Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 3

message: Removed this:
 For example, following the death of the Catholic Pope John XXIII in 1963, the Protestant Reverend Ian Paisley denounced the dead Pope, saying "This Romish man of sin is now in Hell!". There are about one thousand different Christian faith groups in North America who believe themselves to be the only true denomination. There are many other denominations who believe that all other denominations are going to Hell.
The quote attributed to Ian Paisley is uncited and thus impossible to verify. Given the nature of the quote, and Wikipedia's recent embarassment, it had better be left out unless it can be verified by the general public. The linked article about the denominations in North America actually says, "Some of the approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada believe themselves to be the only true Christian denomination." Thus, there are a total of 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada (not North America, as the quote omits Mexico), only "some" of which believe they are the only true Christian denomination. From what I read, it did not assign a number to "some." finally, there appears to be no support for the claim that "there are many other denominations who believe that all other denominations are going to Hell." Would these many other denominations be those who do not believe they are they only true denomination, but still think that all others are going to Hell? Not only is it uncited, it makes no sense. Wesley 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if its genuine, but it is certainly very plausible. Ian Paisley does hold views like that and has certainly been quoted in news clips, interviews, etc. expressing vehemently "the pope is the antichrist" views, even showing no respect for illness, or injury etc.. Clinkophonist 12:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then quote a specific news clip or interview that can be verified. Otherwise we run the risk of libelling him and further undermining Wikipedia's credibility. And in case you wondered, I'm not at all sympathetic to the notion that the Pope is the antichrist, although I'm not Roman Catholic. Wesley 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has the quote  - That website is university in Northern Ireland. There are countless pages that quote him as saying that . Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian Paisley is anti-Roman Catholic; he does not advocate that his own denomination (a branch of Presbyterian) is the one true church, nor does he claim that all other denominations are false. In fact, Ian Paisley has close ties to several ministers of other denominations. He preached several times in one non-Presbyterian church of which I was a member. So, quotes from Ian Paisley do not support the thesis statement for which he is being used. Pooua 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, relatively few people in American Christendom believe their denomination is the only correct denomination or that all other denominations are doomed to Hell. Probably more people make the accusation than hold the belief. That accusation is simply a form of broad-brushing, and the people making it, in my experience, are simply too apathetic to learn the merits of the arguments. Pooua 18:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denominations 

message: I'm not that familiar with either the Albigensian crusade or with genocide, but based on the material in Albigensian crusade and genocide, this particular crusade does not appear to be an instance of genocide. Its goals appeared to be the conversion of Cathars to mainstream Catholocism, with the thinly veiled goal of giving away land in the south of France to nobles from the north of France who would help the Church accomplish this. The methods used were very harsh, but I don't think they ever intended to kill every last Cathar, but rather to kill or torture enough to frighten the remaining ones to convert or repent. Land would have been quite a bit less valuable to the conquerors if there were no peasants left to work it, would it not? Naturally, there's also the question of who it is that considers this crusade a genocide. A citation would be best, but at least naming a general group would be better than the passive voice "widely believed to be..." Wesley 06:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no support or citation has been offered for this in over three weeks, I removed the bit about it being genocide. Wesley 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is funny that you question whether the Albigensian Crusade was genocide, on the basis that the Catholics did not intend to exterminate ALL Albigensians, when the Wikipedia link to the term 'genocide' clearly states that it is the destruction of a group 'in whole or in part,' or the establishment of conditions that would destroy a group 'in whole or in part.' I am of the opinion that the term 'genocide is over-used, but there is no question that the Roman Catholic Church fully intended to exterminate Albigensian belief by the use of lethal force, that they were willing to pursue that goal to the end, and, in fact, did. Pooua 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albigensian crusade a genocide? 

message: === Criticisms Regarding Christianity and Education ===
   
A number of other critics fault Christianity for influencing education not only in the Creation-evolution controversy but in other areas such as sex education. Many argue that because some Christians insist on Abstinence only education and have used their political clout to push this on the education system, a number of teens are now woefully ignorant of sexual issues.
I moved this section here for two reasons:
* It's completely uncited, relying on passive voice weasel words, and thus is likely the editor's personal opinion;
* It's also talking about criticism of some very specific U.S. political controversies, and is not even discussing a criticism of Christianity in general.
Wesley 21:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved here from article 

message: A number of other critics fault Christianity for influencing education not only in the Creation-evolution controversy but in other areas such as sex education. Many argue that because some Christians insist on Abstinence only education and have used their political clout to push this on the education system, a number of teens are now woefully ignorant of sexual issues.
I moved this section here for two reasons:
* It's completely uncited, relying on passive voice weasel words, and thus is likely the editor's personal opinion;
* It's also talking about criticism of some very specific U.S. political controversies, and is not even discussing a criticism of Christianity in general.
Wesley 21:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Regarding Christianity and Education 

message: I have turned the "Christianity and Biblical adherence" article into a redirect and rewriten the section on this page. As far as Levitical rules go, simple ignorance does not need several paragraphs in two articles to expound itself.
There's still a lot of stuff than can go in this section. The accusation is very frequently used by Christians in theological debates, for example.  A.J.A. 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this article intended to encompass criticisms and disputes among Christians, or criticisms of Christians by non-Christians? I would have assumed the latter, if only to limit the scope of this article. Wesley 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Maybe a Jewish form of the criticism would be the way to go. Their criticism is more often a knowledgeable one, hence worthy of more attention.  A.J.A. 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective Interpretation 

message: Ok, I've significantly expanded several sections, and make language changes, all in an attempt to improve this article. I've removed what I thought was POV language, too, where it could be corrected. In all I think this article is much better now. I hope my contributions are looked on favorably I notice there is a warning tag for both inaccuracy and POV. I would like to know the specifics for claims of inaccuracy, first. It should be easier to determine questions of fact and get rid of anything that can be proven to be a false statement of fact. Lets see if we can get consensus and make this article a featured one without the POV/Accuracies tags. Giovanni33 15:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: expansion of sections, new material

message: Here's what I think we should do:
* For the time being, keep the two contentious pieces of text off the main article. I don't think there is any major dispute as to the accuracy or neutrality of the rest of the article. So we could remove the neutrality tags altogether until we resolve this.
* I've put the contentious text into this subpage. We should fix it there. This will not be linked to from the main article. If/when we have a version that is an NPOV coverage of criticism of Christianity or Christians, then we discuss whether it should be copied into the main article.
* In the meantime, we try not to discuss whether it should go in, or even whether it's relevant to 'Criticism of Christianity'. Simply try to improve it so it's an NPOV discussion on 'something to do with criticisms of Christianity and/or Christians'.
* Maybe try to redirect further discussion on either of these pieces of text to the subpage?
Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to resolve Supremacist and other debates 

message: I'm not aware of any ongoing dispute about the existing text. I know some people want to add new text, but the current text is pretty much OK, isn't it. I apologise if I've missed something and there is in fact a controversy. Please tell me what the problem is, if any. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  03:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just removed the POV tags. 

message: I'd like to propose a section on the criticism that Christianity is largely unoriginal, and is an amalgam of pagan sun-worship religions. For example, note the similarities with  Mithraism.  ^^James^^ 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some info on Mithra that suggests this point of lack of originality: 64.121.40.153 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. There is lot of evidence to support this, and although I don't view it inherently as a criticism of Christianity, the fact that Christians don't like it and see it as a criticism make it one. :) 64.121.40.153 09:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this new section sounds a good idea as it relates directly to christianity. SOPHIA 10:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the "It's unoriginal" claim is valid here.  It's hardly an academic criticism of Christianity.  And, if we're serious about its lack of "originality" (as if that matters), a sentence about Mithraism, etc. is more than adequate...you should be focusing on the fact that the whole religion is a "spin off" of Judaism.  Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism, Islam borrowed from Judaism and Christianity, etc.  I don't think this is a valid criticism in any way.  KHM03 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this just saying that significant parts of Christianity are unoriginal, or to go so far as to say that Jesus doesn't exist?. Assuming the former, I don't really see this as a criticism. Criticism is meant to make one think about whether Christianity is correct. I can't see how anybody would take this evidence of unoriginality to be helpful in deciding on the correctness or otherwise or Christianity. Of course, if somebody can confirm the existence of a POV that unoriginality is relevant, then I'd be happy to have it included.I do think the Jesus myth should be mentioned. But whichever criticisms are mentioned, we do not need to give a complete description of it's evidence. Just look at how short the  Criticism_of_Christianity#Criticisms_regarding_the_Bible is. It's just enough to give people a taste of the issues, and links to a main article. A similar approach should be taken with the Jesus myth and the unoriginality claims. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We'll need to curb Gio's enthusiasm as I agree a short section with links to the larger articles that deal with this in more depth is most appropriate. I think the unoriginality issue is important as christianity does portray itself as unique and original and it does come as quite a surprise when you find out there are older parallels. SOPHIA 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan Christ 

message: This argument may be more to do with religion in general than Christianity (is there an article on Chrticism of Religion?), but this paper, which is scholarly argues this point: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look suggesting that religion is a major, if not the primary, source of social evils. 
And, ofcorse we still have the genoice examples. This paper makes the case:
The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis
by Gregory S. Paul [ http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=paul_23_4]
It argues that:
"A growing body of scholarly research, some based on careful analysis of Nazi records, is clarifying this complex history. It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure ...Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power, and to reduce or moderate its practices afterwards, but repeatedly failed to do so because the principal churches were complicit with—indeed, in the pay of—the Nazis.
Most German Christians supported the Reich; many continued to do so in the face of mounting evidence that the dictatorship was depraved and murderously cruel. Elsewhere in Europe the story was often the same. Only with Christianity’s forbearance and frequent cooperation could fascistic movements gain majority support in Christian nations. European fascism was the fruit of a Christian culture. Millions of Christians actively supported these notorious regimes. Thousands participated in their atrocities."
64.121.40.153 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's zero in a bit, rather than paint with too wide a brush.  The fact that the European Church failed to stand up to Nazism is a legitimate criticism.  It doesn't maean that Christianity is a "significant source of social evil", but it does speak to the failure of the Church in Europe during the 1930s (although there were significant opponents to Nazism, notably Bonhoeffer, Barth, and Tillich).  So, how can we add this fairly?  KHM03 22:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KHM03, I think 64.121.40.153 was suggesting the social evil and Nazism examples as separate. I can't think of any social evil examples off the top of my head, but one possible example might be to allege that women's rights and issues have often been ignored? 64.121.40.153, would you consider the Nazism suggestion to be a separate question from your social evil suggestion? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are different. The significan social evil thesis I presetend with a link to the paper that advances the criticism: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
64.121.40.153 00:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what exactly are you suggesting we add to the article?  One of the problems we may have is the term "social evil" itself, which is POV.  To say that denying women equal rights is "social evil" may be true to some, but others might disagree that this is evil.  So, maybe we need to tweak the semantics a bit.  KHM03 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant source of social evil?

message: *There are questions raised...
*Critics of the bible argue...
*...are also questioned by scholars...
These are weasel words. Unless someone can provide citation to notable scholars and critics, I'm going to remove them as unsupported.Tom Harrison Talk 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the whole section is deeply suspect, as it relates to sections of the law in the Hebrew Scriptures which are not regarded as binding by any Christian group that I know of. It ought to be in 'Criticism of ancient Judaism', if anywhere. Myopic Bookworm 15:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV template added. Ming the Merciless 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi friends sorry about the weasel words, I am quite new to wikipedia, so didn't know such a rule existed. Anyway I have removed such wording.. Where ever I have quoted scholars I have given reference. All I have quoted here is from the new international version of the bible, the other sections of this article is also quoting from the same version I suppose, (correct me If I am wrong). I am removing the POV template as no valid reason was given, I have quoted it directly from the bible itself, its not POV. thanks Mystic 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To take one example, you might say, "Professor Whozat contends that the bible condones rape of a single woman by allowing the rapist to marry her (Whozat, 2005)", with a reference to Whozat's magnum opus at the bottom. You may not say, "The bible condones rape of a single woman by allowing the rapist to marry her" because drawing that conclusion is original research on your part. Tom Harrison Talk 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Arsath wrote in an edit summary, "this part is relevant and cited." It is not cited. We cannot just make up our own criticisms. That is original research, as if I would say, "This passage where Jesus says, 'Drink ye all of it' encourages alcholism." This is an encyclopedia article about criticism of Christianity, not a web-board where any individual can record his criticism.
Similarly, "Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of contradictions arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text." Raised by who? and what are they specifically? Tom Harrison Talk 11:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it could be clearer and only added it back as I really only wanted to remove Arsath's additions. Should we remove this also or add  tags? Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to having it remain while we discuss it at a leisurly pace. I would like to resolve the issues of citation and original research. I don't see a need for tags, but I don't object to them if someone else wants them. I don't think it's a bad-looking article, but it does suffer from a lack of citation. I think over time people have added their own more-or-less cogent criticisms without bothering to track down half-remembered quotes from GB Shaw or Whatshisname the mathematacian. That's understandable, but we need to work on tightening things up a bit. Tom Harrison Talk 12:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its true that I have cited only the bible, this is the criticism of christianity article and not criticism of bible article, if I am criticizing the bible I agree just citing the bible wont be enough but I am not criticizing the bible here, I am trying to explain the selective interpretaion of the bible. I think you should have an understanding of the "citing" issue here. The Hebrew and Greek Bibles are an historical, relgious document. As such its a primary source of reference. The versions of the bible I've quoted are difinetlty peer reviewed and are very good references so they are enough as reference. Going by what you are suggesting the whole article should be removed, as none of the other sections of the article, provides any citation other than the primary source. Tom says: "but we need to work on tightening things up a bit" I don't quite understand what he means by this? Is it removing anything that he disagrees with. All in all your arguments only amounts to information suppression. Mystic 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is very kiddish behaviour.. If I say the "Fish live in water" do I have to give a scholars reference to that as well. Its obivious. Its not my opinion that I am trying to void here..I am trying to put the facts in place.. Its as clear as the Sun and the Moon, its in the two different versions of the bible. Mystic 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to the section "Criticisms regarding selective interpretation of the Bible"?  If so, I'd agree with you.  KHM03 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you simply not see the truth.. And only you seem to be disagreeing with me. I think only you need to build consensus here Mystic 06:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you doing this only in the interest of WP:OR. I need not read this as I have read it very well. You should also understand with consensus in the talk page one can include what I have added. (see Criticism of Islam, Crticism of judaism,Criticism of religion). Moreover, I dont see anyone opposing the section I have added except you. So if you are opposing you are the one who should build a consensus. The earlier reason you gave for removing "Morality of the Bible" (Which I will add in the Cricism of Bible article) was "not enough consensus build consensus in the talk page". Now you are twisting your own story.Mystic 07:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can tell you that KHM03 and I do not always agree on things but he is completely correct in this case. Your additions read like WP:OR. As he rightly points out you need to quote scholarly texts that give the examples you do otherwise it is not verifiable and cannot be include in wikipedia. It's great that you are trying to add to the article as new views are always welcome but they must be verifiable, referenced and not presented to give undue weight. In fact I'm sure KHM03 will have a chuckle at me telling you this as we have had similar editing disagreements to the one you are currently having. When you are not used to how wikipedia does things it can seem like information suppression but infact it's the only way to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia we are building. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Tom! Any translation is fine with me. I was actually doubtful as to whether I should add that criticism or not. I prefer to be an apologist rather than a critic. Take care. --Aminz 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent additions read well and have good links - thanks. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation and original research 

message: Is a mathematics professor now a legit scholar of Christianity?  KHM03 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about those references too. AnnH ♫ 00:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, having a PhD in math is not enough but please have a look at Gary Miller thx. --Aminz 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: His page says he is a theologian, though it seems to be in the sense of one who thinks and writes a lot about theology. I didn't read his argument in detail, but his remarks seem at least rational, and not too far from other things I've heard. I think we should keep the section, adding information about Miller's background, and let his criticism stand or fall on its own. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Mathematician, author, convert to Islam, whatever; we don't have to pack it all into a string of adjectives. Enough might be a sentence or two of brief bio up front , and a link to his Wikipedia page (which could use some expansion and balance.) If his arguments are well thought out, they will have application to things other than Christianity. If they're not, they won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Tom Harrison Talk 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Miller? 

message: In the section Criticism_of_Christianity#Criticisms_regarding_selective_interpretation_of_the_Bible we find an short paragraph about the Parousia and the term "generation". It includes a footnote pointing to an article of an apparently Atheist website: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html This article maintains that the Greek word genea only means generation in the sense of "people living at the same time". The argument is made by a statistical analysis of several Bible dictionaries and translations. This article is mere propaganda. Linguistic sciences don't work with statistical evidence based on existing translations but instead it works with historical aspects of the language, with etymological aspects.
The term genea is derived from the verb gignomai which means "to come into being" and "to become". In the history of the Greek language genea then gets two meaning. Firstly, it means the span of years between a father and his son, and secondly, it means a group of people of common descent. Therefore the translation generation is only one possibility to translate genea. Imo we should delete this unscientific link. --Benedikt 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term genea 

message: --Greasysteve13 09:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism]] 

message: half of this article goes on about the bible. We have Criticism of the Bible for that. Then there is some stuff about social issues and persecution. Well, what the reader should expect to find here would be theological criticisms of Christian theology, including intra-Christian debates of the trinity and what not. Criticism of individual translations of the bible hardly amount to "Criticism of Christianity". What should be criticized should rather be the various interpretations of the Bible by notable creeds, and of other dogmas and ritual that are part of Christianity (Christianity is not just about the bible, you know...). As it is, the article is rather disappointing and hardly rises above generic "Criticism of sheepish religiosity". dab (ᛏ) 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cough. I created the Criticism of the Bible article specifically to move all of that stuff there (and from several other articles such criticism was lurking). On this article I was reverted. Hopefully this time most editors will realise the value of moving the criticism of the bible to Criticism of the Bible rather than leaving it in this article. Christianity isn't the bible and vice versa. Christianity is a religion. The bible is a book. Clinkophonist 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you. --Benedikt 10:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think this article is disappointing, take a look at Criticism of Islam. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup needed

message: What are you doing? You have more or less rewritten this page from scratch. 
Please read the basic Wikipedia instructions and guidelines before doing such major edits.
* Register as a wikipedia user, dont just use your IP address.
* The article should not be too long. Currently it is much too long.
* Please try to learn and understand the difference between an encyclopedia entry and an essay. 
* The article should stick to the point - the section on Dionysus for example is irrelevant. 
* Don't just delete large amounts of what others have done, or they will just do the same to you.
* Sign your posts. 
* Read the Wikipedia guidelines, again.
I'm afraid that much of what you have written will be deleted or reverted by other editors. Poujeaux 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To 68.58.71.152 

message: I have deleted massive violations of WP:NPOV from this section, such as: The contribution of devoted christian thinkers to any field of science, art and knowledge is so overwhelming evident that one just has to question the intellectual honesty of those who claim the opposite. This whole section is of questionable value, and an embarrassment to Christians if the counter-arguments are presented as non-neutral and full of loaded language. The section should be here, but in its present form, even after my edits, it should be eliminated entirely until someone can do a decent job with it. -Amatulic 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Word, i just deleted the whole thing. It was poorly written and while I do agree that there should be a (sizeable) section devoted to the matter, what was there before was nominally unprofessional and poorly constructed.Walk0nwalls 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Criticisms - highly POV

message: The current version of the Criticism via Science section, after the recent edits by user:74.129.230.61 is too much slanted towards the conflict thesis POV and portrays a wrong description of current scholarship on the subject. Factual inaccuracies abound when the text frames mainstream revisions made by today’s historians of science as "the argument of some Christians", or "a position previously held by a few historians", etc. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 01:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will offer my response to this: The particular thesis I edited was responded to and refutted by Carl Sagan. This thesis was against Wikipedia policy. I am no more allowed to go on Christianity's webpage and speak of religion's psychology than a Christian is allowed to go on a critic page and write about a particular book. This book maintained that the dark ages and its clerics were not dark, but the "age of enlightenment" as science and the church complimented each other well. If only it were true, one only need laugh twice at the quote from Martin Luther to realize it's not. It is also against policy. I will not be the one to delete it as I encourage others to do so. 
74.129.230.61 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 74.129.230.61. Before further discussion I'd like you to read the quotations I provided bellow, see you tomorrow. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I just did a rewrite of the section that resolved the more blatant POV problems and also removed the POV-tag. Before making alterations, one should be clear about an important point: the criticism articles in WP exist for NPOV discussion of notable instances of criticism – they are not articles intended to be critical per se. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism via Science  - highly POV 

message: The following factual statement, and valid criticism, at the end of the first paragraph has been reverted three times since it's origin:  "Otherwise, considering roughly 2000 years of disappointment, faith in the Second Coming seems remarkably resilient."
The wiki policy is ...
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
So, please consider improving the statement while maintaining the main facts and the reference URL (above):  1) Faith in the second coming is strong, remarkably strong considering ... 2) 2000 years of failed predictions, prophecies, and waiting.
This is simply step two of the "Resolving disputes" guidelines.
DustOfTheEarth 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Elusive Second Coming 

message: The section doesn't appear to mention much of anyone who, in the terms of the references given, is criticizing Christianity at all, just the concept of God or concepts of God which are similar to the Christian one. I fail to see how it shows people directly criticizing Christianity, just forms of theism which feature a personal God or something like that, the Einstein quote in particular only mentions the word "preist" in possible reference to Christianity in the very last sentence, leaving the rest of the quote not really pertinent to criticism of Christianity directly. Does anyone else see what i'm trying to get at? Homestarmy 00:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I agree... maybe it can be moved to "Criticism of religion", but it would require some modifications. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else care to comment? Homestarmy 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody else comments, I might just delete the whole section, surely somebody would object to that? Homestarmy 17:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this section is off topic. My objection is to simple whole sale deleting of content, without finding a better home for it. I would suggest seeing what can be merged with Existence of God or any of the numerous spinout articles of that. I also think there should be either a dab link at the top, or a sentence in the intro directing readers to criticism of the notion of deities in general, instead of specifically to Christianity (which is what this article covers). What think ye?--Andrew c 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism through Analysis section

message: Is there a parallel article on defense of Christianity? If so, at least this one should link to it.
As far as I can tell, every negative criticism in this article has been countered somewhere, but at present the article presents only one side. As it stands, this page is useful for one looking to bash a Christian, and little else. It is not useful as an encyclopedia entry. (That's almost the definition of non-NPOV.)
My proposal, then, is to complete the work that has been started to break this article up. Then, on each of the more specific pages, include point and counter-point. To ensure NPOV, don't include any criticism one way without either including a response or clearly indicating that we are still searching for a response.
It looks from the past discussion that there has been trouble doing this. So let's think about refactoring instead of rewriting, along the following lines:
* Structural NPOV (point, counterpoint)
* Textual NPOV (well hashed-out in other parts of discussion, but not really implemented)
* Orthogonality of content (all coverage of Biblical accuracy in one place, all discussion about existence of an Abrahamic-type God in one place, etc.)
* Citations (and try to cite both a proponent and an objector to a view)
I doubt I'm bringing up anything new, but hopefully this can serve as a summary of the problems and an action plan to get us moving in the right direction.
--Ken 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments point by point for NPOV; Summary of work needed