citation of George Monibot; hardly any kind of authority. Also, it is in the section about morality, which makes little sense. If anyone can offer any justification here, maybe we can talk about it...otherwise, it will likely be deleted. KHM03 23:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree - this quote does not belong in the section on morality. It might not belong in the article at all. Would it be apropriate to have a section on "Christianity and Government" or something like that? It could include various criticims of the role Christianity played in shaping different government actions. Perhaps it could inlcude the Monibot quote and an abreviated version of the Rwanda discussion.

That might work, but we'd have to cite how Christian doctrine influenced government...easy to do historically, more difficult in today's more secular world. KHM03 11:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

KHM03 you can not say George Monbiot is "hardly any kind of authority", just because you clearly disagree with him. He is a respected writer who has travelled across the world, has a UN Global 500 award presented to him by Nelson Mandela and has lectured at various different universities.

Why also does the Rwanda discussion need to be abbreviated? Perhaps we should just pretend the whole thing never happened because it shows Christainity is a bad light shall we?

The only way you can "cut down" the Rwanda section is by deleting part of it, and by deleting part of it you are implicitly reducing its importance. Would it be okay for me to go to the persecution of Christains article and "cut it down" a bit because I don't like it? Clearly not. By deleting part of it you are implicitly reducing its importance, and the Rwandan Genocide is one of the most important events of the 20th century. It would benefit us all to examine it more closely

Anonymous users: please sign your posts. Thanks...KHM03 10:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What has George Monibot written about Christianity that has made him an authority? What books? Just an article about the Bush administration? Hardly enough. There are lots of respectable, viable, authoritative critics of Christianity out there...if Monibot is the best we can do, this article is in trouble and will never be as good as it could be.

On Rwanda, see my comments above. I agree that it is a hugely significant historic tragedy, but the section failed to show how Christianity as a religion (as opposed to bad people who just happened to be Christian) played a significant role. Again...name the doctrines or teachings which led to the genocide. Please be specific and cite sources to support the criticisms...sources preferably more authoritative than George Monibot. That's all I'm asking. KHM03 10:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, can't we do better than citing Chomsky, a linguist, regarding the violence in the Bible? Is there no more authoritative source? I'm certain we can do better. The criticism is a valid one...but let's try and strengthen it by finding a stronger source. KHM03 11:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

After further review, I'm leaning toward removal of the section. It just isn't that substantive and way too vague. A better section can always be added later. I'll give some time for others to beef it up if possible before I just cut it. KHM03 13:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

In evaluating the appropriateness of the Rwanda content for this article, I think it's worth noting some differences between the roles of Christianity in the Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust. As the article mentions, centuries of Christian theology that assigned collective blame to the Jews for the death of Jesus helped create an environment of anti-Semitism in Europe. This element of Christian teaching is an important part of the historical context for understanding the Holocaust, as well as earlier pogroms and persecution of Jews. Therefore, I think it is very appropriate for this article. In contrast, I don't see any theological connection to the genocide in Rwanda. There is no theological basis that I can tell for the ethnic distinctions between Hutu and Tutsi, even if some European missionaries helped promote the distinctions. The Rwanda genocide seems like it is fundamentally a brutal political and ethnic conflict in which a lot of Christians participated (mostly killing other Christians, it would seem, if the country is 90% Christian), rather than a conflict that has its roots in Christian theology. 209.145.162.130 15:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)TMS209.145.162.130 15:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Rwandan Genocide, why duplicate it here? That doesn't seem at all in keeping with the title. At most, this article should mention the Rwandan Genocide as one example of atrocities commited by Christians that have been criticized by others. But that brings us back to the original question: Is this an article about bad things that Christian people have done or is it about criticism of Christianity? How does the Rwandan Genocide relate to Christianity the religion rather than to people who happen to practice it? Logophile 14:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush picture

The picture of George Bush is WAY over the POV boundary. George Bush is a Christian but how are his policies representative of Christianity? What doctrines or teachings? This article is to be critiques of Christianity, not Christians. Let's keep our eyes on the ball, and try not to be as POV. KHM03 10:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies within Christianity

It seems to me that this is where the "meat" of the article ought to be. I added a request for expansion. KHM03 12:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And actually, to be picky, anything else is just POV. The article should be about the alleged inconsistencies within Christianity; and the everything else should be "Christianity is harmful from the perspective of X, because ... ". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit to it, but frankly there is way too much to cover. More so with the apologetics and rebuttals. A list of things like Genesis 7:2 says that the animals were brought onto the ark by sevens whereas the other one clearly say twos. There are also vast sections that don't actually do much but go off on their own little rant thing. Like the Rwanda section. There are plenty of reasons to be critical of christianity but just because a bunch of Christians killed a bunch of other Christians isn't really Christianity. You might as well say that the genocide against the American Indians was Christianity rearing it's ugly head. 'Those savages' and all that good stuff. It was at least part. Christiandom managed to do away with a heck of a lot of people. Tat 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody bothered to note that the humor critic doesn't appear in any third person sources. It is true. But, the criticism is quite common. Tat 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Christianity in summary: "For God so loved the world He sent His only Son to His people so that His people would kill his Son in order to save His people from Himself". Or, similar but slightly different wording: "For God so loved the world He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease His own wrath at His own Creation." [1]

"For God so loved the world that he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so if you believe this story, He will not be forced to torture you forever." / "For God so loved the world that he created the world in such a way that he would have to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself so if you believe this story, He will not be forced to torture you forever."[2]

"Gawd sacrificed Himself to Himself and shed His magical blood on the big giant stick to magically wash away the diabolical residue of the shit you've done that pissed Him off." For Gawd so loved the flat world that He sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself, that whosoever believes the glorious bullshit about Kryasst should not perish in the flaming torture chamber, but enjoy a second magical life in the Sky Kingdom after this life is over. (John 3:16) Jesus Croaked in the Spook on the big giant stick and 3 days later the version of Him known as the Holy Spook Magically Undeadened Him! Glory! That's Gawd's absurd way of making love to you! It's His Magical Gift to you! Glory to GAWD!!" [3]

All those things that used to seem so impossible to you will now be real to you as the nose on you face...the creation of the firmament...the creation of light before God created the sun...a talking snake and a talking donkey...the parting of the Red Sea...the making of a woman from a man's rib...the Great Flood, which must have been caused by a loving God because it's impossible by the laws of nature...the fact that there are indeed giants walking to and fro deep inside the earth...the fact that Jesus is divine (never mind the Council of Nicaea's ruling)...you'll now accept that as Jesus was God and so loved the world that He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease His own anger at His own creation... [4]

HIV/AIDS

This is another section which badly needs work. We can cite many sources critical of the Christian (particularly Roman Catholic) response to AIDS...why a political radical? We can do better. KHM03 13:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Much of the critiques & quotes in this section likely valid, but could the editor who placed them please give the sources? It would help improve the article and the veracity of the section. Thanks...KHM03 14:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Horribly unbalanced article

I just stumbled across this page a few minutes ago. Surely Wikipedia policy is to present both sides? Also, is this Criticisms of Christianity or Criticisms of Christians? If it's meant to be "of Christianity", then it should deal with certain key teachings (that Jesus was the Son of God, for example), and present the arguments to show that that belief is erroneous, followed by the Christian counter-arguments. If it's meant to be "Criticisms of Christians", then it doesn't seem very appropriate for a Wikipedia article. As far as I know, we haven't got any articles called Criticisms of Bank Managers, Criticisms of Women, Criticisms of Italians, or Criticisms of Homosexuals. AnnH ^(talk) 23:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There are, however articles on Criticisms of War on terrorism, Criticisms of marketing, Criticisms of Microsoft, Criticism of the Fed. Christianity is a set of views, not a nationality like Italian or a set of people as the other groups are. It would be nice to live in a world where people didn't make apalling mistakes that require criticism. However, there are many people, from many walks of life who have pointed to various criticisms of Christianity, and they are presented here.

Please sign your posts. KHM03 14:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with AnnH 100%...this page is Criticisms of Christianity, not "Stupid things Christians have done". This article ought to be a grand opportunity to write about the ways in which Christian theology and doctrine "fall short"...instead it's becoming, "Look what these mean Christians did!" That's POV and inappropriate, and, more to the point, the article isn't about that. If we don't start seeing real critiques soon, maybe many of the sections will have to go. KHM03 14:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article still needs a LOT of work to achieve some balance, and to be as good as it can be. It's still a very new article, and I think it has come a long way already. Part of the improvement that is still needed is more meaningful theological critique. However, I think its POV to say that's the ONLY type of criticsm that deserves discussion in this article. Many critics of Christianity do not criticize Christianity on that level. Rather, they observe and criticize the actions (or inactions) of prominent Christians, especially church leaders, who are perceived as representative of Christianity. Such criticsms might not all be valid, but I think they are worthy of discussion in an article like this. 209.145.162.130 18:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

209..., it's not strictly about theological issues, but it should be related tp Christianity as a relgion/philosophy/belief system etc. In the Ruanda case "Christian clergy failed ... because Christianity's doctrine of". The HIV section is an example of this, though the claim is the most absurd thing ever to spring from a human mind, but at least it formally criticizes Christianity/Catholicism for one of its teachings. (The Gallileo case is another, though right now it is presented in a totally POV way).

Of "Many critics of Christianity do not criticize Christianity on that level" but "Rather, they observe and criticize the actions (or inactions) of prominent Christians, especially church leaders" that's the problem of these "critics". They are either unwilling or unable to put up a proper criticism. But WP does not have to follow this low road. Wether the criticisms (of individuals or teachings) are valid is another matter. This can be dealt with by having criticism and counter-point together. But the points should be on-topic in regards to the article's header, as explained above. Str1977 18:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 - Thank you, I think this is constructive. . .the question in the Rwanda section then becomes WHY church leaders failed to respond to the genocide. 209.145.162.130 19:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done this above. As the genocide ocurred, a religious miracle also ocurred, the Virgin Mary appearing and telling everyone to keep going. Noone wanted to question this belief at the time, as by doing so they would be challenging their faith. Of course, now the genoicde is regarded almost universally as a bad thing, a lot of people including Christians are questioning it quite heavily. Perhaps the same should be done over all "miracles", and we should accept that they don't really exist. Otherwise we are laying ourselves open to being manipulated by people who claim the existence of miracles (as the senior Christians in charge of the genocide did) for nefarious ends Markyjanet 06:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If that's all you've got than I'm sorry - It's not enough. Do you honestly claim that an apparition of the Virgin caused the genocide? Or a you simply blinded by prejudice?

No, questioning one apparition is certainly not "challenging" their faith.

No, the genoicde is not "now" regarded almost universally as a bad thing and Christians have, if true to their faith, always regarded it as bad. Hence this is a failing of Christians and not Christianity. Str1977 07:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it not a failing of the Church as an organisation then? Where was the Church when this was going on? Where were the loud condemnations from the Church of the preists who were involved in it? I've been passively observing this article for a while now, but I felt I had to get involved about this. Jamestherage 08:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As you said it "a failing of the Church" (understood as a group of people, leaving out ecclesiology) - but not "a failing of Christianity. It should be clear to any Christian, let alone priest/cleric/minister that these acts were un-christian. It is sad that appearently this wasn't the case. But this is no failing of Christianity. If someone messes up a calculation is that a failing of mathematics? Str1977 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Relevance" section

Why Str1977 did you remove the section on Relevance to contemporary society? Could you please explain why this did not contain a valid criticism? Why does it need to be removed? Please strive to be NPOV. If you think a counter point of view explaining why sacrificing pigeons is a good thing then please do so. Please do not simply destroy things you personally disagree with. I have to say I fail to see how sacrificing pigeons is relevant to contemporary society, but it set out in black and white in the Bible. Hence a discussion of the issues surrounding it should be encouraged.

First of all, the section title was "relevance" of Chr. to contemporary society and then the section talked about whether this or that commandment from the Mosaic law still applied (which is a theological question, but not valid "criticism of Christianity") or whether Christianity is right in keeping this without keeping that. But what has that to do with "Relevance to contemporary society" - relevance would be: how does Chr. relate to contemporary problems etc. Str1977 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in "The Communist Masnifesto" does it state that one should massacre opponents, or hold people in Gulags in Siberia, or have large scale killing. Yet this did occur in both China and Russia. Are you honestly suggesting Str1977 that such policies do not belong in the "Criticisms of Communism" article? I also can't get over your point about it being "just" Christians, and not "Christianity". Does criticism of Christianity not include criticism of the Christian Church? Jamestherage 08:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the "Communist Manifesto" is not the sole authority for Communism, especially not in the Leninist-Bolshevik form. And if you look to Lenin, you have your reasons for mass murder.

However, the Manifesto already contains the roots of the thinking that leads to such a poliy. If only the class counts and not the individual, if you follow the Rousseauist way of defining public good "a priori" and thinking opposition illegitimate, if you adhere to materialism in which man has to do everything himself, if you believe in some mechanical version of history which necessarily leads to the bright future of Communism.

You don't have that in the sources of Christianity, if read non-selectively. Str1977 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "Relevance to contemporary society" section, I think that it would be a good idea if you find some sources who know just a little about Christianity and the Bible before you post their criticisms. It could hardly be more ridiculous; which, of course, your sources would not recognize, because they don't know enough to see the joke. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The source is the bible itself. The Bible clearly states that lambs and or pigeons should be sacrificed in front of women whop have recently given birth. I notice you describe this as "patent nonsense". Maybe so, but it is certainly true that the quotes exist in the bible. Perhaps you could provide evidence of people sacrificing pigeons, as the bible states you must do to show that the bible is still relevant to today. Simply ignoring problems with your faith doesn't make them go away.Jamestherage 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is patent nonensense, if you take one article of Mosaic law and disregard the entirety of the Bible, especially the NT. The question of how the Mosaic law is required in the New Covenant and regarding Gentile Christians is a theological question. If you want to we can talk about that but that is off-topic to this article.

As important as the Bible is, Christianity is not the "Bible alon", regardless of what some Protestants (no offense, please) might think.

I'd like to ask you whether you posted a similar issue on "Criticism of Judaism"? Jews don't safrice pigeons (or other animals) nowadays. And they don't have the NT. Are you postin over there as well.

But if you want to really know about this issue, I'm prepared to answer your questions. Str1977 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what. If you can find just ONE published "critic" who says what you say "they" say, then you can keep their staggering bit of scholarship in the article. In fact, you can move it to the top, right above where it says that Christians have a problem with Reason, as prominently as possible. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I have provided links to the sections in the bible that refer to the sacrifice of pigeons. I hardly think it controversial to state that pigeon sacrifice is ignored by most people. Perhaps I am wrong however. I am willing to concede that pigeon sacrifice is a normal part of contemporary society, which would make the criticism invalid. Or is it accurate to state that parts of the Bible are simply ignored by many Christians?Jamestherage 09:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What Mark is calling you to do is prove that "your" argument is not Original Research but criticism (invalid though it may be IMHO) by actual people. Who criticizes Christianity that way - except for Jamestherage. Str1977 09:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• How many doctors/nurses would argue that it is sensible to sacrifice a pigeon in front of a woman who has recently given birth?
• Does it state in the Bible that one should do that?
• Is it or is it not therfore accurate to state that parts of the Bible are simply ignored? (as many people have said in the past, I'm not the first to say this)Jamestherage 09:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• How is your first point relevant to anything at all?
• It also states other things in the Bible, e.g. that in Christ the Law is fulfilled
• Parts of the Bible are simply ignored - not by Christians (there are theological reasons for not practising (on the whole) some sections of OT law) but by you. If you are not the first to say this, this is too bad for all the others (whom you don't cite) who, like you, show that they have no clue about even the most basic tenets of Christianity. But that is probably the fault of us Christians. Str1977 09:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you can't see the relevance of the first point shows that you either haven't read the section in discussion properly or you have not read the section of the Bible that refers to this. How many times do I have to repeatedly qyuote the section in the Bible that refers to pigeon sacrifice? I've included links to the Bible.

Also, I haven't included anything regarding my opinion. I've simply quoted an article (from an organisation devoted to religious tolerance!) and quotes from the Bible. If you think it is POV to state that most Christians ignore the section on pigeon sacrifice then I do not know what else to say. Can you or can you not provide examples of pigeon sacrifice? How then can it be POV to state that Christians ignore this section of the Bible. Anne pretty much said as much by stating that it was in the Old Testament, and implied it wasn't very important.Jamestherage 09:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The first point might be relevant somewhere but certainly not here.

I have read what you wrote and also the Bible passage. I have read the entire Bible. Have you?

Merely quoting the Bible is not enough.

Which organisation devoted to religious tolerance is that?

It is not only POV but beyond any understanding of Christianity (and you as a former Christian should know) to criticize Christians for not practicing "pigeon sacrifice" when they are not supposed to do this. Yes, Ann gives the explanation in the shortest possible form. I'd say it's more complicated than that, but the gist is provided by her. Read the New Testament. Christianity is not Judaism (and note that no one levels this king of "criticism" to Judaism.) A longer explanation, if you want one, later. Str1977 09:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Just find the source who will speak for you, Jamestherage. Maybe your search will lead you to something that deserves to be posted here, but I can assure you that it won't be what you put in that section. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Noone is stating that we should "disregard the whole of the NT" as you state above. Noone is speaking for me. I've included the sources. I'm just getting a bit tired of it all. Can you not see that is what it states in the Bible? And how this is out of step with contemporary society? I think I have made it pretty clear what the Bible and ReligiousTolerance state. If you want to challenge their view then go ahead. Just stop trying to pin everything on me personally.Jamestherage 09:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your point is disregarding the existence of a NT. It quotes the OT as if there never had been the NT.

I'm not pinning it on you personally. All my posts are directed against this "criticism"

You repeatedly show that you don't read the actual text in question. "Which organisation devoted to religious tolerance is that?" Perhaps the one I provided a link to in the text in discussion. Also, please can you not personalise this discussion so much. Yes I have read the entire Bible, since you ask. Asking me about my personal beliefs is not really relevant to creating an encyclopedia.Jamestherage 09:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Granted, I haven't read every installment of your argument. Whether this organisation really is devoted to religious tolerane I will examine. Their web site says so, but this argument you draw from them doesn't seem like having any respect for Christianity at all.

Granted, your beliefs are not relevant and what you posted on your user page is quite enough.

If you have read the entire bible, why don't you take the NT into account? Str1977 10:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't just throw on a neutrality banner and leave it at that. If you want to critique the quotations please do so. I'm trying hard to find common ground on this one, and I've already edited out parts of this section that could concieveably be seen as NPOV. I've also altered the heading of the section. Just answer me this: Is it right or wrong to state that parts of the Bible are ignored?Jamestherage 10:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed the change. Though I still think the section to be moot, at least now the section agrees with its header.

Quick answer: It is wrong to say that parts of the Bible are ignored. If they are not followed as in 300 BC that is due to theologcial reasons. However that's not ignorance. (Obviously, I'm referring to Christianity or the Church on the whole - of course individual Christians much too often ignore parts of the Bible. Otherwise, there would be absolutely no basis for the Ruanda section).

I will get back to you later. Str1977 10:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Jamestherage, please read WP:3RR. I have kept the section and I have answered the question. You can move it to the top now, if you want. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 10:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, just because I'm new to Wikipedia does not mean you have to adopt a patronising tone. You suggested moving it to the top, not me. I don't think that anyone reading the section as now written would regard it as NPOV or appropriate for an encylopedia article. I mean take the line: "Critics who are ignorant of Chritian thinking might think that...". Very NPOV. To be honest I just find it amusing now. Jamestherage 10:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, this ignorance on the cited "critics" part is a fact, though maybe a tough one for some to swallow. Str1977 11:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Also could everyone try and spell "Rwanda" correctly. If one can't even remember how to spell the name of the country it suggests a lack of knowledge of the issue. [10:25, 14 September 2005 User:202.136.241.101

I know perfectly well that it's "Rwanda" in English. Since I'm German however the German spelling "Ruanda" (which is no less correct) flows more easily through my fingers. If I edited the article, of course I would take care to use the English form, but here on the talk page it is of no consequence. And before you lecture other people, please sign your posts. Str1977 11:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You were awfully insistent that it would be in the article, Jamestherage. You asked that a Christian answer would be given to what you've posted, and I have done so. It's no shame to not know something - you can ask; but being new to Wikipedia is no excuse for reverting the article repeatedly, to insert what has been called, with good reason, "patent nonsense", original research, and an unattributed personal point of view without support of citation.

Your critic has a problem with the Bible, and with the ancient Jews and Judaism, but note: the "criticism" is not a criticism. This critic thinks it would be "wrong" to follow these practices. They offend his modern sensibilities.

There are sections of the Bible that are ignored by Christians, to our shame. Find those out, and post them. But what you have posted is simply not a criticism of Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 10:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Also on the point made above: "the "criticism" is not a criticism. This critic thinks it would be "wrong" to follow these practices. They offend his modern sensibilities.". Are you suggesting that the only thing allowed on the Criticism of Christianity page is Criticism? That alternate points of view are not allowed? And that if people speak in support of Christianity, then we should remove their POV? Jamestherage 13:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I left a message about 3RR for Jamestherage at his talk page [5]. More relevant to this talk page is the following point: James, you also need to have a look at WP:NOR, because even if your views on Christianity and pigeon sacrifice are correct, they can't go into the article under Wikipedia rules. You'd need something like, Professor X W, in his book, Pigeons and Lambs: an examination of Christian and pre-Christian Rituals (1997) argued that the practice of sacrificing lambs was a proof of the errors of Christian teaching. This claim was contradicted by Dr Y Z in his article "The Abolishment of Ritual in New Testament Teaching" (1999) in which he stated that these old laws had been abolished by Jesus, and had never been practiced by any mainstream Christian denomination. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be based on what Jamestherage thinks and what Musical Linguist thinks. Regards, AnnH ^(talk) 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ann, thank you for your message, and I appreciate your courteous tone. I understand what you are saying, and have read all the rules you directed me to.

I appreciate the NOO rule, but isn't there a clear difference between quoting from the Bible and conducting research? Perhaps the comments surrounding the research could be regarded as too POV, in which case, we could just leave the quotes. Jamestherage 14:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now added a quote from an essay in the manner suggested by Ann. Really, perhaps we could just leave the quotes.Jamestherage 14:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Jamestherage, regarding the quotations from the Bible, I recognize that they are difficult to understand; but their meaning to Jews and to Christians is not going to be of any interest to this article. Disgust for the Jewish ordinances, such as that expressed by your comments, the tolerance.org quote, and now the warren-wilson essay, has occasionally arisen in the history of the Christian church (it's called the heresy of Marcionism, when it is adopted by Christians), and this heresy has a lot to do with the anti-Judaism for which Christians of history are so often sharply criticized, even in the very pages of the tolerance.org website. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

The only thing that makes sense on the Criticisms of Christianity page is a criticism of Christianity. The tolerance.org quote is voicing a common criticism of Christian scripture: but he is not complaining that Christians ignore large parts of the Bible. On the contrary, as you probably discern from the quote itself, it's like your comments a criticism of the Bible. Using these quotes here, as an argument against Christianity on the basis of modernist disgust and moral outrage for the Jewish ordinances, is frankly, nothing but unknowledgeable hate toward the religious history and heritage of the Jewish people, which is the root also of Christ and of the Christian church. I strongly recommend that the entire section should be removed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

However, the fact of the matter is that it is very difficult for critics to discern what Christianity actually teaches, since there are so many teachers of Christianity-so-called that critics may pick and choose literally at random. Look over most of this page, and you will find at the heart of many of the criticisms, various varieties of teaching that are condemned by the consensus of church tradition with a thundering unanimity. That doesn't matter to critics however. The subtleties of 2000+ years of Christian theology, ecumenicity, church authority, tradition, reformism, heresy and orthodoxy, sin and righteousness, ethics and scandal, history and development, are none of the substance of this page. The page shows how Christianity looks when one literally doesn't care what Christianity is, but hates it, and thereby endorses to Christ and the Church all sorts of things that are not Christian. Fine. There's an appropriateness about bearing the blame for the sins of hypocrites and those who reject us, that is too serious to discuss on a silly internet web-page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

But for you, please allow the removal of the inappropriate section. If you wish to have a discussion concerning the meaning of the sacrificial system and cleanliness laws, please join us on the talk pages of the appropriate articles, and someone will point you to the information that you are looking for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the long comment above talks a lot about various things, but seems to ignore the main point: that there are sections of the Bible that are not used by contemporary Christians. I don't think anyone can really disprove that point. We can have a discussion about why that is so, but the fact remains that parts of the Bible are ignored. Now a Christian might argue that it is obvious that these parts should be ignored as they are superceceded by Christs teaching, or whatever. But the salient poit remains that parts of the bible are ignored by contemporary Christians, and I think this is a criticism that itself should not be ignored.Davebenson32 12:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we all need to keep a sense of calm here and don't think comments like "nothing but unknowledgeable hate" move the discussion forward much.Davebenson32 12:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It is as calm an evaluation of the attitude described by the Tolerant One, as his description is of the Old Testament penal sanctions ("murder of sexual minorities", for example). My comment does not ignore the point. I call for knowledgeable arguments, instead of chauvenistic modernist contempt for the Jewish ordinances.

What is the salient point? That this "criticism", if it concerns the place of Jewish ordinances in Christianity, is not a criticism of Christianity at all. It's an expression of lack of knowledge and misinformation.

This page, including my edits to that section, is a perfect example of how not to write a Wikipedia article on a controversy. Misinformation answered with argumentation is not information. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mark on this.

In what way is "you don't sacrifice pigeons" a criticism of Christianity? I could only think of something like "you are setting aside parts of scripture given by God a.k.a. you are not fully obeying God. That's a religious criticism and might be levelled by Jews against Christians (though Jews don't sacrifice either today). But that's neither what James nor his source are saying. (They are saying quite the opposite).

Also, "ignore" is not quite correct. Many Christians might be ignorant of the cited passages but Christianity has not "ignored" these, but doesn't not practice these and had good theological reasons for that.

Str1977 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The criticism is that the Bible is the most important text in the Christian religon, and that parts of it are ignored. A Christian preacher might say to his clergy "You - as Christians - should follow the advice about honouring your parents because it says so in the Bible". But parts of the Bible are ignored. (We can quibble about whether they are ignored or "not followed" as you state above). But I am genuinely interested in the Christian viewpoint on this. How does one explain it to me? My argument would be that Christins are told they should do things because it says so in the Bible. But as you acknowledge, pigeon sacrifice is not done. So who is to say what parts of the Bible you can and can't follow. A critic might state that if you just take a 'pick and choose' approach to the Bible - the key text of Christianity - and use common sense to igmore parts of it, then shouldn't you just ignore the Bible altogether and rely on common sense. But, again, I'm willing to listen to your argument, and I would like to know what you say about this. Please feel free to reply here or on my talk page.Markyjanet 14:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Very frustrating

Frankly, I am getting very frustrated by this article and discussion. I believe this is an important topic that has the potential to be a useful, informative and balanced article. But some of the editors seem compltely unable to step away from their POV and make the article as good as it can be. Instead of taking the constructive criticsms that have been offered and trying to make the exisiting sections stronger (with better sources and more thoughtful criticisms) we get more new, poorly written, poorly sourced, very POV sections that are at best tangentally related to the topic (The KKK????) Most of these criticsms seem to just be a collection of petulant or inflamatory quotes of people saying mean things about Christians. It is not helpful, and it is getting worse instead of better. 209.145.162.130 16:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's at this point that the myth of the fraidy-cat Christian will intrude. Christians are simply afraid to face the problems with their religion, we are told, over and over. The simple repetition of this view increases its credibility with each repetition. Rather than countering it (it is an entrenched dogma), the better approach may be to expand the article in a more constructive way than the typical editor of this page has so far proven capable of doing. Structure the article so that mis-informed, malicious, confused and contradictory points of view are appropriately situated in the context of information, the doctrines of churches, and the history of reform. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, have a look over this discussion page, and tell me that Christians have been acting in a "fraidy-cat" manner. I think it is pretty clear that they (including you) have been putting their case pretty forcefully. Davebenson32 12:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Boy, what a disappointment. I deliberately stayed away from this article for several days, to give some "cool off time" to those who were particularly critical of my edits, and the article has become an example of a terrible Wikipedia article...what not to do. That's really a shame, because it ought to be a useful, isightful piece. It just is so unbalanced and POV, with several sections that simply don't belong here...what a real disappointment. What suggestions are there to make this article acceptable? In its current state, it is not. Not even remotely so. KHM03 15:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The myth is not that Christians do not react or defend forcefully; but rather that they are afraid to face facts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

But critics would argue you are afraid to face facts. You dismiss anything you don't agree with as POV, and then you basically say that you can ignore them.Markyjanet 13:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly.

They will say that Christians evade the criticisms of the Inquisition - is it a criticism of an unreformed past, or the reformed present? Yes, that these things were done is a fact; the reform is also a fact. A real criticism would look at the history of that reform; what brought about the change, and where is the Catholic Church likely to go from here - facts. But facts aren't the basic problem, here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

They will say "God Hates Fags" and "KKK" is Christianity. They don't mean that as the folk come forward for communion, the minister says, "The body of Christ - and remember God hates fags". They don't mean that the preacher announces after the sermon, "remember that tonight we'll be singing the Psalms until sundown, when we'll burn the cross and hopefully, have time for a lynching before bedtime". They mean that these things exist in the context of Christian belief - they might be "fringe" but why do followers of Jesus, who called them to hate mother, sister and brother in order to follow him, care about the "fringe"? They mean to ask, just as Christians ask, what it is that leads people to think that they are serving God by doing these things (it's not Jews under those hoods, or a Buddhist holding the "God hates fags" sign). Where does this come from, if not Christianity, since those who do this act in the name of Christianity? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

That's what I mean. Critics have a very hard time telling what Christianity is, just by being exposed to it, or having grown up in it, or even by having been a teacher of it. The things folks here are most interested in, can be answered but not to their satisfaction. Christianity is the condemnation of sin, and salvation from sin. It is confession of sin, the promise of forgiveness of sin, through Christ who bore our sin. The church is classically called a "hospital for sinners". Christ came to call to himself not the righteous, but sinners. So, that's part of the answer to these questions: Christians seek the destruction of sin, because they seek the righteousness of God - and in seeking it, they sin. They learn, or serve the purpose of others learning, "the anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God", for example. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

How would you work that into an encyclopedia article? What kind of "answer" is that? It's not quite complete, but it's much easier to say (with justice) that Christianity is not the KKK or "God Hates Fags". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

At the heart of Christianity are certain teachings and doctrinal understandings which the editors of this article have by and large chosen to ignore in favor of political concerns especially relating to fringe groups (not the ecumenical consensus). That's the problem. KHM03 14:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Genesis/creation

I removed a paragraph or two citing the creation stories as some kind of problem in Christianity. It is only a problem for those who affirm inerrancy (fundamentalists and their close cousins), but not for the bulk of the world's Christians. No inconsistency there...just two separate accounts (which academia...even Christian academia...deems are likely from different sources. KHM03 15:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If I may contradict you, KHM:

I think this should be included, in a section titled "biblical inconsistencies". This should be prefaced with the statement that there are "b. i." claimed and the reply that mentions the factors "various human authors inspired by Holy Spirit" (as opposed to Islam's Koran) and "inerrancy - different adherence and definition" and then followed by examples.

I want to include the creation stories thing because it is often used and also because the whole thing is a misconception. These are not two separate, parallel stories (let alone contradicting each other) but rather the 2nd is a "resume and focus" continuation. Also, I'm afraid the "critics" will not accept your explanation. And risking to sound like "their close cousins", I don't agree at all with the "two sources" theory - not just here but anywhere. For my mind it's way to subjective and anyway yielding no results. Str1977 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, my point is that the notion that there is one unified creation story in Genesis is far from definitive for Christians; to use it as a point of inconsistency wouldn't be entirely accurate since it isn't a real issue for most of Christendom 9since inerrancy isn't an issue for most of Christendom). It's a criticism of certain parts of Christianity, but not of Christianity as a whole.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, I do believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two separate accounts, neither of which I tend to take literally. KHM03 21:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is you don't take them literally. The fact remains that it's a common criticism of christianity. And should be included. I'm going to restore it in a sec with an added note of it being against biblical literalists. So long as there are some in Christiandom and the item is a common criticism of Christianity it should be included. Tat 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

But the counter-point shouldn't be reduced to shift the criciticsm to literalists. That's like some Protestants dodging criticism by pointing to "Catholic corruption" (just an example I recently came across).

True, many "bibilical contradiction" arguments assume a literalist reading to smash it, but that doesn't exclude giving the counter point and also some "contradictions" are none, even if taking a literalist reading, e.g. the alleged two creation stories. Even when taken literally, they don't contradict each other (that's saying nothing about evolution debate, only internal consistency).

Also, it's far from clear what "literalist" means exactly.

PS. I removed the "144,000" passage, because it was neither a "biblical contradiction" nor does even a literalist reading suggest the argument put forth.

Str1977 11:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It said rather clearly that it was a contradiction between Christian belief and what the Bible says. The Bible says only 144,000 male Jewish virgins go to heaven. That's not remotely consistent with Christian belief that everybody who's good and believes in Jesus goes to Heaven. Tat 23:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. The Bible says (Rev 7) that the 144,000 - 12,000 from every tribe of Israel - will be "sealed"; in Rev 14, it says that because of their blamelessness, they will "learn the song". It says nothing about their exclusivity in salvation. KHM03 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Education?

This is absurd. How much worse can this article get? MORE POV? MORE inaccurate? How sad. KHM03 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a list of common criticism. I've heard half a dozen times this week. The UC system won't even accept science credentials of some private schools because of the text books they use. And Sex Education is also quite common. The entry is a list of criticisms and those are common ones. Tat 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

...but it's a criticism of a small group. It's equivalent to saying, "Atheists are bad because Stalin killed millions." Is Stalin representative of atheists? Does he determine atheistic norms? That's why 99% of this article has become woefully POV. KHM03 23:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

True, those criticisms of atheism are flawed, but they are common critisicisms. The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath and other such books do launch such a critic. It's that much more wrong to assume that atheists follow any sort of homogenized beliefs than a group that is defined by what they believe rather than what they don't. The fact remains that although, Stalinists and Maoists are both groups which only happen to also be atheists, the attack is used from time to time. It should be properly listed and addressed in a Criticisms of atheism section and have the errors demonstrated. You can't just pick and choose what is Christianity and what is not. It may only be a smaller section of Christians who are creationists or those who undermine sex education, but it's still leveled and still a criticism. Tat 06:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

But one can pick and choose what groups one identifies as representative of Christianity (or atheism). To make the claim that Stalin was an atheist, and he killed millions, therefore atheists are murderers is not fair, not NPOV, not accurate. That "logic" stems from a particular POV. OR...one can recognize that Stalin is not representative of atheism, and that most atheists, in fact, have not committed a single murder. But as long as folks are committed to a particular POV, this article will remain unfair and inaccurate. Whether the Stalin thing is a "common criticism" or not isn't the point...the point is whether it's a fair, accurate criticism. There were, for example, "common criticisms" of African-Americans in the mid-20th century...inaccurate and unfair, mind you, but common. Ought they be listed on an NPOV Wiki page? Of course not. BUT...some of the editors of this article don't mind that kind of "logic"...hence the page is a complete disgrace. KHM03 10:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

KHMO3 you seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a barnstorm of controversey over the actions of Christians in education. Take the Wikipedia section or Creationsim for example, or this BBC article "Scientists say schoolchildren are being confused by conflicting teaching about the creation of the world." [6]

I could go on at length about the controversey surrounding teaching of abstienece only education, in which the Church "is accused of being a killer rather than a healer; it stands charged with contributing to its spread."

KHMO3 it is simply not sensible, accurate or good wikipedia practice to ignore a whole area. There is a huge controversey over Christian teaching in education. Many people argue that its teachings are detrimental to people education, and (in the case of abstience only education, could even damage their lives). However, you persist in making statements like "the page is a complete disgrace" and expecting people to accept that as a valid argument. Do I have the right to say of the Christianity article "the page is a complete disgrace" and then cutting out large sections of it and replacing it ith criticisms? Perhaps you should do a little research on the controversey about Christian teaching in education before you argue for the removal of a whole section.

And that goes for a great many of the contributors to this page ho basically come along and say something along the lines of "I dislike section X, therefore it must be POV, and I have the right to delete it". It cuts to the heart of hat a great many of Critics have said, which is basically, that many Christians are not able to accept any criticisms, and furthermore, are so closed minded that they can't even acknowledge that these criticisms exist.Markyjanet 13:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There are real, valid criticisms of Christianity; they have largely been ignored. Not entirely sure why. The creationism stuff, for example, is not representative of Christianity; most Christians in America send their kids to public school without worrying a bit about the evolution debates. A small group pushes its own view, which most Christians in the world do not affirm. To take a small, unrepresentative group and say, "Look what the Christians are doing," is wholly inaccurate. Accuracy doesn't seem to be a concern in this article. KHM03 13:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I point you to my post below if you think there is a valid set of arguments below that should be put instead of ehat currently stands.

However, I really have to take issue with your comments above. You seem to be intentionally ignoring Criticisms. So the Creation debate is the actions of a fringe minority is it? Where are they getting their ideas from? Could it perhaps be the Christian Bible? How are they supposed to know that this section of the Bible is one of the many that should just be ignored or taken as a "metaphor", or some other argument as to why despite the fact that it is in the main book of the Christian faith, they are wrong to push their ideas.

And secondly, I really think you would have to be closed minded to suggest that there is no criticism of Christianity's role in education. I write almost in despair at your incomprehension. I've provided some quotes above. Do those quotes not exist?

You acknowlege that Creationists are Christian, and then basically pretend that criticising them as Christians is silly and poinless because you don;t agree with them. I don't agree with them either! But they're still Christians, using their faith in the way they think is best. Markyjanet 13:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To be more precise, all Christians are creationists (except that peculiar class who deny belief in a creator). Even evolutionists who are Christians believe that evolution describes what God has created. The terminology you might be looking for is "advocates of creation science"? Or, perhaps the criticism is that, Christianity perpetuates belief in a creator? Christianity is not creation science; however, Christianity is belief in creation by God. Does that help? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

But Markyjanet, is this article a criticism of some Christians, or is it a criticism of Christianity? When it comes to the creation-evolution debate, is there a unified "voice of Christianity"? Most of the people who like this article seem to want to bash fundamentalist Protestant Christians, as though they are the only ones, but cloak it under the guise of "criticism of Christianity." I fully agree that people have made criticisms of the Chrisitan faith--people such as Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietsche--but I see very little of those kinds of criticisms in this article.Logophile 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Redo?

Once again, I state that the article contains primarily Criticisms of Christians, not of Christianity. The shame is that there are real, valid critiques of the Trinity, the Atonement, the Incarnation, Apocalypticism, etc., but somed editors' POV has prevented these discussions from taking place in favor of political axes-to-grind. I favor a rewrite of the entire article, to eliminate the imbalance and gross POV violations and begin to create a really viable, accurate article. KHM03 13:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

KHMO3, I could suggest that you are basically trying to remove vaild criticisms of Christianity because you ant to pretend that they don't exist. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt however, and I suggest that you, on your own recreate this page as you think it should be on your talk page.

You don't have to do the whole thing, just give a basic outline, and I think it would be productive that you do it on your on page as you seem to think that everyone on this page will rip it shreds if you edit the page as it currently stands. Markyjanet 13:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

(I could also note in passing, that a lot of my friends (a majority of whom are Christian), and while many of them think that the Criticism page is slightly off balance, there was no one - not one person - who thought that it was a good idea not to have any criticisms on the Christianity page. In my view it is completely dominaed by Christian fundamentalists, but there you are)Markyjanet 13:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should just delete the article and replace it with a picture of Jesus Christ and say in really big letters "Repent Sinner!". I've contributed various edits for the past few days and so far I've had the Genesis 1 Genesis 2 contradiction removed because somebody didn't mind it was contradictory to have a woman made out of clay and a rib. Rather than fixing or toning down a criticism they just seem to remove it. Don't get me wrong, but I frequent a lot of sites that are quite critical of Christianity and have seem them before. In reality the Rwanda one is almostly completely unheard of (although prudent), whereas a number of people credit the Bible with supporting slavery because during the slavery years in the US folks defending slavery quite often cited the Bible. Lev 25:44 [7] was quite common. There's also a growing criticism that Christianity was founded almost solely on myth and Jesus probably was a first century equivalent of a comic book, while Paul preached an unrelated Christ Messiah who never existed on Earth, which would actually explain Hebrews 8:1-4 [8]. This is growing more and more common with such things as Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle and the documentary The God Who Wasn't There. Tat 00:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moved Replies down to Historicity section)

Fringe minorities

I have to say I'm getting a bit annoyed with people who say something to the effect of "I acknoledge that group of people A is Christian, and they follow the Christian Bible. I also agree that their action is wrong, and deserves Criticism. However, we should all ignore these people as they are a fringe minority". Its happened before with the God Hates Fags movement, now other people are trying to claim it for other Christian groups. "Yes", they argue "we agree that they are Christian, and should be criticised, but they can't appear on the 'Criticisms of Christianity' page because ... erm .. because they are a minority". There is a whole section on 'Persecution of Christians' that points to a whole range of activities that were conduced by small fringes. Does that mean the behaviour of small fringes of people who have attacked and vilified Christians should be ignored? No, of course not. So lets stop trying to ignore the actions of these avowedly Christian groups that many of us here disagree with. Markyjanet 13:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

But you're choosing to critique some fringe groups (which I'm happy to critique in the appropriate articles...they ought to be criticized) while ignoring a critique of what I would call (as a Christian) the "ecumenical consensus". I mentioned above some teachings/doctrines which could easily be criticized (there are others of course), but many of the editors have chosen to address political agendas rather than real, meaningful criticisms of Christian teaching. The article suffers from POV decisions, where it ought to flourish with a lively debate. KHM03 13:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to shout you down, and as you say, you feel this page is dominated by critics, so please take me up on my suggestion written above about how you would structure the artcile if given a free hand.

But also, I have to take you up on the point you make above about critiquing fringe groups. Are they Christian or not? If they are, and they deserve criticism then surely the one place they should be is on the Criticisms of Christianity page. Its no good pointing to examples of Christians who do not deserve criticism and then saying that therfore the actions of this minority should be ignored. As I argued elsewhere, it is akin to someone doing something that they kno is wrong, and then when someone criticies them, pointin to a hole load of other actions that they have done that do not deserve criticism, and then saying that we should therofre forget the whole thing. For example, if a bank robber as accused of robbing a bank on the 14th of June, and his response was "Yes ok, the bank robbery as wrong. But it only occupied a minority of my time, even on that day. For the vast majority of the 12th June I as conducting lawful acts. So lets ignore the robbery because it is only a small part of my actions. The overwhelming majority of them, even on the day in question, were lawful. So let's stop this silly criticism". You may argue that my point is absurd. But is it not the case that actions are wrong whether or not they are conducted by a minority of a population?

Also, you may be forgetting that this article is called "Criticisms of Christianity", not "Criticisims of the Actions of Individual Christian Groups". AnnH ^(talk) 14:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That has been forgotten as well...thanks, Ann...you are quite correct (as usual!). KHM03 14:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The point Ann makes above is to deliberately deflect criticism from the main point, which I make in my main post above. Many fascists were peace loving freindly people. Fascist Italy had basically no role in the Holocaust. Does that make criticisms of Facism that reference the Holocaust invalid? The Majority of white supremacists do not murder people. Does that mean the criticism of white supremacists that reference murder invalid? I think the main point is best expressed at the top of this section. Christians keep trying to ignore criticisms of other Christians which they themselves accept, and which are clearly of Christians, just because they argue they are from a minority.Markyjanet 14:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

They are minorities. This article keeps attacking Christians because of what some fringe groups say or do, but has yet to criticize the meat of actual Christianity. Maybe that says something. KHM03 18:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion?

How about including a paragraph which explains that Christianity is often criticized for views of fringe groups (e.g. ... hates Fags, KKK) which links to articles on these groups but also states that these are disavowed by both Christians.

There still should be sections like "Christians and homosexuality", but they should be restricted to the real issues and not "spiced" up by the likes of Phelbs.

It may be difficult to understand to some in this age of relativism, but it's not about whether they are a minority, but whether they are in line with Christianity or merely using (subconsiously) Christianity as a cover for their hatred (and we know the Christian stance towards hatred). This is why all criticism must be directed to Christianity and not Christians. Christians, even "orthodox ones" and including yours truly, do all kinds of things not in line with Christianity. Sinners after all.

As for Markyjanet's question: "criticisms of Facism that reference the Holocaust" are valid but only insofar as Fascists were part of it. Which basically restricts it to the years 1943 to 1945.

Str1977 09:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Role of women

I think we can all find faults with things we love. I love Christianity with a passion. But does that mean I should ignore real criticisms? I have encountered problems in my own church with my status as a women. I think it only right that we should pay some attention to this issue. Only then can we let God's love shine into our hearts.Lizzyfoursixty 07:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but it should be addressed and structured properly. I think there's way too much (and even redundant) stuff on the "ordination" thing (which is not proper criticism anyway), then a quote from Ecclesiasticus that's a bit out of place. Most of all, what are Fallwell's "Frustrated lesbians" doing here. Is it supposed to highlight a preacher's ranting (in which case it is not criticism of Christianity), is it supposed to portray Christian opposition to some feminist activists (in which case it is slightly off-topic and a bad example), or is it meant as a counterpoint (in which case it's a bad example).

Misleading and in effect insulting is the sentence "The Christian Church still regards Thomas Aquinas as a saint".

1) It is the Catholic Church that recognizes him as a Saint. I am a Catholic, but Protestants might disagree with this sentence.

2) It suggests that the Church approves of this sentence. Canonisation doesn't mean that everything a Saint ever said or did is true.

3) I'm sorry to say that the word "still" bears witness to (unfortunately not seldom form of) ignorance to the Catholic faith. Once a saint, always a saint.

Str1977 09:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Historicity

Citing The Jesus Puzzle is a good example of what KHMO3 is talking about. This is a theory of how Christianity came to be, that is contrary to what Christians teach; and it's cited here as a criticism? Is the criticism that, Christians have a different view than Earl Doherty does? Is the criticism that, Christians believe in Christianity? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mark, the "criticism" is that Christians dare to believe in Christianity instead of just going away.

Does anyone remember that "criticism" and "critical" has some connection to "critique", hence to distinguishing and discerning, and not to bashing, ridiculing, denying.

From the little I gather the Doherty book is of no substance at all. It is him who's making myths. Appearantly he has not a clue about historiography.

Str1977 23:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Secular historians & scholars have discredited Doherty's work. It's only here to add fuel to the fire, not as a legitimate, meaningful critique. KHM03 00:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to cite any of these Secular historians and scholars. The only criticism of the theory I have ever encountered is that it's not mainstream. Tat 10:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I have edited it "according to its merits". BTW, I am a historian and so I know how to do historiography. First you to have sources - and this is were Doherty, judging from his claims quoted here, already fails (but with him many modern exegetes): You have to critique your sources, yes, compare with other sources, yes, but you cannot just erase and deny on the basis of ... well, actually, no contrary evidence. Str1977 00:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no evidence in favor of historicity. And all the plot of the Gospels is quite common in other contemporary fiction. And Paul does seem exceedingly blind to any historical figure of Jesus. Tat 10:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Doherty is hardly recognized by the academic community as any kind of expert. Anyone could write a book on any subject, but that doesn't make them an expert or give their argument merit. To claim that Jesus is the Messiah is clearly an act of faith, but can you name any mainstream, acceptable, reputable scholars or historians who agree with Doherty? Most claim that the evidence that Jesus lived is overwhelming; it's the claim to deity that's questioned. Heck, even more "liberal" scholars such as those in the Jesus Seminar don't doubt his existence. That's way out there, very radical, and not really given merit in academia. KHM03 11:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Most claim that the evidence that Jesus lived is overwhelming; it's the claim to deity that's questioned. In total, a single comment in some commentary on Josephus, that Josephus wouldn't have written. Nobody argues that the theory isn't radical, or that most people don't accept the general character may have existed. The problem is this is the only major criticism against it. Tat 12:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Historicity is one of the best criticism of Christianity. Feel free to cite something that discredits the theory. But, even without it it is a criticism of Christianity. Few more quick notes, how do you figure removing several paragraphs is a "minor" edit? Also, if you want the Pet 3:7 line, at least make it flow better. Sure, men own their wives according to the Bible, but the Bible also says to treat them well. It really doesn't fit well shoved on the end like that. Tat 10:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

My comment may not be relevant, as I haven't checked the history to see what "minor edit" you're referring to, but if someone is "reverting", I think it is considered appropriate to mark the edit as "minor", even if it brings about a major change to the article. The revert could be a partial one, e.g. just removing a recent addition (while leaving other changes in place), rather than bringing the page back to "last version by X". I don't think it would apply if someone is removing paragraphs that have been in place for months, though. But maybe you're referring to some other edit? And by the way, the Bible most certainly does not teach that men "own" their wives. AnnH ^(talk) 11:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, reverting is not considered minor. Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Minor_edits. As for the "own" their wives, it's true. A number of them say that the man is to rule over the woman and she is subjection. Unless you want to go with Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. The wife and slaves are, in context, possessions of the man. Tat 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the Christianity and Historicity section thejesuspuzzle has a few posted critiques. Although, to date the only one that gets pointed out is that it's not a mainstream theory. Tat 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be all that's necessary; the fact that no reputable scholars or historians take it seriously matters. KHM03 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. The idea that such scholars can't show any flaw in it seems to be quite prudent. It took decades for people to accept that there were different voices in the Bible, and the first guy who suggested it still lost his job. If the theory is wrong, there should be reasons to show that it's wrong. It should be properly discredited, and although there have been attempts it keeps coming down to, historicity is assumed so this can't be right. Tat 11:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you really serious? Scholars ignore Doherty because the evidence that Jesus lived is overwhelming, and Doherty's interpretations of Biblical passages are bizaree and grossly out of context. He's not serious, and ought not be taken seriously. We need to identify him properly. Again, please cite a reputable scholar who agrees with Doherty...then we can talk. KHM03 11:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelming? There's only a Josephus commentary and it's a not written by Josephus, and a few later references to Christians themselves and their beliefs from the second and third centuries. Tat 12:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There are also the letters of Paul, the Gospel accounts, and numerous other documents. No reptuable scholar seriously disputes the existence of Jesus. Now, Earl Doherty may not agree, but that is irrelevant; it's him vs. academia. So, there's no reason to debate this issue here until Doherty is able to convince some reputable scholars. KHM03 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The letters of Paul and the Gospel accounts are exactly what Doherty explains. You could use evidence within them to prove a point, for example if Paul ever refers to Jesus' birth or life, this would quickly disprove the notion. Or if you could use other early Christian writing to show knowledge of a historical figure. The documents as a whole do not evidence a secular historical figure. The common theory to explain the documents is typical that Jesus existed did some stuff, everybody forgot about it, then Paul shows up and starts preaching the Christ (although making no references to his life). Doherty's theory (actually not originally his) explains the Gospel account and letters of Paul, better than the typical theory that included a historical figure. The letters and Gospels are what's being explained, you would have to demonstrate how the Gospels, letters, and other documents are not much better explained by Doherty than by a the traditional theory, which seems difficult because Doherty is the most complete theory out there, it explains the weird stuff that most Christians can't even explain. Tat 23:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Mainstream scholars point out that the passage in question refers not to the existence of Jesus, but to his current eschatological state and location." - The point of the remark is to show that it contends that if the Messiah were to come to Earth he wouldn't be a priest. It's not saying that he was a priest figure on Earth who was the Messiah. Rather Heb 8:4 is discounting this possibility out of hand. It's saying that if the Divine Christ figure were an Earthly figure (which is to imply that he never was) he wouldn't be a priest. Tat 23:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be your interpretation (to which you are entitled), but that has not been the scholarly interpretation of that passage. The bottom line, again, is that the theory that Jesus never existed is a radical view which mainstream academia does not support, and no reputable scholars. We can't change that here on Wikipedia...it's just the way it is. We need to represent this view accurately. KHM03 00:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. AnnH ^(talk) 00:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.Logophile 14:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses section

There is a tremendous POV problem. I added a section called Christian responses to criticisms and put a stub to the section. I suggest material be added ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.191.56 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC).

• That is exactly the wrong thing to do. The answer to the neutrality problem is not to turn the article into a back-and-forth pro and con list. Pro and con lists are based upon the erroneous notion that neutrality equates to exact balance. Neutrality is about ensuring that Wikipedia has no opinion and advocates no point of view. See below. Uncle G 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just deleted the Responses.. section. It's POV to state that 'religion is a personal issue'. I think that's a Protestant position which wouldn't be shared by Catholicism for example. And the attempt to discuss translation errors didn't include a single example relevant to this article.

I also renamed this section of the Talk page. Tremendous POV problem was not a useful name of a section. It's now Responses section. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This section, including the possibility of deleting it, is also being discussed below at #Post-Giovanni33 Copyedit. Further comments should probably go there. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for a rewrite

Any objections to a major overhaul of this article? KHM03 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

None at all, as long as I'm not expected to do it?!!! (I have exams in two weeks from now.) I think the article could do with a major overhaul. AnnH ^(talk) 00:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think one is badly needed TMS63112 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a seriously flawed article. For one, how can ANY Criticisms of _____ article be NPOV? Wikipedia requires for a NPOV that BOTH sides of an argument be offered. This invalidates the entire purpose of this article. If anything, each criticism section should be within the parent articles. For example, the criticism of the "God hates fags" creeps should be in their specific section. My 2 cents. I would like to delete or totally rewirite this entire piece. There is no way that it can conform to current wikipedia standards. --circuitloss 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

KHM03 - I'd really like to see your suggestions happen. This article needs to move towards theological criticism and away from "criticisms of stupid christians." The first place to start would be rewriting the intro to make this clear (delete "the actions of its followers") and focus on the theological inconsistancies and dogmatic disputes internal and external to Christian theology. All of the "stupid christians" stuff should be within their parent articles. There is already an article on Christian views of women so that section here is redundant, or should intro and link to the other piece. The "inconsistancies" can stay, and so should the "Christianity and Reason" part I think. Most of the rest needs to be somehwere else. --circuitloss 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

HERE is a new page to rewrite this one, which we can hopefully improve. Everyone is welcome to participate. KHM03 10:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

Any objections to redirecting this mess to the "criticisms" section of the Christianity article? Just wondering. KHM03 20:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gonna try it. KHM03 23:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Incon. of Christianity

"that there seem to be two different versions of the creation story in the Book of Genesis. In the first Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created out of clay or dust. In Genesis 2, Adam is created, gets lonely and God makes Eve out of Adam's rib. Even if one were to say that the second story is just to clarify the first, it doesn't explain the dual creation of Eve, in the opinion of some."

The author of this argument seems only to be refering to: Quote: Genesis 1:26-28:

26 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,

      in the image of God he created him;
      male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

What the author wrote himself is quite inconsistent at this point because God was refering to the fact:

1. that "he made both male and female", not necessarily refering to the time that it was written

2. Verse 27 explicitly states: "in the image of God, he created him" (refering to Adam)" at that time. (the Bible doesn't "explicitly state" "in the image of God, he created them, refering at that point to Adam + Eve)

3. Location: Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, back then if you know about "Pangea" was quite bigger then the Garden of Eden itself so at this point, the Bible could be refering to everything else out of the Garden of Eden. (writer's note: I don't think "God" would be stupid to just create Adam + Eve in the Garden of Eden)

Here's a verse from the aftermath of the killing of Abel: Genesis 4:15-24 says:

"15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.

21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute.

22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of [g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.

23 Lamech said to his wives,

      "Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
      wives of Lamech, hear my words.
      I have killed [h] a man for wounding me,
      a young man for injuring me.

24 If Cain is avenged seven times,

      then Lamech seventy-seven times." 

4. As Genesis 4:16 says: Cain left God's presence and "lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden". This means there had to be other lands (with other people) either then the Garden of Eden.

In my opinion and in a somewhat Biblical-scientific context, the argument has way too little evidence to support it's allegation of inconsistency.

It should be deleted.

Cite: http://www.biblegateway.org/passage/?search=Genesis%201-5;&version=31;

--N0N4am0r 01:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

- I should add:

Reasons for more people either then Adam and Eve:

1. Adam and Eve had addition sons and daughters while the big blood toil arose (Cain + Abel)
2. Afterwards, God created additional humans and they interbred with angels (demons).
3. God did not mention to the author of Genesis that there were more humans on this Earth.
4. If evolutionism really was true then species that were closely related to the Homo sapiens.

--N0N4am0r 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Story Logic?

"the story logic of Christianity itself is inconsistent. Many such critiques focus on the idea of a blood sacrific of God to God. "For God so loved the world that he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so if you believe this story, He will not be forced to torture you forever."

umm.... you know that John 3:16 has billions (exageration) of translations I can quote different versions and aren't "illogical".

   John 3:16 (New International Version)
   New International Version (NIV)

   Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
   NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

   16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] 
   that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and

   John 3:16 (King James Version)
   King James Version (KJV)

   Public Domain
   A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

   16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
   that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If critics can't understand this, what would this world become? This is what the verse is saying (if you don't understand):

God created this world and loved it so much, but then Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3) thus the world could of been forsaken. God instead, choose to give his son (Jesus) (Matthew 27:32-54) up in return for the lost souls (lives) of sinners. Basically he gave us the gift of salvation (as the christians call it) for free, we just have to believe in him so we don't get sent to Hell (also how christians interprete it).

More clarification: God created a world for us to live in (Genesis 1:26-30) and to rule but our ancestors (Adam and Eve) sinned thus we were all doomed but God chose to save us. Simple as that.

--N0N4am0r 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, if you are going to quote the bible, keep it in context. By taking passages out of context, one use the bible to say, "there is no God,", but in context, it says "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God!'" (Psalms 14:1 MKJV). I will try to avoid editing this page unless in extreme circumstances or vandalism, due to the fact that I may not have a NPOV, for reasons that are pretty obvious by my name, so please be accurate in your information. --R.H._Jesus_Freak40 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We are all aware of how Christians traditionally interpret John 3:16. That quote isn't meant to be a translation; it's a satirical rewording of John 3:16 intended to clarify why many non-Christians find the claim in John 3:16 inconsistent. It has to do with the theological doctrine of the Trinity; the source page might help you understand. It is a legitimate criticism, but perhaps the reasons for the criticism could be expanded. (I might come back and do it at a better time.) --The Famous Movie Director 05:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neglected or refused?

Rwandan Genocide ... bishops... neglected to send help

vs.

Rwandan Genocide ... bishops... refused to send help

There are several documented instances (see Rwandan Genocide) of actual direct refusal, not merely neglection. Discuss? Clinkophonist 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rendering this article neutral

For a parallel discussion, see Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV.

• This article is full of weasel terms. ("Some critics have maintained that Christianity itself isn't founded on a historical figure.", "A number of other critics fault Christianity for influencing education.", "Some critics have argued that claims that Christianity is the only true religion have led misguided people to fight wars on the basis of that religion.", "Some critics have argued that Christianity can be an intolerant religion.") This is a pretense of neutrality. All such language should be rendered neutral by attributing opinions to specific, named people. Where no such people can be found, the content should be excised for being original research.
• As per Wikipedia:Content forking, the overall scope of this article may well be non-neutral (as it is non-neutral with Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism), since it implies that all of the discussion of the subject is negative. This article's scope should be refactored to be either about all discussion of the subject, not just the negative, or to be about specific fields of discussion of the subject where all opinions within the field are included. (Turning this article into a pro and con list is not the solution. Pro and con lists are based upon the erroneous notion that neutrality equates to exact balance. Neutrality is about ensuring that Wikipedia has no opinion and advocates no point of view.) See how Criticism of Objectivism is now Objectivist philosophy, and includes all discussion of the philosophy. Rendering this article neutral will almost certainly include changing its title.

Uncle G 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is lots of overlap in some areas - why not create

• Internal consistency in the Bible
• The Bible and History (I think this already exists)
• The Bible and morality
• Christianity, tolerance, and equality (for the Inquisition, Women, & Rwanda bits)
• Christianity, and Biblical adherance (for the Ignoring bits bit)

and then make the relevant sections here just brief summaries? --Clinkophonist 15:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Creating articles with a neutral scope is a good idea. Using summary style to link them to a main article is a good idea. Having the main article be non-neutral in scope is a bad idea. See Wikipedia:Content forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles. Why not just make these summary-style articles direct sub-articles of Christianity and Bible? Why the need for any intermediary at all? Once you have moved everything from here into neutral-scope articles, simply redirect this article to Christianity, as per Criticism of Objectivism. Uncle G 03:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How does it look now? Clinkophonist 14:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice start of general re-factoring. I misinterpreted your edits regardinng "internal consistency", but now I see the grand scheme. --Pjacobi 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your plan doesn't seem too popular, and several people (inc. myself) keep reverting and changing your plans. Your plan may be well intentioned, but seems to be producing even more POV / accuracy problems. Please work with those who are editing your work for POV / accuracy reasons, and don't just revert. You've reverted the work of some good, long standing editors on several pages (Wesley, SimonP, Str1977, just to name a few), and that's hardly working with others. Please work with us, even if we all don't agree with your plan. KHM03 12:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, Clinkophonist, please work with others. If we don't agree with your plan, we have every right to adapt them and change them. Creating more POV pages won't solve the real POV issues in this article. We can make progress, and you can be invaluable, because it seems you have some pretty good ideas. But just reverting other people's attempts at getting to a more NPOV spot in order to push your own agenda and POV won't solve anything. Please work with others and "play nice"! Thanks...KHM03 13:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, just seems to be you. I have reverted no-one's work (except your deletions). If you actually check what I did, I simply seperated the content and moved it to a seperate page. See below, where you are calling one such seperate page a POV fork, when it is actually what this article originally said before I moved it and changed what this article said to be more neutral. Personally, I'm quite that when you are unable to see who is responsible, that you believe what is actually my version of a text - the summary - to be a more NPOV version of what you consider to be a POV fork, which is actually your (plural) version of the text. (It's also quite amusing that you accuse me of creating POV forks, when the POV is your own, and the version you think is less POV is actually mine) Clinkophonist 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree. I feel that you've created far greater POV problems by spreading the POV stuff around to multiple articles. As I've said before, I think your intentions were good, but the results have been less than satisfactory. The community (myself included) will surely work with you to fix the problems. KHM03 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from stating the obvious, have you noticed that it is a hell of a lot easier to fix POV problems concerning, for example, discussion of christian attitudes towards race, sexuality, equality, etc., when it is under a title such as "Christianity, tolerance, and equality" than when it is under a title such as "Criticism of Christianity". Clinkophonist 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, and Biblical adherance has been redirected to Christianity and Biblical adherence. Better title. I think I've improved POV problems in the article too, please see what you think. --The Famous Movie Director 01:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Christianity, tolerance, and equality

The Christianity, tolerance, and equality article's content is entirely critical of Christianity; it seems reasonable to merge it with the content here. Any objections? Wesley 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be merged here; it is simply a POV fork of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. KHM03 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Flex 19:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, MERGE the article.--Midnite Critic 20:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as well, but whatever bits of Christianity, tolerance, and equality are put into Criticism of Christianity will need to be very de-POVed. AnnH ^(talk) 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, merge for the reasons already given and because the CTE article actually deals with two topics (Tolerance and equality). Str1977 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Please see this version of this article. The content of that version was specifically seperated and moved to Christianity, tolerance, and equality in order to enable it to be NPOVed better. The content is not a POV fork of the article, it is what this article said before I moved it and replaced it with a more NPOV summary. I.e. you are calling the older version of this article a POV fork of my later summary of it. Clinkophonist 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Clinkophonist, there are seven votes in favor of the merge and only yours against, so far. How long do you propose we wait for more voters to join you in opposing the merge? Wesley 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your vote was to take the more neutral content here, merge in a POV fork, and de-POV that content. THERE IS NO POV FORK. That is actually essentially what THIS article said before I removed it. I propose therefore that your vote is irrelevant - you are voting about a situation that doesn't exist. m:Polls are evil.

The whole point of cutting it out of this article and putting it somewhere else was so that it would be under a wider vaguer title that would automatically cause it to be de-POVed simply by having to comply with the title and include discussion of the flip side of the coin - examples FOR tolerance, etc.

Placing the material in this article invites people to increase the criticism, placing it there invites people to provide the counter-issues, and allows it to cover a better more worthy topic - see Uncle G's comment some way above.

Both versions are heavily POV, I don't see any substantive difference in that regard. Based on the definition of criticism that you seem to advocate, both positive and negative aspects of Christianity could be discussed here, so that's no reason to split that section off either. Once I finish removing all the uncited original research, and material that's duplicated from other articles (that have been around much longer), length won't be a problem. You haven't convinced me or anyone else that I can tell that that Christianity, tolerance and equality shouldn't be merged to here. Wesley 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

moved here from the main page

Ethics in the Bible

Main article: Ethics in the Bible

Some of the ethical decisions in the Bible, especially the Old Testament are considered morally questionable by many modern groups, and often do not match up to modern expectations. Some of the assertions critics claim that the Bible makes include the subjugation of women, condemnation of (perhaps only some forms of) homosexuality, and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites. Some critics and religious groups argue that these situations should be judged by the standards of the time, which they match much more closely. Additionally, some Christian denominations and theologians interpret these passages in other ways which do not support the subjugation of women, etc.

I pulled this out for two reasons: first, it is completely lacking in verifiable sources; second, the criticism offered would apply equally to Judaism. Both of these deficiencies need to be remedied if this is to go back in. Wesley 23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is by its nature a criticism about which it is hard to write an informative, neutral entry, but I think it should still go in there. That it could equally apply to Judaism (or Islam, or...) doesn't invalidate it. I suppose reference to a book raising these objections would count as a source? Thomas Ash 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The passage would certainly be more appropo on a "Criticism of Religion" page, rather than specifically this one. The "main article" the section points to presents a host of problems. KHM03 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, that's why I moved it to an article called Criticism of the Bible, and summarised that article instead; I still don't see why you reverted me doing that. (Religion generally is inappropriate, I don't see even extremist Buddhists Hindus Sikhs or Jains ever advocating the genocide of Canaanites, mainly because they wouldn't care; and the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Confucianists, etc. aren't really going to care that much about what the bible says about sexuality, what with it not being their holy book). Clinkophonist 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, reference to a book whose author raises these objections would count as a source. I wonder whether wikipedia has addressed references which themselves use "weasel words?" At any rate, it shouldn't be that hard to find an author who makes these arguments, but without any citation, it's just original research, or the wiki editor's opinion. Many other parts of this artice do manage to find someone to quote, which is part of why I'm picking on this section. Wesley 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you denying that anyone raises or has ever raised these criticisms? If not, then I don't see why it needs a quote. All it is stating is that people have raised the issue. We don't attribute "some people enjoy sex", because it is obviously true (that some people enjoy it); it is equally true that some people have raised the criticisms - it doesn't need a cite because it is bloody obvious (that the criticisms have been raised). Clinkophonist 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the line right above the Edit summary. It says, "Content must not violate any copyright and must be basd on verifiable sources." If the criticism is noteworthy, then surely someone has published the criticism who can be cited. Wesley 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Anti-Christianity

It has been proposed that Anti-Christianity be merged and redirected into this article. I have proposed on that article's talk page that, instead, a new article, Anti-Christian prejudice be created by merging Anti-Christianity and Christianophobia, possibly with additional material from this article. Comments and suggestions on that talk page would be appreciated. This article could then be restricted to rational and philosophical criticisms of Christianity, while negative prejudices (even those with a rational basis) could be placed in the new article. JHCC (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. KHM03 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a similar approach has been used in the Mormonism articles, to distinguish specific disagreements and criticisms from the phenomenon of anti-mormonism and general anti-mormon prejudice like picketing the opening of a new Mormon temple. Seems to have worked there for the most part, so it's worth trying with these.

As far as the actual article names, I think that christophobia is there partly as a parallel to islamophobia and some others, and is a specific term proposed for use in the UN, so I'm not sure we want to get rid of that article entirely. Perhaps Anti-Christianity should be merged into Christianophobia so it redirects to that page? Either way, there probably is some material here that should be moved to that new article. Wesley 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The nice thing about Anti-Christian prejudice is that it means exactly what it says. Christianophobia, like anti-Semitism and "homophobia", seems to suffer from a confusion between "unfavorable mental attitude" and "hate-motivated behavior", while the word itself means "fear of Christians" (and Christophobia would literally mean "Fear of Christ"!). The UN and the UNHCR use of the term seems to be fairly recent, so usage isn't yet settled. Until it is, I support moving Christianophobia to Anti-Christian prejudice, keeping Christianophobia as its own section (suitably edited), moving the material currently in Anti-Christianity into Anti-Christian prejudice, and perhaps making Anti-Christianity into a disambiguation page that can direct people to Anti-Christian prejudice, Criticism of Christianity, Persecution of Christians, etc, with some good, simple definitions of each. JHCC (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The nasty thing about Anti-Christian prejudice is that calling one view/group or another "prejudiced" is itself inherently biased. Thus, while an article by that title could exist. There would be little to no content in it that would comply with NPOV. Clinkophonist 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Anti-Christian prejudice it to distinguish between legitimate criticism (for example, whether or not the Vatican's position on condom use has contributed to the spread of AIDS) and categorical bias (that is, bias or discrimination against members of a group solely on the basis of membership in that group). Prejudice by definition is pre-judging — that is, making a judgement before one has all the evidence for making such a judgement.

Anti-Christian prejudice is not intended to replace Criticism of Christianity, nor is every criticism of Christianity inherently prejudiced. On the other hand, failing to distinguish legitimate criticisms from obvious prejudices (even those stemming from legitimate criticism) will weaken the Criticism of Christianity article, since it will not be clear whether something is included as a legitimate or rational criticism or on the basis of anti-Christian bias. JHCC (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If something has a rational basis, can it be a prejudice? I'm not raising this question with anything particular in mind, just because I was struck by JHCC's phrasing... Thomas Ash 19:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That might be a philosophical/theological question more than anything. Without question, there are some legitimate criticisms to be made regarding Christianity...criticisms which are certainly based on rational observations. But there also is such a thing as prejudice against Christianity, and there plenty of anti-Christianity people out there, who seem to lack objectivity. To them, irrationality might seem rational where Christianity is concerned (the same can be true regarding other issues & faiths, of course, and many Christians sometimes have the same problems). I think JHCC is looking for an NPOV critique, devoid of these extremes. KHM03 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keith is correct. What JHCC had in mind was legitimate criticism applied indiscriminately or inappropriately. JHCC (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Christianophobia has been moved to Anti-Christian prejudice and expanded. The article still needs work, and contributions would be welcome. JHCC (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and Women

Critics have argued that Biblical teachings stating that a women's role is one of "submission" is somewhat at odds with contemporary views of sexual equality. Dr Linda M. Woolf, Professor of Psychology, Webster University has stated that [3] "Unlike men, however, many women are allowed only an internal spiritual or religious experience and are often denied leadership roles or roles that foster any form of externalization of their faith."

Elizabeth Dodson Gray argued that Christianity "continue to place women in a subservient role that demands their silence and obedience" (National Catholic Reporter, April 1, 1994 v30 n22 p21).

When read in context, both of these critics are speaking specifically about the ordination of women. Does it never occur to them that less than 5% of men are ordained either, thus supposedly leaving 95% of men with "only an internal spiritual or religious experience" and similarly denied any role "that foster[s] any form or externalization of their faith"? The criticism is made and cited, so I'm not removing it outright, but it's weak to the point of being laughable. The broader essay by Woolf goes on to say that the real problems for women came when in America they were told to submit to beatings by drunken husbands and denied the right to vote. (I think she neglected to mention the right to own property.) Those are much bigger problems than just not being ordained, but those problems are not nearly as widespread as the ordination policy. I guess my question is whether this is worth keeping in the article. Wesley 17:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your call. KHM03 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall I think the article has bigger problems than to worry overmuch about this bit, at least for now. It does have a supporting citation, I just modified it to indicate that the quote was mainly talking about availability of ordination. I'm open to other suggestions though. Wesley 03:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What is Criticism?

I feel this question needs to be asked because several commentors don't seem to comprehend that Criticism is not the same thing as an Attack, and can include praise. Clinkophonist 21:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I sure haven't seen a lot of praise on this article (or its relatives)! KHM03 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Clinkophonist, are you suggesting that this article should be balanced by some documented praise of Christianity? In your judgment, would adding such praise make the article more or less NPOV? There seems to be great inherent difficulty in writing any "Criticism of ..." article in NPOV fashion, however you define criticism. Wesley 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you read the article and pay attention to how the word is used, it does appear to be used more as if it meant attack: "sharply criticised", "heavily criticised", "has come under heavy criticism for its..." These phrases are not intended to mean that people are applying careful judgment or interpretation of Christianity; rather, its clear that they have judged Christianity and have reached a negative conclusion regarding it. As the Criticism article notes, this is in fact a common usage of the word in the English language, and not just in this article. Wesley 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

AIDS and fundamentalists

Moved here from the article: Africa has the greatest incidence of AIDS per capita in the world, and the heavy proportion of fundamentalist Christians in Africa, all expounding the abstinance-not-condoms message, is widely viewed as contributing to this.

There are at least three uncited claims in this sentence, two of which I rather doubt. First, the incidence of AIDS per capita in Africa is so high in large part because Africa uses a much broader clinical definition of "AIDS" than is used in North America and many other parts of the world. Any sickness that might be connected with the immune system, or that has symptoms vaguely similar to those experienced by what the US considers AIDS patients, are labeled AIDS cases, at least partly in order to qualify for more international aid. Drug companies also stand to benefit from an overbroad definition.

Second, I strongly doubt that there even exist any statistics on the proportion of fundamentalist Christians in Africa; if there were any reputable stats, I rather doubt they would show that such Christians are in a 'heavy proportion.'

Thirdly, the "widely viewed as contributing to this" is completely without context. Widely viewed by whom? The wikipedian who wrote that paragraph and a dozen of his friends? Wesley 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)