Talk:Criticism of Christianity

Can common Christian defences to criticisms be on this page?
If they are not allowed, where should they go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfuls of Tweed (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As long as they're respectful, well-thought and truly show God's nature then why not? You should tho, think twice before commenting, so that you don't lead people astray. And since Christianity is about love, you should be careful and respond lovingly. It's ok to disagree and have an unshaken opinion, but it's best if done nicely. Remember dear friends, we are all representing something other than ourselves: firstly God, then eachother. 77.247.88.228 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Question on Source - "Slavery in the Bible: Passages from the Christian Scriptures (New Testament)"
I've flagged this source for verification of reliability. It's been added to source the statements:


 * "The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize the institution of slavery. Historically, passages in the Old Testament of the Bible have been used as justification of the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done."

The source is an essay on a web page that gives as it's source a talk delivered by a Rabbi in 1861.


 * "The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.


 * 1. Rabbi M.J. Raphall, "The Bible View of Slavery," delivered in New York City, 1861. Available at: http://www.access.digex.net/~bdboyle/bible.slavery.txt"

I don't doubt that supporters of slavery have appealed to scripture over the centuries, as have opponents of slavery. However, this doesn't strike me as a particularly good source for the historical uses of scripture on this issue. Based on a quick read through it, the essay quotes Rabbi Raphall as saying that the Christian scriptures don't forbid slavery, and then pulls a series of scriptures and gives the author's own analysis how slavery is treated in the New Testament.

If we want to make the point that there was a historical pattern of slave owners appealing to scripture, there's got to be a better source.

It says in the Bible that God frees His people from slavery, through Moses. God created all people, everyone and everything. God is against slavery. He loves all people, and if not He wouldn't have made us, nor would He die for us. We were all created in His image. God doesn't hate us, only our sins. we are all sinful, which is why Jesus died for all of us. In fact, most of the points mentioned were valid, but if christians have done wrong hate the sins, not the people, and certainly not God and His Word, for they are right, just, good, holy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.247.88.228 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Christianity Polytheistic? Controversial Introduction Text
Someone added the term ‘polytheism’ along with other intellectual arguments against Christianity; which now reads: “... The Intellectual arguments against Christianity include the suppositions that it is a faith of violence, corruption, superstition, polytheism, bigotry, and sectarianism.” Not only it is exceedingly Offensive to polytheism and we polytheists, but it also lacks citations: what are the evidences that Christianity is polytheistic? Who, which ‘intellectual’ in particular argued it? Please immediately delete it as it suggests serious interference from Christians targeting Polytheists. And why should the page be unreasonably protected anyways? Please unlock it. Polytheist01 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Polytheism is a typical criticism of Christianity levelled by Muslims. It's mentioned briefly (with citation) in the article body.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. But is an accusation from the muslims, and perhaps the muslims alone, critical enough to be stressed in the first paragraph? If you ask any Buddhist, Taoist, or Shintoist, hardly anyone of them would agree to acknowledge Christianity as polytheistic. And Again, it really is very, Very offensive to put polytheism and commonly negatively perceived vocabularies in the same line. Try Put yourself in other's shoes for one second; how would a monotheist reader feel, when reading e.g. Criticism on Buddhism to encounter in the introduction: The intellectual arguments against Buddhism include the suppositions that it is faith of violence, ignorance, monotheism, bigotry, hypocrisy, nationalism and sectarianism? Please at least be more neutral and considerate with wording. Polytheist01 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The polytheism (Shirk (Islam)) criticism is longstanding and significant, and amounts to an accusation from one monotheist religion that another monotheist religion is doing it wrong. Your claim of offensiveness is misplaced.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then use Shirk (Islam). Both to be more precise with your accusation- what exactly do you mean by 'polytheism', and to compensate for the complete lack of a Trinity section. Polytheist01 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you think you're addressing. I'm not a significant contributor to this article. I added a link to shirk as well as to Christianity and Islam. If you have something to contribute regarding the trinity, that's great, but Trinitarianism is actually a core belief of a large majority of Christians, so just sticking the word in the lede is meaningless.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Apart from the trinity, there is criticism of Christianity for being polytheistic, rather than monotheistic as it claims to be, because of the tradition in some Christian denominations (including the largest one) of praying to saints and asking them to intercede in earthly matters. I'm not inclined to work on this article myself, but maybe someone could find the sources to confirm this and include it in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Of course. saints and local saints attributed with traits normally associated with earlier Ethnic Gods and Goddesses when they heavily sanctioned what they call 'pagan' - the Indigenous and Classical religions. Personally could not care less about the trinity but a (sub-)section on Criticism from e.g. The Stoics such as Emperor Marcus Aurelius should be written as they are amongst the most skeptical towards the christians, referring to them as the 'dramatic ones'. Polytheist01 (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No dears, it is not! The concept of the trinity is really complex, and not really mentioned as much, but: The Father (Jehovah) is God, The Son (Jesus) is God and The Holy Spirit is also God, the Father is not the Son nor The Holy Spirit and so on. Although they are 3 distinct beings, they are One. I know it's hard and confusing, but God has said that we aren't meant to know everything, because only God is all-knowing, and God doesn't need to operate in human ways. For His ways are Higher then ours. He only revealed what we need to know. Hope that helped! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.247.88.228 (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "I know it's hard and confusing" It is neither hard, nor confusing. It is the old pagan concept of the triple deity: "a deity with three apparent forms that function as a singular whole. Such deities may sometimes be referred to as threefold, tripled, triplicate, tripartite, triune, triadic, or as a trinity. The number three has a long history of mythical associations and triple deities are common throughout world mythology. Carl Jung considered the arrangement of deities into triplets an archetype in the history of religion." Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 🙄 —DIYeditor (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge from Chop-church
I recently WP:PRODed Chop-church as non-notable dictdef, that was declined. I added some sources but I am still not seeing any SIGCOV, and as a name for a corrupt church official I think it would be best to merge this here, where we can mention this as a synonym for a corrupt priest (in Early Modern UK or whatever?). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've not seen mention of corruption in the coverage of the chop-church topic. It seems to have been more a pragmatic isssue like a mutual exchange. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing with no merge, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)