Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 4

Atheists are not the cause of 100 million deaths
I removed the information and reference from a Dinesh D'Souza article about his belief that Hitler and Stalin were atheists and they caused more deaths than religion. Has anyone ever read any of this guy's stuff? He's a complete joke, and has even been ridiculed for his ability to use misinformation.

Besides that - Hitler was Christian. Stalin was a Roman Catholic. If you want sources, wikipedia their pages and follow the links. 69.29.8.127 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Nathan
 * Hitler became extremely anti-Christian, but he wasn't an atheist. Stalin & Mao may have been though, and their regimes certainly caused 100-150 million deaths between them. rossnixon 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hitler's acts were done in the name of Christianity. If you're going to bring up every atheist who ever caused a death, why not bring up all the deaths caused by Christianity? Like witch hunts? And the Inquisition? And the Crusades? And the murder of Indians? And more...?--76.20.28.156 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, one big reason why Stalin was persecuting the religious people was because the theory of communism didn't really like religion. Hell, if the theory of communism said how everybody should be Christian, I guess Stalin would say that everybody had to be Christian and persecute those who weren't Christian. Deavenger (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stalin didn't even begin to touch upon Communism. The USSR was not a classless society, it was haves and have nots (ruling and working class) and the state/ruling class owned everything while the working class owned nothing and was forced to work. That is the opposite of Communism. Don't even begin to bring Communism into this. --76.20.28.156 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Stalin didn't touch upon true communism. However, they took certain principles. Karl Marx said that religion was basically a plague on mankind. The fake communists then started practicing Atheism in China and USSR and prosecuting religious people. But chances are, if Karl Marx said he loved religion, the fake communists would start prosecuting atheist people. Deavenger (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

>Hitler's acts were done in the name of Christianity Not true. Hitler's persecution of Jews was not based on religion, but on ethnicity. Non practicing Jews were persecuted as much as practicing Jews, and Hitler persecuted the clergy in Poland. Hitler was not an atheist, but he practiced a strange mix of his own version of Christianity (in which Jesus was an Aryan who came to defeat the Jews, which is certainly not a general Christian belief), German paganism, and Hinduism. Stalin's religious beliefs are also debatable, but he is still generally believed to be an atheist. Mao was definitely an Atheist. Also, while New World colonialism was sanctioned by the Catholic Church, specifically the killing of the indigenous people was not, and if you are referring to American Indians, that had little if anything to do with Christianity. Either way, Communism killed far more people in the 20th century than Christianity, or for that matter, any ideology, and since atheism was a major part of nearly all Communist regimes, Atheism has killed more people than Christianity in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.57.137 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. were done in the name of Christianity, whereas the abuses of Stalin were not done in the name of atheism, but by somebody who happened to be an atheist. Hitler also happened to be a vegetarian, but nobody suggests that it is in any way related to the Holocaust.80.235.56.123 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can never do anything in the name of Atheism, because atheism in the words of atheists is a negation; its a refutation, not an assertion, so how can one do anything in the name of a negation?  Gabr-  el  00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not in the name of atheism, but in the name of anti-Christianity. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to clean up this talk page
This talk page is unworkably large and contains many personal comments about the subject matter, rather than the article itself.

In any event, some of these comments are years old. I propose we archive what's not necessary so we can concentrate on legitimate outstanding issues. Any objections? Nonplus (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BE BOLD! You should always feel comfortable about archiving discussion pages. When very active keep the last two weeks; when less active keep the past month. We can't lose anything and it is easily returned should an editor feel like a specific point was not satisfactorily brought to conclusion. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement Storm Rider. :) I guess I'll go ahead and if anyone has issues we can discuss. Nonplus (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

This may just be because I'm used to reading the NIV translation of Romans 8:24 and not the KJV, but instead of the idea that "mere hope to Paul is an unacceptable sign of uncertainty," I think this verse may actually be saying that it doesn't make sense to hope for something that one already has. The NIV phrases it thus: (and I know the NIV is copywritten but it explicitly makes exceptions for brief quotations on the copyright page) "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?" Therefore, I think it may be possible that St. Paul is not condemning hope as being a sign of a weak faith, but rather he is encouraging hope as something that is the logical option when the promise of Heaven has not yet been fulfilled. In other words, if someone were already in Heaven, it wouldn't make any sense to hope to go to Heaven, but because the reader is not yet there, he or she is encouraged to maintain his/her hope in eternal life. I don't what the neutral point of view would be here, but I'm just trying to point out that there are certainly multiple interpretations of this verse, just as their are of most if not all Bible verses. WilliamJenkins09 07:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Regarding Chomsky's quote (too bad it has been removed), here is the reference:

. Sfoucher (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * "Some Christians" really isn't sufficient. If "Christianity" is too sweeping, what about "the Christian church"? "Christian religious authorities"? Just a random suggestion. Nonplus (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

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).

I remember hearing that the acts of Paul & Thecla were excluded from the bible by a priest because Thecla was not acting "womanly" (i.e. refusing to marry, baptizing herself, and teaching christianity) but I have no source for this other than the History Channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Angelove (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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 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 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 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)

"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)
 * I mean no particular trouble, but you're referring to an artificial construct in the word "gender." Its semiotic value overlaps with "sex" on physiological grounds also. The distinction made here is a late adaptation of the English language that is only accepted in closed academic circles for the purposes of particularizing jargon. It's definite value remains the same, and citation for the etymological and current static value of the words are noted in primary dictionaries throughout both the United States and Britain. Flashfire 10:50, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.252.114.77 (talk)

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)

Citation of sources in this article
Some christian-loving maniac has seriously set about trying to destroy this article by adding 'citation needed' to every damn sentence in it. A lot of the ideas presented here are about beliefs and logical concepts, not things that have to be proved by research. For example, there are various points in the article that start 'according to critics...', and ask for a reference of those critics - this article IS the critic-it doesn't need any citation!!! 80.229.151.52 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with policy? You most definitely need citations for those sorts of statements, or else it may be 'original research'- which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All these critical assertions should cite verifiable secondary sources, or they are possibly nothing more than the musings of a random Wikipedia editor. Additionally, I'm not sure who this editor is, but what makes you assume he is a Christian loving maniac? If it is because of the addition of these fact tags, than maybe you should stop and take a look at Wikipedia's policies. --C.Logan 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully appreciate what you are saying, but I can't help feeling that the inclusion of so many 'citation needed' is a deliberate attempt to discredit this article - I have rarely if ever seen a page with so many, so frequently. If these were included through a genuine want for factual accuracy, then I think the level of thoroughness here is great and would like to see it applied to many more articles. However, I still have my reservations as to the motives, especially regarding this article's content.Sidthesloth 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if this is a deliberate attempt, it's opened the door to something that should be undertaken. I'm not here to comment about the state of the article, I was just responding to a comment which didn't display knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Whether the act was intended to discredit the article or not, citations should be added wherever possible.--C.Logan 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moses and Sargon?
This article seems riddled with mad theories and criticisms that suppose the events of the bible are true. Where are the real arguments against christianity? Is this page being run by angsty teens? Any philologist worth his salt can show you that the Bible is largely borrowed from previous religions and myths, and subsequently that those religions and myths are largely borrowed from those before them. Let me get you started: Read about the birth of King Sargon in Babylonian myth, and then read about the birth of Moses. Once you've done that, check out Oedipous and Judas. And so on. Rinse, repeat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.39.220 (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Feel free to contribute, snuggles. Just make sure you cite some reliable sources, as your personal theories have little value here. --C.Logan 05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't there anything about rational or atheist criticism
The majority of the criticism of Christianity that I read about is from Atheists, who dislike it on rational grounds. Why is there nothing in the article about this? Previously the section about Alistair McGrath etc. was longer than the part about Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins' criticisms (which covers one line or so). NPOV! 59.167.135.148 10:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection was an over-reaction
So... two different editors revert an anon editor, removing obvious OR. The anon editor then complains to an administrator. IMHO the administrator was wrong to protect the page. S/he should have just ignored the complaint (or explained why the reverts were justified). Peter Ballard 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the anon did not complain to an administrator (at least, his page emphasizes several times that he is not and administrator. I have pointed out that the anon's presentation of the events were rather unfair, and I've explained the reasons behind the reversions, which were all in line with policy and therefore were justified. As far as I was told, the editor whose advice had been requested agrees with my presentation of things. I believe the block was placed so that any edit-warring spirit can cool down.--C.Logan 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

slavery
This line seems incorrect to me: "A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization in 1873, and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. "  Slavery was ended in England far earlier (America too). How could the first abolition group form after slavery was over. See the "Slavery Abolition Act" entry to see that slavery ended in Britian in 1833.Bryandford (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the year altogether. If I was less lazy I'd find what the correct year was. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity often claims credit for the abolition of slavery but very little is said of how it underpinned slavery. Africans & others were enslaved largely not on grounds of race but religion. This is why slave-trading was abolished first - because it could lead to Christians being owned by non-Christians. Slaves were branded with the initials of the Methodist Missionary Society and the Bishop of Exeter received thousands of punds in compensation when slavery was abolished in the british Empire. I will work on sources to add to the article.--Streona (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

reverts
The page should be changed back to what it was containing the material about the inquisition and the bible passages. Two editors continually deleted this material with the contention it was against wikipedia rules, but they didnt' demonstrate this so the changes could be made, they just reverted it.

Biblical1 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I only restored the original content once. I don't normally patrol this page actively, but when I see blatant OR coupled with massive, undiscussed alterations suddenly happen to an article on my watchlist, I'll most likely do something. Considering that the alterations started by proclaiming that critics criticize the "contradictions in the Bible", with the presumption that contradictions definently exist, I really don't see how it isn't blatantly obvious that such content isn't neutral and never will be. Plus, a whole bunch of content was changed at once, is it too much to assume that someone should, I don't know, discuss with editors what they want to radically re-write before they radically re-write? Homestarmy 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bible passages had no secondary sources, so were as good as uncited (see WP:PSTS. It also appeared to be WP:Original Research (i.e., who says they are an appropriate list of passages to include). Besides that, it was in the wrong place, it belongs in Internal consistency of the Bible. The reverts were justified. Peter Ballard 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

lay out
Hey everyone, its Biblical1. The page just incorporated material that existed prior but was cluttered. We need to reduce the clutter in some of the other sections and make the layout look nice. All comments are welcome. Help us out. Biblical1 (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, what prior material? Where exactly did you get it from? Much of it was deleted for good reason. I propose undoing your change, because for the last 4 days people have been trying to fix the mess. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since these changes have been proven time and again to be controversial, why not instead of making one big change, instead make individual proposals here on talk. This way, we can see if there is a consensus to include any of this. I've already removed the biblical contradiction quotes, because that was already discussed before, and there hasn't been a new consensus yet to support inclusion. I'd support reverting the major edit, and I'd support discussing the merits of each issue here on talk. (but personally, I think I agree with Peter that much of it was deleted for good reason).-Andrew c [talk] 03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew C - There doesn't need to be a consensus over the material posted, it only has to be neutral, original research, and be attributed to some authors views. The Bible scripture passages are all referenced with 100s of manhours behind them. Just because some Christians find it controversial to their faith doesn't mean it's against Wikipedia.

Peter - The material needs to be reassessed. I've worked hard on lots of it, please realize that all of it is accurate according to the rules required by Wikipedia according to content. This page is dedicated to all criticism of Christianity, whether it's good or bad criticism doesn't matter.

-Biblical1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblical1 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're trying to make a good quality article here. You dumped material in (from I don't know where), making the article a mess, with repetitive sections. A better way to go is incremental editing, a bit at a time. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. If you've worked 100s of hours on it, create your own web page and put it there. This article is a collaborative effort. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree- incremental changes are preferable. Also, I assume you mean "no" original research. And by the way, there seems to be some confusion over what "NPOV" means. Deleting non-critical books from the Further reading section is not NPOV, and it hurts the article. Deleting opinions to those "sympathetic to Christianity" is ridiculous and is a violation of NPOV again, unless one is willing to delete those who are opposed to Christianity as well; every one has a particular bias, and NPOV is meant to include opinions from all throughout the studies of the subject, not to eliminate sympathetic opinions. That sort of thinking is very troubling. This article, to adhere to WP:NPOV, should include opinions of those who are against Christianity, for Christianity, and who sit somewhere in the middle.--C.Logan (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Logan. The Science and Christiantiy section with information included by a book from Ted Peters violates the Verifiability rule, because it does not qualify as a "reliable source". To be a reliable source it must either have been approved by the scientific community or scientific journals. Ted Peters is a Christian Apologist and a philosopher who is publishing from a disputable publisher. Here are the rules for reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Also, the debate centering around the antagonistic relationship between Science and Christianity is a fact not up for dispute. Galileo, Copernicus, and Giordano Bruno are three pertinent examples of the Pope's reluctance to accept evidence from the discoveries of the scientific community because they didn't accord with literal translations of the Bible. This area needs to be altered to to take into account these facts.

Also the language must be changed. "Ted Peters points out" is what was currently in there. It must be changed to "Ted Peters claims", the words "points out" is in violation of the fact that the claim is up for dispute. Also your Christian works violate the neutral point of view policy because they are sympathetic in nature. See here: "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Logan, I know your familiar with Wikipedia rules but it seems as if you're stretching them so you can add and erase material in order to present a favorable page for your Christian beliefs. This again, is in violation of Wikipedia rules. - Biblical1

C Logan and Peter
We can include your Christian views without you deleting critical information. You have to be careful that it is not 1) Sympathetic towards Christianity and Biased 2) That it's published research and not disputed by the Scientific community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset is a good place to start. I welcome you to add your disputed claims about science and christianity under the Christianity webpage - please refrain from violating wikipedia rules and seeing it as your mission to delete content against your Christian Beliefs. This is unacceptable and quite frusterating. Biblical1 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've already noted, point 1 is a misunderstanding of policy. As for 2, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It includes disputed views as well as generally-accepted ones. The point of WP:NPOV is so that all such notable views are included when discussing a subject. As important as scientific study is in the modern world, it is important to note that Wikipedia does not make any claim to the truthfulness of any particular view; it simply reports the scope of views on the subject. As such, the claims of the "scientific community" are about as valid as the claims of any Pope or Patriarch, or theologian, and so on. The relevance of a source or scholar to the topic must be addressed, but the removal of information because the sources are "sympathetic to Christianity" is a violation of NPOV, as I have explained below.


 * Additionally, I will ask again that you assume good faith in respect to editors such as Peter and myself. It's easy to blame any dispute on the involvement of perceived bias, when in reality we're going out of our way to explain the actual, valid problems we have with your edits. Additionally, try not to call the kettle black, as I am aware of your own POV from your posts on my talk page; as it is, I am not accusing you of making edits based on your POV, though the changes coincide enough that I could. The policy of assuming good faith means that I'll assume that you are misreading policy rather than deliberately violating it to push a particular POV.


 * Finally, the deletion of the added material is in accordance with Peter's request that you add information incrementally. Make individual changes, because overhauling the entire article in a single edit is bad manners; it makes it extremely difficult for observing editors to note your changes, and it makes the reversion/lookup of bad revisions essentially impossible. Additionally, one would ideally give an edit summary with each change, so as to provide reasoning behind each action. I ask again that you make changes in this manner, because it's the proper way to do things, and makes it easier for all of us to share our opinions concerning the direction of the article.--C.Logan (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the NPOV to save you from looking it up. "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject " The page must be devoted to the subject - criticism of christianity -, not information sympathetic to christianity and defending it. Biblical1 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See Neutral_point_of_view. Quote: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article". Therefore this page must present both sides of arguments. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not embarrass yourself by misreading policy further. That is in regard to article presentation, and not the individual views or sources expressed therein. By your broken logic, almost every single bit of information in this article must be deleted- note "nor in opposition to". If this is how you read the policy, then it seems that we should say bye-bye to Bertrand Russell and the like.


 * Of course, we don't have to, because your reading of policy is incorrect. You confuse a statement in policy which refers to the written text put together by editors with the actual statements of the views and sources themselves. If you'd like to re-write WP:NPOV to suit your interpretation, I welcome you to try, but it should be clear to any experienced editor that you are not aware of what the policy is actually saying.


 * Note to Peter: unfortunately, his confusion is not only concerning POV forks, which would be a reasonable one. It seems that he misunderstands the core policy as well.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually my main criticism is not the POV material (that is easy enough to fix, at least in pricicple), but the wholesale dumping of material. Some of it duplicated existing sections. If Biblical1 retreived this from an earlier version of this article (which appears to be the case), then this is definitely against the spirit of WP, if not the actual rules. It is in effect overwriting many months or years of collaborative improving of the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of his removal of material which ran counter to his own point of view, while citing WP:NPOV as his reasoning.--C.Logan (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's best I suppose to add information as I go along. However, the stipulation to this "discussion" agreement is the Science section devoted to the disputed claims of "one Ted Peters" be condensed. I will let you present his views, though they aren't true, though I wish they were, it would make life a hell of a lot easier! The overwhelming images used to support his disputed claims areridiculous. I realize most people see that section and disregard it because they realize a sympathetic person wrote it, they know that person hasn't read many books other htan Christian ones, but it is still quite annoying. Also Logan, it's very obvious you're not the type of person who goes out of his way to learn about things which stimulate your own curioisity. I've noticed you continually put the same material in the article, even after other sources have contradicted it (you even have the oppurtunity to read further and advance your knowledge), yet you delete the new material and stick with past edits because they limit the doubts that rise upon your beliefs.


 * Peter, I will add incrementally. If anything is disputed, do so in the discussion. Also delusions about "not being neutral" is insulting. My only concern above all else is the truth, if it so happens that all criticism of christianity is rubbish, so be it, but if it happens that much of the criticism is valid and much of the ignorant masses are unaware of this, the material must stand, whether it causes you to question your beliefs or not. I must admit, I've never crossd two more "contentious" people in my life. I wish you devoted your rigid behaviors into finding out how things are, rather than continually presenting your case without even stopping for a second to ask "Is what I believe true? What is the evidence against my beliefs? Shouldn't I search it out and read everything I can? Wouldn't that make me a smarter and better Christian? Think of all the power I can amass"?.


 * I don't have time to deal with you two now, but rest assured, the truth will be thrown in your faces. I can't make you accept it, but ignorance will always be your own ill doing. Have a nice sunday night. I wish you both emotional well-being even though I despise your beliefs and ways of understanding the world. Your Friend, Biblical1. 74.128.175.136 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, don't make any assumptions about me, because you have a habit of making assumptions about me which are insulting. I haven't "added" anything, by the way, but I've only reverted your changes which I would say are misguided and unsupported by policy. Your removal of "Christian sympathetic" viewpoints is a violation of WP:NPOV, as is your removal of books under further reading for similar reasons. As far as everything else is concerned, I support Peter's request for incremental edits, and I'm glad that you're willing to accomodate this request.


 * What troubles me, though, is your blatant lack of concern for NPOV. Please read your above comment to yourself, and imagine how clear it is to everyone else that you feel that your own beliefs take center stage. Wikipedia does not make any claims for truth; it intends to report all notable views on the topic (assuming the sources comply with policy). I have the nagging fear that you're displaying article ownership and disregard for policy by removing or discounting views with which you disagree. Your last paragraph above is of an unacceptable tone. Please exhibit neutrality and a concern to work with others on the issue, and most importantly, to listen to users who are more experienced with Wikipedia.--C.Logan (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Biblical1: stop making assumptions about me. How do you know I am rigid or never read views opposing my beliefs? My concern is for a balanced and readable article. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Compatability with Science
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggests this view but these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex, according to Lindberg.[11]Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[12]Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority."[13] Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 14th century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).During the nineteenth century developed what scholars today call the conflict thesis (or the warfare model, or the Draper-White thesis). According to it, any interaction between religion and science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas. A popular example was the supposition that people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was round.

This notion of a war between science and religion (especially Christianity) remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[14] Similar views have also been supported by many scientists. The astronomer Carl Sagan, for example, mentions the dispute between the astronomical systems of Ptolemy (who thought that the sun and planets revolved around the earth) and Copernicus (who thought the earth and planets revolved around the sun). He states in his A personal Voyage that Ptolemy's belief was "supported by the church through the Dark Ages...[It] effectively prevented the advance of astronomy for 1,500 years."[15]Sagan rebukes claims that religion and science did not have an antagonizing relationship in the Medieval era by explaining the axioms of Copernicus' discovery:

This Copernican model worked at least as well as Ptolemy's crystal spheres, but it annoyed an awful lot of people. The Catholic Church later put Copernicus' work on its list of forbidden books, and Martin Luther described Copernicus in these words... People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strives to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun or the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

– Martin Luther, Tischreden, ed Walsch XXII, 2260

'''Ted Peters, however, points out that the above remark didn't come from Luther's authored writings but rather from students who were taking notes. Ted states that Luther had only heard tales of Copernicus' new idea and didn't really have any serious engagements on this issue.''' Regarding Copernicus' thought, he is said to "have quipped that this would be comparable to somebody riding on a cart or in a ship and imagining that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving." Peters concludes that "spoken in jest, such items ought not to be interpreted as indicating any general opposition to science."[16]

The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture, but the same is not true among today's academics on the topic.[17]Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research[18]

Moreover, many scientists through out history held strong Christian beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design, yet his religious views are generally considered heretical. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science as we know it who adhered to Christian beliefs included Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[19][20]

Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.[21]Historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[22]Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[23]Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[24]and Ted Davis also have been revising the common notion — the product of black legends say some — that medieval Christianity has had a negative influence in the development of civilization. These historians believe that not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[25]Also, some today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have suggested that Christianity with its particular worldview was actually a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science. -

editprotected


 * Everything I highlighted in Bold is missing credible evidence. I'm a neuroscientist. My domain is science. The reason people believe Science and Religion did not mix was because up until 400 years ago, the Earth was viewed as the Center of the Universe because of the literal translation of the book of Joshua where God commanded the Earth to stand still. Martin Luther rejected Copernicus' theory of that the Earth revolves around the sun on the very grounds of the book of Joshua. All of the above information highlighted is not true, and coincedentially, all of it is written by philosophers (historians of science are philosophers, i dont know if u know this) who are apologist Christians - the very goal of their works is to reconcile Christian faith with evidence that is uncomforting. None of these beliefs in Bold is true.
 * On another note, Issac Newton rejected Christianity outright, he did not believe in Jesus and thought people who did were ignorant. He thought Jesus was just another man. It's laughable that someone added him in here!

Biblical1 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Biblical1, as far as I can see you are removing scholarly sources from the article (e.g. Science and Religion article from Encyclopedia of Religion). Please review wikipedia policies like WP:RS, etc --Aminz (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It could well be that some of the material should be removed, or edited for balance, or refuted with counter arguments - that would require a more thorough examination than I have the time for. But you can't just go deleting material because its authors are sympathetic to Christianity. There is significant writing and study on both sides, so both sides of the argument need to be put. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Declined. There is currently no consensus for this edit request. Sandstein (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This user appears to have a habit of POV pushing, and either he is unaware or does not care that he is running against policy with his stated reasons. Most importantly, one of the most essential statements of WP:V, "The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", seems to be unknown to him, as his accusation that none of the bolded text is "true" makes clear.--C.Logan (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be unblocked, and if Biblical1 removes the sourced material again (instead of balancing them out with other sources if he thinks they are biased), he should be reported to wiki admins and in case he continues I'd say he should be blocked. --Aminz (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Biblical1 has expressed a willingness to do changes incrementally, and is using this discussion page rather than trying to override consensus. So I see no need to block him/her at this stage. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading title?
I was expecting something far more critical, after reading the first sections, I've "learned" that Christianity loves and nurtured Science and is in fact great for women! some sections are in fact counter-criticisms directed toward skeptics and the anti-christian viewpoint! this article is lacking NPOV. Sfoucher (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be NPOV, the article needs to present all sides of the argument. See Neutral point of view. If you want to read an article which argues only in one direction, then Wikipedia is not the place. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * fair enough, but the article title suggests otherwise, "Debunking Criticisms of Christianity" would be a more appropriate title. Sfoucher (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's far more text dedicated to countering the criticisms than to describing them. Look at the Slavery section, for example. It doesn't even bother with the criticism! It just jumps straight to the apologetics. Ilkali (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sfoucher's point about the title is dead on target here. It's rather Orwellian. The most significant social (as opposed to theologically-oriented) criticisms are missing or are relegated to sub-articles. Some sections don't feature any criticism at all. (Just compare this to Criticism of Islam, for example!) Some specific comments:
 * Eurocentrism The section begins "Christians have answered the charge of Eurocentrism by ..." and then continues to debunk these charges of eurocentrism for the entire section.  The actual criticism is never even articulated! It should read something like "Some critics of Christianity argue it is eurocentric in that ..." and then go on to summarize this line of argument and its most notable proponents for most of the section. Finally, it should provide a concise summary of the major responses to this line of criticism.
 * Slavery does just the same thing. Roughly all of it is a rebuttal to arguments about Christianity and slavery - arguments which are never even specified.
 * Christianity and women is a bit better in that it actually contains a few of the criticisms in question, but it is still largely a rebuttal of the criticisms, instead of an encyclopedic summary of them.
 * Origins doesn't seem to contain criticisms of Christianity. What is the criticism being made?  It seems to be surrounding the question of whether Jesus is a real historical figure.  This is pertinent to some degree if we can identify people who have criticized Christianity on the basis of historical innacuracy.  The subsection could then perhaps be renamed Historical accuracy or something.
 * I don't think it makes sense to have Christians as a subsection of an article on criticisms of Christianity. Of course people are going to disagree about whether or not the Spanish Inquisition or the clerical sexual abuse scandals, or what have you, are the fault of just a few particular Christians or Christianity itself.  So you can't decide from the outset that you're going to divide the article into bad things that some Christians have done and bad things intrinsic to Christianity.  It's an impossible situation.  The criticisms in this section should be moved to other sections based on their topic.  E.g. Persecution of non-Christians, Persecution of gays and lesbians, or what have you.
 * Compatibility with science is a bit of a loaded heading. The idea that Christianity is inherintly incompatible with science is only one of many criticisms relating the two things.  More commonly people argue that the church has persecuted scientists, hindered the growth of science, or the scientific worldview.  Presumably this section would include historical stuff as contemporary stuff like creatonism vs. evolution, stem-cell research, etc.
 * Random point: It seems like there's a large-scale distinction between theological, historical, and sociopolitical criticisms of Christianity.  It's a little confusing to have them all mixed together. Maybe these should be top-level headings? Just a thought. I have other comments but I'll stop there. Nonplus (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with your points. Like many articles on issues with sharply divided opinions, it has suffered from bits-and-pieces editing, often by overzealous editors - e.g. editors who apparently chopped out the entire argument one way before putting in their rebuttal. Other sections, and their organisation, seems rather ad hoc. To get it into shape, the only solution I see is lots of hard work. I think the first step is organising the article properly, and your suggestion under "random point" might be useful. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article needs a NPOV. Of the very few criticisms listed, all were poorly represented.  The rebuttals to them occupy 90 % of the argument, and rely heavily on weasel words and on logical fallacies.  This "article" is a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.142.60 (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also having trouble seeing where the criticisms are in the article. I realize that to conform with WP:NPOV, the article should provide rebuttals, but now entire paragraphs are devoted to apologetics without even attempting to rebut a specific criticism. I suggest that in order to conform to NPOV, apologetics which do not attach to a specific criticism should be removed. Furthermore, criticisms also need to be precise and sourced. I will hopefully post more details here in the next few days. silly rabbit (  talk  ) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't agree more, this article is a joke - with more representation of the appologetics BS than the actual criticism. It is way less developed tham Criticism of Islam. Also where are the sections dealing with extremistist using Christianity as an excuse for their actions like the KKK and various other US based evangelical militancy groups - like with Al Qaeda in Islam? I'm also hoping to start such a section and work on improving this article. I'm not a pro on wiki, and not sure how to go about doing that, so I' really appreciate any help or advice. Please PM me if your free to help. Thanks. :) Pink Princess (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandals
Why is there no mention of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases? I would fix it myself but I am currently involved with other projects right now... just thought I'd mention it. Seems like a glaring omission. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume sexual abuse would be mentioned if it was specified as being a Christian thing. But it is not. It belongs in individual denominations articles - Catholicism, Mormonism or wherever it occurs more frequently than in the general population. rossnixon 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, catholics were christian. Also, there is no Criticism of Catholicism page... I assume this page covers criticisms of every denomination of christianity. Therefore it belongs here. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church and link near bottom to Catholic Sexual Abuse Cases. rossnixon 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Touché! I looked for that page, couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Suggestion withdrawn! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems
I would expect an article on the criticism of christianity to not be so anti-criticisms of christianity. This seems like a christian got a hold of everything and made every criticism piece into a whiny kid trying to weasel his way out of a punishment. Half of the article was about apologetic christians! This definitely has a bias and a definite POV about how every criticism of Christianity is wrong. I wouldn't hate a little section on counter criticism but this is pathetic. And I doubt the truthfulness of the counter criticisms anyways- just because one person nobody has ever heard of before says Christians LOVED science in the middle ages, that makes it true? Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith and his magic mormon stones. And please remove any ideas from Dinesh D'Souza from this article. I have no idea how to properly edit wikipedia but it seems to me this article needs a neutrality update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.222.160 (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that you have no idea how to edit. Best you stay out of this one. Even criticism articles have to be neutral, otherwise it's a POV-fork, which seems to be your goal. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm not sure the anonymous editor raised the issue in quite the best way, there are some definite neutrality issues with the article. Ilkali (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please ignore Pwnage8's discouraging remark. Wikipedia is set up so anyone can edit it. In fact, one of the best ways to get things fixed is to do them yourself. If you need help learning the ropes, feel free to contact me. In the mean time, I have left you a welcome message on your talk page (User talk:72.228.222.160) with some helpful links that you can take the time to read.-Andrew c [talk] 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew c. Obviously you didn't read my edit Pwnage, I didn't say I didn't want the response to criticisms but when an article about specific criticisms barely discusses the criticisms the article and instead seems to be about Christians getting upset because they are being criticized, that seems to be the opposite of the purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.222.160 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We both aren't that stupid. Don't try covering your tracks just because someone was nice to you. Your comment speaks for itself. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need people coming here to push their POVs. There's already enough of them. I only said that it's better for the article if he doesn't edit at this point, given his situation, and was even kind enough to point him to our policies reguarding neutrality. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now it seems you are taking this way too personally. I wasn't out to attack any christians, just the article that clearly is biased against criticisms of Christianity. What is wrong with you? I never claimed I was even going to attempt to edit the article, I was just pointing out that it seemed biased so the experts could do something and after reading up a little many others agreed with me. Explain to me how that is pushing my POV on anyone more than you telling me how annoyed you are with me pushing a POV? I already know the policies regarding neutrality, which is why I wanted to change the article so it mentioned less counter criticism and more information on the criticisms actually are. How can you even try to tell me that's not what I was doing? I'll quote my original comment- " Half of the article was about apologetic christians! This definitely has a bias and a definite POV," "I wouldn't hate a little section on counter criticism," the point I was trying to make was obvious and you, sir, need a definite bit of getting over yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.216.74 (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, apparently you REALLY misunderstand me by telling me I'm in a "situation," I would dislike the article on christianity for every section to be filled with reasons why it's bad as much as I dislike an article on criticisms to be filled with people saying why the criticisms are bad. I'm not trying to integrate myself into the wikipedia editors community, don't worry. I'm just trying to point out what I see that could be improved. And also, if you see no problem I don't think you are fit to edit this article either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.216.74 (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the one that took it personally, not me. Allow me to quote you in case it went over your head : "And I doubt the truthfulness of the counter criticisms anyways- just because one person nobody has ever heard of before says Christians LOVED science in the middle ages, that makes it true? Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith and his magic mormon stones. And please remove any ideas from Dinesh D'Souza from this article." This indicates that you are out to push your POV, not build an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if the article is biased right now, based on that comment you'd like to replace it with another bias. That's not neutral at all. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If my bias is not wanting a Christian bias, then yes, I guess that would be a bias. My god, I wasn't saying I was going to edit it to remove counter criticisms you still fail to understand I was just trying to have someone add more information on the actual criticisms. Judging by your profile though you would hate to see anything that supports criticisms because you have archaic beliefs like anti-gay marriage and *ew* Ron Paul support. Sorry if I offended your Christian views but if you want to keep the article full of how it is with all these debunkings of criticisms instead of actual information on what the article is supposed to be about, go ahead. By the by, Ron Paul is a racist and pro-life is for pansies. Thanks, have a good day, I'm done arguing because like the rest of your fellow believers you have an inability to admit that you were wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.222.160 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't even know what my religion is, because I haven't even said what it is. If you read the Ron Paul wikipedia article, you will find that he is the opposite of what you say he is. And now I know why you're getting all pissed. The vandalism on my userpage that you oh-so kindly left gives me an insight into your personal beliefs. You hate christians. See, Andrew, I told you this guy was here to push his POV. He did a good job of hiding it initally, though. But I can spot these losers from a mile away. You made your point, now please don't come back. We already have enough of your kind here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because I hate Christianity, does that make a difference? I started to do this ONLY to try and fix the neutrality. No matter who says it, it is still true. Get over yourself. You are so pretentious about the fact that you are a wikipedia editor, how correct you are, how PERFECT you are, we don't need these common folk to come on OUR website. God all I was doing was pointing something out and you have officially made me never want to go on wikipedia ever again. I'll stick with encarta from now on, where they have actual editors and not whiny college libertarians posting things as THEY see it. Besides, sometimes it takes people from extremes to notice where the neutrality is off you little prick, so stick to your stupid community of people who are only qualified because they know computers and I'll enjoy actual information that I can cite on a paper.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.216.74 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't your kind of place. Your first comment made that very clear. Tootles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That behaviour was disgusting Pwnage8. By turning away editors that would rather discuss issues they have with an article on the article talk page, you've done the encyclopaedia a disservice. Please allow me to return your 'kindness' of pointing out policies by referring you to WP:BITE. If you're still around 72.228.216.74, don't be discouraged by Pwnage8, he/she is hardly the norm around here, but you do come across people like this once in a while. Feel free to report it, now or if it happens again. Ben (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said! Pwnage8's behavior is unacceptable, and our anonymous friend is owed an apology.  Being personally attacked, at great length, for pointing out the strong need for improvement, is an abomination.  Wikipedia is trying to grow and become a better / more valuable service.  The hostile antagonism Pwnage8 displayed works against that, while suggestions on what needs improvement ( whether they're polite or not ) in fact help Wikipedia, at least when they're implemented.  I dearly hope this behavior ends, immediately, so the public's encyclopedia can grow.


 * His comment was in bad faith. That was obvious. I assume good faith of newcomers who have demonstrated that they will make good faith contributions, and welcome them accordingly. But when your first edit is trolling a talk page, that is not indicative of someone who will be an asset to the project. Really, this wasn't a big deal until Andrew c jumped in, and it escalated. But that's also when the anon's true colours showed, despite him trying to cover his tracks. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He/she had concerns about the neutrality of the article. Yes, they could have been a bit more polite about it, but biting their head off from the outset is hardly giving them a role model to follow in the future. Since you were actually aware of various policies on Wikipedia, you handled the situation worse than they did, so maybe you should spend 5 minutes reading WP:BITE again. Ben (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't out to bite, I just said that they shouldn't edit the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pickle Me Grandmother! This Article Sucks
No wonder so many people hate wikipedia. This sums up everything wrong with Wikipedia itself and makes me want to puke. Retro Agnostic (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! If Wikipedia wants respect ... this doesn't help to earn it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.142.60 (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a reader, I tend to agree with these statements. This entry is a sprawling monstrosity - every other section has a link to a larger article. It's so cobbled together and illogically complex it would be best to implode it and start from scratch, but with a rational outline as a guide.

One would expect that if each of these sub-topics is more fully discussed in a separate article, then the sections in "Criticism of Christianity" would be concise summaries of the actual criticisms and that the large linked article would perhaps be more elaborate with responses to the criticism. There are sections, such as Compatibility with science, that only implicitly acknowledge a criticism and instead spend paragraphs attempting to refute a criticism that has never even been articulated. Cvislay (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "hopfe" :
 * "Ostling" :
 * "Ostling" :
 * "Ostling" :
 * "Ostling" :

Extremism
I'm thinking of starting a ew section here on extremist Christian ideologies - much like with the section Criticism of Islam, with Al Qaeda, such as the KKK and various other groups like other fundamentalist militants in the Us and "The Lord's army" militia in Africa. I'm still a rookie here, and don't know exactly how to go around starting a new section/using the Sandbox feature, so please ny help is very appreciated. Please contact me on my userpage or just reply here, thanks. And please excuse anything I do wrong. Pink Princess (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What you mean to say is, you would like to start a new section here and are looking forward to a consensus agreeing so. Needless to say, you will find some opposition to what you wish to insert, from me at least, and not least of all because the Lords Militia army has very little, if any, link to the principles and doctrines of Christianity, nor does any Christian Church support them. You're going to need references before you add in information about fundamentalist units in the US. Finally, KKK is not a Christian based terrorist organization either; they're driven by racial supremacy and like the Lord's resistance army have no Church backing, nor can they cite anything from the Scriptures to support their claim. Let me sum it up; references, so don't delay, go find them today!!! Tourskin (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You may find many muslims feeling the same about the Al Qaeda section. I think that the introduction of ID and creationism into science classes in the US could be classed as a form of christian extremism.  It only seems fair to either have the extremism in both of in none. Colostomyexplosion (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

POV against Christianity
There is barely a paragraph for the Response section and until I edited it, it was only a minor subsection under "Origin". Needless to say, having several times more bytes worth of criticism of Christianity than responses to the criticism suggest missing information and a POV is generated. Many criticisms remain unanswered, and so we need more sources, perhaps from Christian apologetics or Churches themselves in the Response section.  Gabr-  el  03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest integrating the responses into the specific sections on each topic, rather than having a long list of criticisms and then a long list of responses. So, for instance, responses to the criticisms of Christian views of women would be in the same section as the criticisms.  EastTN (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * POV against Christianity? Are we reading the same article? There is far more apologetics than actual criticism in the text right now. Ilkali (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so - look at the Response section and then look at the rest. In fact, the response section was only for the myth so far.  Gabr-  el  21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Responses section does not house all the responses. Almost every point in the article (and some others beside) are addressed in their relevant sections. See, for example, the slavery section. As it stands, the first sentence is: "The practice of slavery in the West predates the emergence of Christianity by thousands of years". Where was the criticism? We've jumped straight to denying a point that was never made. The entire section is like this, and so is the rest of the article. Ilkali (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then adjust for it. You have cited one case. If that is the case for the rest of the sections, then correct it. But, this is for Useer:Aunt Entropy - don't remove stuff I am adding in, its not commentary, its Christian opinion. Christians do stress female equality, Catholics do stress the failures of individuals not the Structure of the Church. This is the official teaching of the Church with regards to the corrupt Popes - akin to having a bad crew but a good ship etc. Its difficult to add in sources, I will see if I can find them.  Gabr-  el  00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag
Here is the discussion of the POV inherent in the article. It was and still is considered biased toward Christianity by several editors. The POV has not been corrected, in fact, it has been made worse. I see no legitimate reason for the tag to be removed. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sign your name Aunt entropy. Like I said, neutrality has not been worsened, I have merely added in responses which are verifiable.  Gabr-  el  04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OMG, I forgot to sign my name. How dare I. Take the article, along with your Christianity article. You may have both. I'm out. Off the watchlist. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please go away, yes. I am after all, a Christofacist. I believe in a 2000 year old book with numerous apparent inconsistencies and I would be very well if all individuals - agnostic, Christian, Muslim or anyone who used reason to leave me alone so I can mercilessly edit these articles. When you have accepted the fact that I am a Christian savage and an asshole as well, then you can come back and introduce to me a civilized conversation discussing my many problems.  Gabr-  el  04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There have been numerous comments made to this effect and no significant changes made in the interim. Ilkali (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article
Given that enough time has passed that the POV tag has been removed, I propose that any section which fails to cite an actual criticism of Christianity, attributed to a reliable source, such as the Slavery section, and present the rebuttal in proportion to its weight should be removed. As I indicated when placing the POV tag, this is supposed to be an article documenting criticisms of Christianity, not Christian apologetics. Reading the article with this in mind, there are very few sections that actually present a criticism. Omitting the Science section, the first actual criticism I find, with a footnote backing it up, is in the Christianity and women section:


 * Feminists have consistently accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centred stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.

However, the rest of the section has no relation at all to this introductory sentence, and more details on the criticism would also be needed to comply with WP:NPOV. Instead it just goes on and on about how women are treated well in Christianity and documents feminist movements within the church, and how most Christians think men and women are equal, and so on and on and on. This is all very good information, but it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

The Christianity and politics section begins to introduce real criticisms of Christianity, but it is far too short and needs rebuttals for balance. The Doctrine section has some stylistic issues, mostly due to weasel wording, which appears to draw from a lack of suitable sources. (I have more sources I could add to the article, but little time with which to do it.) The subsection on the Afterlife, while interesting and well-sourced, has nothing to do with the subject of the article and should be moved elsewhere. Do we have an article Christian views on life after death?

Another problem with the article is that even where criticisms are presented, they are almost always introduced in a very weaselly way: "some critics claim that..." This pattern is endemic to the entire article: give a one or two sentence weasel-worded and barely fleshed-out "criticism", and then in several paragraphs present the rebuttal out of Christian apologetics.

The Rebuttal sections adopted later in the article strike me as particularly laughable, since so little in the way of actual criticism is presented to be rebutted. Also the Response to Criticism of Christianity is completely unnecessary, unreferenced, and feels somehow like a WP:COATRACK for the Roman Catholic church. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 11:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all counts. As it stands, there is very little in the article that seems worth keeping. Ilkali (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not go overboard here. There's a lot of sourced content in the article - on both sides.  Balance is hard to achieve, because people feel strongly on both sides.  But, to pick up one example mentioned above, the section on women is not entirely pro-christian.


 * "'Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in the Pauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status. Professor Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Augustine, Tertullian and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.'[44]"


 * "'King claims that every sect within early Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.'[45]"


 * Are there more and better sources that could be used? Probably - that's not my area of expertise.  But there is a real criticism expressed.  Are there other sections that are too short?  Absolutely - the Christianity and Politics section is really nothing more than a place holder right now.  I added the "main" and "see also" links to that section to at least point people in the right direction, but I haven't been able to figure out how to shape a good summary section yet (I may simply not be smart enough).


 * Personally, I'm not a big fan of "Response" subheadings. I think people are smart enough to tell when the discussion has shifted from "con" to "pro" - and not everything that belongs in a well-written article is necessarily black or white.  Sometimes there's information that simply provides more context.  The section on women is a good example here as well.  Christianity has been criticized for its treatment of women.  To put that into proper context, it's important to understand that Christian views of the role of women vary widely from very traditionalist to actively feminist.  Noting the three prevailing views is neither pro nor con - it simply sets the context.


 * If we can all stay patient with people we strongly disagree with, we can work towards a better article. None of us are truly neutral, so we have to work together to get to a NPOV. EastTN (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that.  Gabr-  el  16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why was the section on female deacons removed - its relevant in addressing how the Church uses women in mass, and there was a very reliable source showing a photo of Eastern Catholic deacons at a prayer gathering.  Gabr-  el  21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still there - it was just merged with the sentence on the Southern Baptist's recent statement to start a paragraph on recent actions by notable religious groups. EastTN (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its statement of faith, opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention.[44] In recent years, there has been a small revival in the role of deaconesses in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[45]"


 * Oh right. Good job with the merging.  Gabr-  el  22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Scripture
The first sentence reads "Skeptics reject Christianity because of its reliance on the Bible, the most recent parts of which were written during the Roman period, almost 2000 years ago, with older parts dating back many centuries before that.". That's a huge oversimplification of any reasonable skeptic's criticism, amounting to essentially "we reject it because it's old". DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a popular argument that the Bible, being so old and for a time seemingly so unlike ours is not only irrelevant but corrupted or manipulated - 2000 years contributing to no small part. Muslims criticize Christianity believing that the Bible is a corruption of the text, and this is easy to cite.  Gabr-  el  22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should say some of that stuff. I think we need to be explicit about what the criticisms are. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Eurocentrism section
The article is already too long, so I suggest farming off portions of it to other articles. Since no criticism of Christianity is discussed in the Eurocentrism section, I suggest moving it to another article, although I can't think of one offhand. There should be an article on Christianity and multiculturalism (or somesuch) since there are substantial articles on Christianity by country. Maybe someone at WikiProject Christianity can be troubled to start an article? siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively we could add in the relevant criticism of being eurocentric. Or we could remove it.  Gabr-  el  21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. So much has been said about eurocentrism and multiculturalism that I can't believe that someone hasn't criticized Christianity for being too eurocentric.  I don't personally have any sources ready to hand, though.  I'm sure it was criticized during Europe's colonial expansion, but it may be that so much of the center of gravity for Christianity has moved south of the equator these days that it's simply not argued much any more.  EastTN (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was once both a popular and academic argument that Christianity is an European or Western export, and Islamic extremists calling Middle Eastern Christians "Crusaders" doesn't help. Nowadays, it remains a popular criticism, although I doubt you will find any such decent sources for an academic argument because any academic scholar worth his salt will know that Christianity was almost exclusively an Eastern religion for the first 500 years. In the Council of Nicaea in c 320 AD, only two of the Bishops present were from the Western Roman Empire, the rest were from Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor etc.

 Gabr-  el  22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy moving the text to a new article. What would we call it?  Christianity and multiculturalism is fine by me.  I can't personally add much more than what's in this section, though. EastTN (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * O.k., I've gone ahead and done it. All the material is still available in the new Christianity and multiculturalism page, so we can put it back here if we decide it's needed in this article. EastTN (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Deleting the "Within Christianity" section
I'd like to suggest deleting the section Within Christianity. It strikes me as off topic for this article, which is focused on criticisms of Christianity as a whole. Most of the content of the "within" section deals with internal disputes between different Christian denominations, criticism of Christianity as an intellectual belief system rather than a personal relationship with Jesus, or criticism of institutionalizing Christianity. Ultimately, they're all arguments for a particular kind of Christianity or particular understanding of Christianity, rather than arguments against Christianity. Those are all valid topics for wikipedia, but would seem better suited someplace else.

If the point is that Christianity incorporates internal self-criticism, and is part of a defense against other criticisms, then this needs to be made much more explicit. It also needs to be connected to the criticisms against which it is a defense. EastTN (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather there be some editting than some removal - the Criticism of Islam article has its own internal critics from Muslims, so I think we should include that too.  Gabr-  el  18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, the Criticism of Islam article does include internal critics. They strike me as broader in scope and better integrated into the article than what we have here.  How would you feel about dropping the stuff about "intramural" debates between churches and denominations (such as the East/West Schism and the Reformation), keeping the broader stuff like the Federal Vision criticism of Christianity as a belief system, and then trying to find a better place for it?  EastTN (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. We can keep the interdenominational strife as you put it to their respective articles dealing with those denominations. Gabr-  el  21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with including criticisms from Christians, though I'd rather see them included in topic (e.g. criticisms by Christians of the church's treatment of women) than a separate section. BUT the existing "Within Christianity" section is all about inter-denominational disputes. Even the "Federal Vision" paragraph is really a doctrinal issue, not a criticism of Christianity. Delete the lot, I say. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The major church splits that are mentioned are already pretty thoroughly covered in the articles on History of Christianity, East-West Schism, First Council of Nicaea, The Ninety-Five Theses and Protestant Reformation. It would seem fairly safe to drop the summary we have here.  The real question would seem to be whether there's any other, more general material that is relevant to the broader issue of criticizing Christianity as a whole.  The most likely candidates would seem to me to be the first and last paragraphs of the section.  Peter is suggesting that the last paragraph is more an intramural issue - I'm not familiar enough with it to offer an informed opinion. EastTN (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm looking to get this whole thing remodelled. If the last paragraph stays, fine, but the rest is interdenominational squabbling. We need to find Christians who criticize aspects of Christianity in terms of its organized religion, perhaps. The thing is, because Christianity itself is so diverse, any attack on it is usually interpretted as being pro or anti Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox etc and so dismissed.  Gabr-  el  21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On that last paragraph, it sounds like I'm more familiar than you others: I've just had a look at Peter Leithart, and I've read (and even met) Dave Andrews in the past. While they both criticise aspects of Christianity, and even the use of the term, they are not criticising Christianity per se. Their views might be suitable to another article, but not this one. Delete the lot. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * O.k., I deleted the entire section for now. If I misread the consensus and you disagree, feel free to revert it.  Otherwise, I figure we can put better material back in as we find it. EastTN (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. And at the moment, my dear friend, you appear to be the only one bothered to edit it! So lol thank u. Gabr-  el  18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Atonement
The quote from the article "Christians often respond to this objection by claiming that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was the greatest expression of divine mercy God could give while still maintaining perfect justice" contains no citation, which coupled with the fact that it doesn't make any sense suggests it should be deleted, or possibly replaced with "Christians often respond to this objection by putting fingers in both ears and saying, "La la la, I can't hear you, la la la." Colostomyexplosion (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That comment was.. ah, nevermind. Just look at your username. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I do not believe that the quote from the article actually makes sense, for example, what are, "divine mercy," and, "perfect justice," supposed to mean? It sounds like the sort of quote designed to silence the critic by actually saying nothing. colostomy explosion is a rock band in the fictional Red Dwarf universe, rather than some kind of hobby Colostomyexplosion (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hobby.. lol. To understand why that wording is being used, one must understand the Christian perspective. The Christian God is a loving God, but he is also a just God. God is always right, and he is all-knowing. He cannot do a wrong thing and violate the order of the Universe He created. He is without sin. He is perfect. Humans, by their very nature are not perfect, and we sin. We are doomed to hell because of our sins. There exists a void between perfect God and imperfect man. Before Christ, everyone went to hell. So basically, what God has done, is taken on human form in Christ, so that he would die, go to hell for three days (in our place), and then rise and open the Gates of Heaven so that anyone who believes in Him and repents of their sins will not go to hell, but have everlasting life in Heaven. The reason he could not just "save us" automatically, is because he would not be a just God if He did that. It was a merciful act to pay the price to spare us from hell, and that's why "divine mercy" is being used. As for "perfect justice", since God is just, and perfect, and paying the price to spare us from hell maintains those qualities, he remains so. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And whether it makes sense to you or me, it is the response given by many Christians to that particular criticism. That being the case, we should include it and let the reader decide. EastTN (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So therefore, aside from the fact that said acts are being attributed to said deity, "Divine mercy," equals, "Mercy," and "Perfect justice," equals, "Justice?" Colostomyexplosion (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mercy extended by a divinity is typically described as "divine mercy," just as mercy extended by humans can be described as "human mercy." Reconciling mercy and justice is a classic theological issue.  Critics argue that if God shows mercy, it must of necessity compromise his justice.  The traditional Christian position is that through Christ, God was able to extend mercy without compromising justice, and that his justice is perfect.  As Pwnage8 suggests, this is rooted in the Christian understanding of God's essential nature. EastTN (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Mercy extended by a divinity is typically described as "divine mercy," just as mercy extended by humans can be described as "human mercy."". Unless God is capable of extending any other type of mercy, the adjective is redundant. And it makes the sentence sound somewhat pulpit-y. Ilkali (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not my sentence, so I don't have any pride of authorship here. I suspect the motivation for saying "divine mercy" is to indicate that the mercy flows from the nature of God, just as the motivation for saying "human mercy" would be to indicate that the mercy flowed from human nature or was motivated by considerations of common humanity. EastTN (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where else would it "flow from"? Ilkali (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Expediency? Outside coercion?  Sometimes when we ask the question "why did she do that?" the answer is "because she didn't think she had any other choice," or "because he made her," or "because she didn't know what else to do," or "because she was afraid" - but sometimes the answer is "because that's just the kind of person she is."  Some things we choose to do, and they don't really say anything about our character ("do you want the curry or the kebabs?"; "Why did he knock you over? Because the other guy pushed him.").  There are other things we do because we could not do anything else and remain true to ourselves.  When a theologian says something flows from the nature of God, he means that it's a direct expression of God's character, and that God could not do otherwise and remain true to Himself.  EastTN (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we are bickering over something so trivial. Ilkali, with all due respect, you seem to be questioning the plausibility of the content, not the relevance of it in the article. The plausibility of the content is a matter of faith, and I suggest we abandon this discussion and move on.  Gabr-  el  22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-neutrality is rarely trivial. The problem here is that this adjective is completely redundant, giving it the pulpit-esque quality I mentioned earlier. We all know that everything God does is divine by definition, so the only reason to describe it that way is to reinforce a particular religious mindset (just like repeatedly saying almighty God when God would suffice). It's useful if you're a preacher and your job is to keep everyone faithful, but not so appropriate in an encyclopedia. Ilkali (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of neutrality; and yet it is not redundant to say divine either. It is, what it is. God shows divine mercy, and it is different from human mercy. This is a Christian understanding and belief. Its different from human mercy for a number of reasons some of which include; God's divine mercy being far greater and purer than "regular" human mercy, God's divine mercy is to do with saving the souls of those heavily in sin from eternal regret and punishment in hell, as opposed to "human" mercy which is a mercy for various other things that Christians would call "trivial" in comparison. Furthermore, since the belief is that God is doing these things, then the actions will have a divine characteristic to them. It is an essential component of the information presented regarding Christianity. Ilkali, you are not the only non-Christian or even Atheist I have to edit with, but you are certainly the most non-neutral of them - It's useful if you're a preacher and your job is to keep everyone faithful - why the need to point fingers and accuse us of being so self-righteous? Present your case; I have answered it for now and await your response.  Gabr-  el  01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it sounds like original research. The wording is "greatest expression of divine mercy God could give while still maintaining perfect justice" and we have 1 ref. Is this wording supported by the reference ? The reference doesn't contain the words "greatest", "expression", "mercy" (and thus not "divine mercy"). It does contain "divine", "maintaining", "perfect" and "justice" but not in any form that would allow those words to be combined. Therefore this is original research.
 * We need a reliable reference that should ideally use a few more of the words and should use them in a similar pattern. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is this going? We have one editor suggesting that it is not neutral; in which case infinite reliable references will not do. Now we have a complaint that its OR? A reference is not suppose to back up word for word everything written in an article; rather it is hoped people are smart enough to read between the lines.  Gabr-  el  03:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, people are not compelled to have to "read between the lines" and interpret what is being said, what is said should be obvious and supported by references. What is being said in this sentence is meaningless drivel because it isn't supported by the references. If the reference supported what was said then it can stay. It doesn't so it goes. That is where it is going. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not going anywhere without a consensus. And yes, have you ever heard of something called "inference"? Its another word for "reading between the lines".  Gabr-  el  05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows." (See Wikipedia). Now the point of each article in an encyclopaedia is really to inform people of things that they do not yet know. The issue is how do people trust what they read ?. In Wikipedia we use reliable sources that back up what is said in the article. It's a bit nebulous a definition and in this case I am not saying the reference is unreliable but that it doesn't match what is claimed. You are saying that people must infer the meaning from within themselves. This defeats the whole idea of the encyclopaedia as a vehicle to inform if it is just preaching to the faithful. Heck we have Conservapedia for that nonsense. If this is a widespread concept of what atonement is then it must be trivial for you to find a reliable source that uses such a sentence construction. Right now I cannot make the sentence out of the reference because many of the words are missing. I am under no obligation to infer they exist.
 * If I dig deeper I see that the claim is that "Christians often respond...." and this is in reply to criticism by Dawkins. Given the huge amount of media comment in reply to Dawkins it must be trivial to find someone moderately notable that addresses the issue of atonement in reply to Dawkins. I am unable to infer who these people are. Help us please at least get a reference that closely matches the sentence and I could compromise on not asking for a reference that both matches the sentence and is specifically in reply to Dawkins. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that this particular sentence is sourced. We can discuss whether the sentence accurately summarizes the source, and we can discuss whether better sources are available, but no one's making this up out of whole cloth.  It's tricky here because someone has tried, in a single sentence, to summarize Christian theology on this point - and there's a lot of theological thinking that's been done on the atonement.  What we have does correctly identify the key thought, which is that Christians understand the death of Christ as expressing God's mercy while at the same time satisfying his justice (or, perhaps even better, without compromising his justice).  Given the discussion so far, I'd suggest stepping away from the adjectives "divine" and "perfect" and adding two sentences to make the implied concepts (which I do believe are fully supported by the source, and for which other sources can be found) explicit.  One would say that Christians understand the mercy as being rooted in God's nature.  The second would say that Christians understand the atonement to be necessary for God to be able to express that mercy without compromising his justice.  I would suggest that we don't need a source explicitly tying the discussion back to Dawkins by name.  Dawkins is being used here as an example of an issue that's been raised many times by many different people (that's why we have theologians discussing the problem of reconciling mercy, justice and the crucifixion of Jesus centuries before Mr. Dawkins was born).  He's a good example, because people recognize the name, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that we can't give the Christian response on the issue unless that response was addressed specifically to him. EastTN (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After thinking about it a bit, the criticism is from Dawkins and Dawkins is providing valid Criticism of Christianity (in that it comes from a well cited documentary) so our reply, if any, really must address what he says as that would be encyclopaedic rather than what it appears now, which is a WP:COATRACK for some apologetics on atonement. We're not discussing atonement but criticism of atonement. Our "Christians often respond...." sentence is nonsensical in that it doesn't address Dawkins' criticism in any way and uses word sequences not in the reference and it doesn't make it clear what model it uses. It may be what some people infer about atonement but the reference talks about a number of models, specifically, the ransom, Moral Exemplar and satisfaction theory (which has three variants, debt-cancellation theory, the penal substitution theory and the penitential substitution theory). Give that the reference also states that "the penal substitutionary model is perhaps the most widely accepted among laypersons in the church; but it has been widely rejected by philosophers and theologians" the reference thus not only fails to balance Dawkins but it isn't clear that what we have written is representative anyway given laypersons, philosophers and theologians can't agree themselves.
 * People are expecting a reference that specifically addresses what Dawkins says. This can't be that hard. Criticising Dawkins is a huge cottage industry and it's been two years since the documentary. We could compromise if the reference was worded as a rebuttal to critics of atonement but it isn't. It only refers to critics in the section on the trinity. I think it is fair to cull what we've got for the moment rather than tagging it as I think this is a hopeless case. I've tried to google for a rebuttal to Dawkins (e.g. dawkins atonement "root of all evil" penal substitution) but it's like googling for Paris Hilton - there is too much noise from the blogville. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly object to leaving Dawkins in and dropping everything else. There are extensive Christian responses to what Dawkins has to say regarding science, but they don't take him seriously when he talks about theology because Dawkins himself admits that he doesn't take theology seriously and hasn't taken the time to study it ("do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" - ).  As a result, there's much less direct response to him when he talks about theological issues such as the atonement.  If we want to include the direct back and forth on theology, we can report this part straight up - "Dawkins said . . ., they said 'he doesn't know what he's talking about,' he said 'yeah, well, I don't have to . . .'"  It doesn't do much to help readers understand the intellectual issues surrounding the atonement, but it really is the Christian response to the man on issues of theology.  That would give us something along the lines of:


 * "Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?", and "[y]es, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject." (Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005-04-25.)"


 * There are also a couple of more direct responses we can add. Dinesh D'Souza says that Dawkins criticism "only makes sense if you assume Christians made the whole thing up."  He goes on to say that Christians view it as a beautiful sacrifice, and that "through the extremity of Golgotha, Christ reconciles divine justice and divine mercy." (Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery Publishing, ISBN 1-596-98517-8 (2007))  Andrew Wilson argues that Dawkins misses the point of the atonement, which has nothing to do with masochism, but is based on the concepts of holiness, sin and grace. (Andrew Wilson, Deluded by Dawkins?, Kingsway Publications, ISBN 9781842913550 (2007))


 * I think the atonement section should remain as it is because it is factual, and a valid criticism even if Christians like it or not. Using Christian theology as a source is biased and circular, it is the equivalent of answering criticisms about the existence of Thetans using Scientology studies. It's an act of faith, period, and trying to find any justifications behind it is a complete waste of time.Sfoucher (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article must show how Christians respond to these criticisms in order to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia does not decide what is to be included or not based on your opinion of what is or isn't a "waste of time". --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be closing your ears to valid counter-criticism, which makes you what you accuse us of - biased. Faith and Reason are on two different dimensions my friend, and if you want to criticize something validly, your going to need understand it first - that means looking at the Christian theology, the position attacked in the first place.  Gabr-  el  05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Son of God
One of the criticisms levelled against Christianity is its similarity with some religions who speak of a son of God, like Hercules being the son of Zeus.

There is one major flaw in this. The vast majority of Christian denominations do not believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God in the same way that Hercules is the son of Zeus or what have you. Rather, these Christian denominations, which include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Mainline Protestant Churches, interpret the word "Son of God" as in "from God" - in the same way that a British person would be a "Son of Britannia". Thus, perhaps this distinction could be made to answer against the accusation of being similar to Greco-Roman mythology, since the two are not as similar in nature as the words "Son of" suggest.  Gabr-  el  20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)