Talk:Christianity and Biblical adherence

NPOV template
The reason I added the tag is that the article doesn't even have a focus. Is there an introductory paragraph to explain what the article's title even means? What is one supposed to make of an article entitled "Christianity and Biblical Adherence"?

It seems as though it is yet another rant against Christians using a supposedly neutral Wikipedia article.

The fact is, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments is one of the key issues if not THE key issue in Christian theology. I have a book in my library outlining five major viewpoints on the relationship of Law and Gospel. (Five Views on Law and Gospel, Bahnsen, etc, Zondervan, 1993.)

If that is what the article is supposed to be about, then by all means, jettison the current article and create one entitled The Relationship of the Old and New Testaments in Christian theology and practice or some such. But the article as it stands is entirely inappropriate as it stands. Giffmex 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe (and could be wrong) that the point of the article is to demonstrate the ways which Christians fail to adhere to the Bible. KHM03 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then it should be redirected to Criticism of Christianity. Giffmex 19:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Assorted problems
I see several problems with the article as it stands now.
 * First, Biblical inerrancy, the belief that everything in the Bible is literally true, is something only believed by Protestants as far as I can tell, and not necessarily even by all Protestants. Given that a majority of Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, and add to them the various forms of Orthodox Christians and Protestants that don't hold to inerrancy, and it becomes clear that this article is addressing something that only a minority of Christians affirm. It's a sizable minority to be sure, but a minority is still less than "Most Christians".
 * Related to the above, Biblical inerrancy is related to the doctrine of sola scriptura, a Protestant distinctive. This is highly relevant. Catholic and Orthodox Christians include the Bible as the most highly authoritative source of Church tradition, but reserve the right to interpret it to the Church, with the bishops acting as primary spokesmen in this regard.
 * Third, while some Biblical practices seem to fall below today's ethical standards, others rise far above them. In practice, Christians generally don't practice genocide or stone people to death, but neither do they typically lend without expecting repayment, turn the other cheek, give a full tithe of their income, or any number of other biblical practices that exceed "modern society"'s standards. If we're going to discuss failure to adhere to what is spelled out, these things should all be addressed.

Since any content in this article must rely on some interpretation(s) of the Bible, it is in serious danger of being POV. If it is to avoid deleting, it therefore needs to be exceptional in citing its sources. Wesley 17:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. And, as a Protestant, let me say that a belief in Biblical inerrancy is in no way representative of Protestantism; only certain sects within Protestantism.  That has been true since the inception of such groups as Anglicanism and Methodism.  So we need to be accurate.  KHM03 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I created this page because there was a need for it to be moved from its former location, with a title with a spelling error. I barely edited the text, which is not very good, and I actually think anything useful might be merged into Biblical inerrancy. --The Famous Movie Director 07:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do it...then redirect. But maybe we should redirect directly to Christianity, rather than the inerrancy article; adherence to the Bible is an issue for all Christians, not only the relative few who believe in inerrancy. KHM03 12:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, KHM03. The article pertains mainly to inerrancy. It criticises inconsistencies in Biblical adherence by Christians who believe in inerrancy, however small that minority might be. If I were a Christian who believed in the Bible as a historical and fallible document, the argument about pigeon sacrifice and so on would not be an issue for me. Then again, the more I read it, the more I think this is AFD material. --The Famous Movie Director 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a Christian who doesn't believe in inerrancy. Most Christians in the world don't believe it.  This article makes the incorrect assumption that inerrancy is somehow normative for Christianity.  The truth is, there are many ways in which non-inerrancy Christians (a majority) do or do not adhere to the Bible.  That's been a problem with how this article was written...it makes incorrect, invalid assumptions.  But the question of "Christianity and Biblical adherence" is a much bigger issue than inerrancy, regardless of how poorly this article is written.  KHM03 13:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)