Talk:Criticism of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal Criticism of Christianity is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

[edit] Dominion

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

[edit] Encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism of Salvation theology

The first block of text under this section seems to have a similar problem as the analysis section did, it says a few things, but never actually criticizes Christianity. It says that "Semetic religions" create the notion of the afterlife and whatnot as an explanation for what happens after death, but then never says why either skeptics, critics, or really anybody else see this as a bad thing. I haven't been very involved with this article, so perhaps this is supposed to relate to the sections below somehow? I don't understand its point. Homestarmy 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing the chaos

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

[edit] billwilliams.org and External links

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

[edit] Biblical Contradictions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biblical1 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Removing "Other Criticisms of Faith of Belief"

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

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

[edit] Contradictions sectrion appears to contain original research

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

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

[edit] Face of God

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

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

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

[edit] Poor Choice of Words

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Europe Europe and more Europe

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

[edit] Criticism of racial or cultural dominance

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

Here is the section which Ecto added that I removed:

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism of Hell section

It appears to be mostly OR, with so many weasel words with "many" and unspoken "who's" attached to "people consider" type things. I mean come on, "Most Skeptics"? Who's doing the criticism exactly? Homestarmy 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An attempt was made to accommodate the points you have raised above but you appear to be still unhappy since you have reinstated the "weasel" words header. If you could be so kind as to point out exactly the specific sentence and words then we can change or discuss the reasons why they should remain. GoldenMeadows 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, although it could of course be better, I suppose now that some skeptics have been named, the party of "skeptics" has now been defined, so i've removed the banner. Homestarmy 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking a World View Perspective

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

[edit] Question

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

[edit] What should be in "Criticism of X" articles

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

[edit] Article Clean Up Header

The article carries a "Clean Up" header along with warning headers tagged to the following sections:

Criticism of Christianity as irrational

Criticism of Christianity as intolerant

Criticism of Christianity as derivative.

If anyone has specific concerns relating to these sections could they please raise them here with a view to resolving the issues, cleaning up the article in the process, and removing the warning headers. If no objections raised within two weeks then the headers, with agreement, will be removed. GoldenMeadows 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with, everything above "This committed belief is sometimes called "faith based on zeal"." in the irrationality section isn't addressing Christianity directly, just theism and religion in general. Homestarmy 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since an article already exists dealing with "Criticism(s) of Religion" in general, I think everything that does not deal specifically with Christianity should be taken out. The intro to the section can mention that Christianity is also subject to criticisms that are common to other religions and lead the reader to that article. GoldenMeadows 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The intolerance section starts off pretty terrible, "Claims that Christianity is the one true religion have led Christians to fight wars to enforce their belief in an "unwilling, heathen world". Critics have also noted the prevalence of warfare in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Linguist and political writer Noam Chomsky has argued that the Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history.". First of all, where's the quote coming from? Second of all, it's more or less just a single claim repeated a bunch. The Old Testament is also definently a humungous stretch to use, as Christianity did not exist at all in the Old Testament, at best, that would belong in Criticism of Judaism or Criticism of the Bible. Then, of course, it doesn't mention that the most notable of wars being fought were more or less limited to the crusades, and doesn't mention any other possible reasons for any of the particular wars.

The thing is, a whole bunch of these sections have these sort of problems, and alot of them just don't seem worth saving here very much. Looking into the rest of this section, there doesn't seem to be any attempt at all to present any point of view beyond the matter-of-fact accusations, and quite frankly, I question their reliability period. For instance, "Christian fundamentalists often use passages in the Bible to criticize homosexuality, and because of the influence of such biblical teachings during the Middle Ages, for centuries, homosexual acts were punishable in Europe by death. Even today, Christian groups, particularly in America, are accused of being at the forefront of homophobia, with extremists such as the Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of murdered homosexuals.". First of all, the first sentence appears to be historically impossible, Christian Fundamentalism arose in the late 19th century or so, so its quite impossible for Christian fundamentalist teachings to of influenced anything at all in the Middle ages. "Are accused of being at the forefront...." has no attribution, and the Westboro Baptist reference fails to mention that whenever some more mainstream Christian group comments on their poor excuse of a church, they are pretty much compleatly denounced. It's not just "extremist", its more like "Not even recognized as Christian by pretty much every halfway notable Christian source from any end of the spectrum". I think the reason nobodies given more specific concerns about many of these sections recently is that, quite frankly, it would be really hard. Not because of some bad-faith effort to just censor criticism or something like that requiring us to wikilawyer like mad, but because there's just so many things wrong it takes quite awhile to examine this stuff in-depth.Homestarmy 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the opening is not very good, especially with lack of source ref. However the assertion that wars have been fought with strong religious undertones, not just the crusades, can be backed with good authoritative refs. The sentence you mention about homophobia will need rewritten to eliminate the possible ambiguity you mention though the point about Christian antipathy in general towards homosexuality in the past is valid as is modern intolerance amongst some Christians who strongly believe in the inerrancy of the bible and what they take as as its explicit hostility towards homosexuality. I would balance this with authoritative Christian refs that denounce unjust discrimination and persecution against homosexuals that are more representative of the modern world. There appears to be undue weight given to the Westboro issue and this needs rectifying. Good refs can be given about the perceived genocidal behaviour shown in the OT. I don't think its wise to ignore these incidents solely because they take place outside the NT and is therefore not uniquely Christian. Mainstream Christianity teaches the trinity and that the God of the NT, Jesus, is one with the God of the OT and to suggest otherwise introduces polytheism. Citations also are generally lacking and this has to be rectified. Will wait for any more comments before embarking on any agreed rewrite. GoldenMeadows 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and an antagonistic relationship with science

"Christianity has sometimes had an antagonistic relationship with science" --> I object to the usage of "Christianity". Some Christians had of course. But what is Christianity? Any Christian upholds a possible interpretation of Christianity. There are a lot of interpretations and none of which are "equal" to Christianity. --Aminz 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some edits to this section but it seriously needs to be reviewed (due weight etc etc issues). Please feel free to move stuff around and summerize quotes. --Aminz 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no criticism of Trinity

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

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

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

[edit] Section header titles

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

[edit] Dead Sea Scrolls

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

[edit] Heresies

I think that there should be a section on Docetism and Arianism since they are very much alive today. Some people believe that Jesus Christ is only God, which is Docetism, and some believe that He is only man, which is Arianism. Also, in the "Example set by Christians" section, it says that behavior of Christians contradicts the belief that it is impossible to worship God and mammon at the same time. According to my beliefs, if you worship anything or anyone other than God, you cannot worship God at the same time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.247.167 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Christianity and Women

Added new section to the article. Was only able to mention a couple of issues though there are many more. Any addition information would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerry1964 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Christians

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

[edit] Poor Sourcing

This article (like many other Criticism Articles) suffers from poor sourcing. The first issue with poor sourcing is the lack of sources. Some of you might argue that a lot of this is commonly held knowledge, well it isn't for me or others, I want to see the sources where these criticisms come from. Second, much of the sourcing is primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). This is a very well studied topic and there are aggregations of criticisms, there is no need for the article to consist of OR with claims like "Most X do this" "Many Y do that" when there are sources which make those claims and can be cited. Any meta-criticism, that is aggregation of criticism, criticism of criticism should be cited to avoid OR in this article. --Quirex 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Additions

I saw this page didn't do a very good job of being neutral or presenting Christian defenses, so I tried to maintain a neutral voice while presenting the alternative side. However, the Afterlife section now clearly contradicts itself unfortunately. I don't however, believe this my fault, since I think the original author had some faulty information. I don't know of many scholars, let alone most, who believe the Old Testament fails to teach a Resurrection. As the section now shows, there are plenty of verses that show directly otherwise. --Jzyehoshua 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but many of your edits are just interpretations of scripture or quotation of scripture with no analysis whatsoever. These criticisms I lay forth are to both Jzyehoshua and Ecto Multiple problems: primary sourcing of the bible, lack of sourcing of defenses, poor quality links in defense and original research. Here are the texts of the revisions:

In Acts 17:11 it should be noted that the Bible specifically calls "noble" those that question what the scriptures say, so long as they do so "with all readiness of mind" to see "whether those things were so."(KJV)[1]

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (I Timothy 2:11-15)

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (I Cor. 11:8-12)

It should also be noted, however, that Jesus showed in John 8:7 that for people to execute such death penalties they must be without sin themselves. And Jesus chose to forgive her, having the prerogative to do so, being without sin Himself. Since Romans ch. 3 states all have sinned before God (Jesus being the obvious sole exception since He is God), none have the right to render such judgements in the sense of condemning or punishing as a judge would do, save God.

The verses above depend upon several assumptions for an interpretation of the Second Coming occurring within 100 years. The assumption needed for Matthew 10:22-23 is that the cities of Israel could have been gone over within a century, even with ideal conditions where Israel's leaders would not persecute Christians (which was not the case).

The assumption with Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 is that those standing there must have died before they could see Christ's coming kingdom. As a reading of the book of Revelation shows, John in his "Revelation" saw Christ's coming, perhaps physically, because God gave him a revelation of the future and things to come, thus making this seeming contradiction null and void.

The assumption needed for Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:29-34 is that "this generation" means what we think in terms of, a time period measuring roughly that of a human's life span. However, the Greek word genea which we have translated generation can mean simply "age, generation, nation, or time" according to Strong's Greek dictionary.[2]

The assumptions required for Matthew 26:62-64 and Mark 16:60-62 are several, namely that Jesus was speaking to those specific leaders rather then the nation as a whole, and that if so the leaders could not see His coming after they had already physically died.

Everything in psychology

Christians believe these select few prophecies are yet left to be fulfilled in the future upon Jesus' return, as evidenced by this list of Messianic Prophecies[3] labeling them as "Future Unfulfilled." Many Jews today have rejected Jesus as their Messiah because of those specific yet-unfulfilled prophecies.

Claims of what skeptics believe - cite it!

Joan of Arc edits - cite it!

Also if you are going to cite something try using the {\{}} templates in WP:CITE.

Related policies to these edits include WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS --Quirex 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Joan of Arc content is just common historical knowledge cited in her article. We need an image for that section, and it's about gender, so Joan of Arc is relevant. The current caption should be agreeable to everyone. It's factually accurate and doesn't imply any POVs. As for the rest of your criticisms directed toward me: Huh?

• Primary sourcing of the bible. I didn't put in ANY Bible quotations with original research commentary AT ALL. NONE. That would be Jerry1964. All the quotations in there were put in by Jerry1964 with his own personal commentary. I think they should be removed altogether unless feminist anti-Christian sources can be found mentioning them.
• Lack of sourcing of defenses. Maybe you should read that section again. Both the attacks (put in completely unsourced by Jerry1964) and the defenses (I put in for the sake of balancing the POVs) lack sources. Why not address Jerry1964's content with this criticism? Isn't it just as unsourced?
• Poor quality links in defense and original research. Why not "no quality links in attack and original research"? The entire section is original research because neither attack nor defense have any sources at all. I'm just on NPOV damage control trying to present both sides in a neutral way until I have some time to find sources for either side. Until then, please get off my back, or at least get on somebody else's too. Ecto 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well no, the Joan of Arc content is not "common knowledge". It should have a reference. It should be sourced! You have no defense, it is up to you the editor to provide backup to your edits! Just because someone who gets away with it doesn't mean you should do it too. If you posted well cited positions it would do more for improving NPOV for the article than anything else. --Quirex 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're actually telling me there's someone out there who hasn't heard about Joan of Arc? Is that a joke? What country are you from?

I've heard of her, but those not from Christian dominated countries such as Asia have not, I even asked a student of mine and she did not know (perhaps they have a different name). --Quirex 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My defense, which I have, is this: Most of your criticism directed toward me has nothing to do with the edits I made, so you can kindly stow that criticism or apologise for addressing it to me. My second defense is that some of your criticism directed toward me is in no way limited to my edits, and I find that questionable. In fact, you seem to be dead set on ignoring the unsourced POV content that I sought to balance with my edits, even after I pointed that content out to you. That is to say, the unsourced POV content of that "someone who got away with it" (thank you for your acknowledgement of that, by the way) is the content my edits go toward balancing, even if my contributions lack sources. So, I have to ask, if your interest is in NPOV, which I hope it is, why ignore those other edits while attacking mine? Why are you not demanding sources for that content while demanding sources for the content that balances it? Now, please talk to Jerry1964 or stop talking to me. You are wasting my time, and that is time that I should be--and have been--spending looking for sources. Thank you. Ecto 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits appeared in the block of edits after my ^{[citation needed]} edits. Your edits were not really any better than Jzyehoshua's edits. Both were generally unsourced or poorly sourced. I'm demanding all content be sourced, and sourced well. There is no excuse in an article such as this one, there are huge bodies of work both for and against Christianity. Instead of wielding POV as your weapon why not wield proper sourcing. Require the editors to source their work. An example of how the bible can't be used. From WP:V, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I challenged the Joan of Arc paragraph, it should be attributed, especially the "political" remark. You can challenge things too. --Quirex 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I challenge your ability to read. Once again: I HAVE NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE IN THIS SECTION INTRODUCED A QUOTATION FROM THE BIBLE. I can write that again in case you didn't catch it that time either.

The Joan of Arc material will be sourced in a few minutes. Could I please use a grade eight public high school history textbook as a citation for this arcane jem of obscure knowledge? Or would that be too much?

Well, could just leave the information that agrees with my POV unsourced and then only challenge the material that disagrees with my POV as unsourced, but that would make me a flaming hypocrite, now wouldn't it? Ecto 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was showing you how to combat direct bible quotations as an excuse for sourcing. I also enjoy your Western-centric attitude it is refreshing. I'm just asking that editors support their edits with actual evidence. There is really no excuse given the huge body of literature on the topic. --Quirex 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to work on your sarcasm skills ("Western-centric" is the weakest "zing" I've ever laughed off). Ecto 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ecto, perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I had to fix your citation, not only because it was a random link but because it also left random ]] characters on the page. --Quirex 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh heavens, not a typo! P.S. Full citations aren't mandatory so get off it. Ecto 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sex" more accurate than "Gender"

I have no especial comment to make regarding the use of citations (beyond that Wikipedia policy quite clearly bans original research and requires attribution) -- my main concern is with the use of the word "gender" in the context in which the article uses it. "Gender" refers to sociological or psychological traits, whereas "sex" refers to the simple delineation between the state of being male and the state of being female. Since the article is referring to the latter topic in its Gender subsection, the uses of the word "gender" ought really to be substituted with "sex". --Jacj 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is about criticism of the social gender roles proscribed by Christianity, not Christianity's views of sex. The title should remain Gender. Ecto 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the title "Christianity and women" was the best title so far. Both "sex" and "gender" are too vague and have subtly different meanings that may or may not be applicable here. "Gender roles" might be a more fitting title, although the content of that focuses more on women.-Andrew c 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think gender roles would be perfect. Ecto 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler Edits?

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

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

A Christian of his own design? A Christian is supposed to live by Jesus' design, not their own. For starters, Hitler tried to assassinate the Pope, so he certainly was anti-catholic. And here's just a few quotes from the fuhrer about his opinion of Christianity [4], like how he wishes it to die. He was most certainly not a Christian, not in thought, not in deed. Roy Brumback 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, Hitler did criticize Christianity for this and that I do not really see how his own religious beliefs have anything to with this. Hence I think the removal above was perfectly in order [5]. Remember this is criticism of Christianity and not criticism of Christians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Please cite sources when you edit!

There are numerous editors who are repeatedly removing sources and adding unsourced content to this article. Please provide references related to your edits. If it is criticism it means someone has written about it. Otherwise it would be OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See WP:A. --Quirex 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)