Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 2

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)
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)
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: Wow Gio!  If your strategy is to drown the opposition in excessive verbiage, then I think you are close to winning the war!  When I saw how long your latest masterpiece was I almost pulled an Alienus on you all and quit.  However, I am pleased to say that I did read through your post, and have given you and your ideas their own subject heading on this talk page.  But, Gio, you didn’t seem to heed my advice about proof-reading your posts.  You are not doing anyone any favors by refusing to write in a way that can be clearly understood.
Gio writes: “I never make the claim that the Action B violates the command of Christian doctrine”  Gio, if you aren’t claiming to be criticizing Christian doctrine, then you probably are on the wrong page.  This page is dedicated to the criticisms of Christianity.  Please straighten yourself out before posting again.
Gio writes: “I argue that those who provide evdience that they are Christians, and fit within a lose definition that is inclusive of a majority professed Christian Churches is valid grounds given the nature of Christianity to accept that they are infact really Christians…”  I don’t think this is really what you want to say, because you will never find “a majority of professed Christian Churches” that agree with White Supremacy or the Rwandan genocide.  Everyone on this board would be happy to accept this standard, and in fact, this is exactly what we have been arguing for the entire time.  I’m glad you are finally coming around my friend!  
Gio writes: “Therefore, it follows that the notion that Christians, by virtue of their religious adherence, posses positive and superior moral attributes is shown to be a completely false claim.”  Correct!  Too bad nobody here is making that claim.  I will quote myself: “Christians don't claim that professing to be a believer automatically makes one, "moral." Christian scriptures give a set of guidelines for how one should live. Whether or not one correctly follows these guidelines is what determines whether or not one can be considered to be living a morally acceptable life.”
Gio writes: “I did not say “just professing” to be a believer is enough, although that is strong evidence that they are Christians. My argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be. It’s a subtle difference. Professing alone is not my criteria, just a major part of it. The argument is that they are Christians.”  Does anyone else here understand what he is talking about?  Maybe I am just dumb, but I have absolutely no idea what he is trying to say.  “My argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be.”  Huh?  “It’s a subtle difference.”  Apparently!
Gio writes: “Who is a real Christian and who isnt? This is sticky point you keep ignoring [sic].”  Actually, Gio, I would be happy to accept your own standard, defining Christians as those that who “fit within a lose definition that is inclusive of a majority professed Christian Churches [sic].”  We would need to first clarify what a “lose definition” is, but I am sure that some sort of consensus could be reached.
Gio writes: “Hence my accepting their claims of being and following Christians teachings itself as valid evidence they are also Christian. We only know what they profess they believe in.”  Wait a minute Gio!  Didn’t you just say a minute ago that you “did not say ‘just professing’ to be a believer is enough...” and that your, “argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be?”  Reading on you write that, “It’s a subtle difference. Professing alone is not my criteria, just a major part of it.”  Wow, apparently it is a very subtle difference!  Although, I must admit, I really have no idea what you are talking about, so maybe this whole thing is unfair to you.  Could someone else please come and be Gio’s translator?  I’m totally serious.
Gio writes: “Those who would deny Hitler's Christianity, for example, on the basis of his immoral actions are also guilty of not only religious bigotry but the same circular logic: as they see it, Hitler is consistent with their belief that all Christians are moral because he was not a Christian, and they know he was not a Christian because all Christians are moral!”  Good point!  I propose we add the Holocaust and Nazism to our list of Criticisms of Christianity.  
Gio writes: “I define a Christian as one who believes that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.”  Me too – I am glad we can finally agree on something!
Gio writes: “Others define it far more narrowly, so that they can exclude people like Hitler and Mengele.”  Gio, for the billionth time, the actions of professing Christians do not in and of themselves constitute “Criticism of Christianity.”  By your logic, we could include the name and biography of every single Christian in the world under “Criticism of Christianity,” because every single Christian in the world has committed numerous immoral acts.  To criticize Christianity, you need to criticize some tenet (notice I did not write “tenant” -- please stop using that word) of the religion.  You can then use historical examples to illustrate how that tenet leads to undesirable ends.  I am really getting tired of explaining that to you, over and over again.
Gio writes: “There is no comparision [between Christianity and science] as the standards are completely different [sic].”  Gio, please read things slowly and carefully so that you can grasp what people are saying.  I was not comparing the standards used in theology and science.  Clearly, as you astutely observe, “Christianity is NOT science in any way, shape or from.”  Why don’t you go back and read it again.
Gio writes: “The doctrine can itself be stretched to support almost anything given the power of interpretation.”  This is clearly false.  Provide me with an interpretation of the Bible that is pro-necrophilia.  Yes this is a ridiculous example, but it is all one needs to disprove your statement.
Gio writes: “You say this is spurious by saying that ‘just because there are multiple interpretations it doesn’t mean that isn’t one correct interpretation, rendering the others incorrect.’ Yes, that is what all Christians say that, and all religious belifes make the claim that they are the one true interpreation, that their god is the one true god, etc. But all this proves is their own narrow bigotry and intolerance [sic].”  Gio, there is an objective truth about the nature of things.  Christians think they have it.  Now, they might be wrong, but they are not automatically wrong simply because other people disagree with them.  Perhaps the Muslims are correct.  I really don’t know, but I do know that your assertion is illogical.
Gio writes: “True, we may understand many things better today, such as how the Bible is full of contradictions, open for vastly differing and selective interpretations, and how it more and more is shown to be at odds with true and science [sic].”  You don’t know much about theology do you?  That’s okay though, because at least you know a lot about “true and science!”  But wait Gio, I thought that those who make truth claims are only proving, “their own narrow bigotry and intolerance?”
It’s been a pleasure going through your post.  You’re a master of prose Gio – hats off to you!  Mcb197 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcb197 -- There are numerous problems with Gio's proposals and with his apparent understanding of Christians and Christianity, but your tone was somewhat less than friendly and really just unacceptable.  Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Thanks...KHM03 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree KHM03. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should end this particular thread, as it possibly getting a little personal. There are other threads to discuss the article itself. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All About Gio

message: I'm not against discussing the criticism itself. The problem is that the article already makes a POV attempt to substantiate the criticism, and what Gio's arguing for is in effect to make it even more so. I repeat: the article is about criticism of Christianity, it's not a vehicle for making criticisms. 
I don't even know if he's realized it yet, but not only does he insist there are atheist Christians, he also believes there are Muslim Christians.  A.J.A. 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giovanni doesn't seem to think that theology is an academic discipline.  I guess that Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Duke, UNC, Princeton, Vanderbilit, Emory, Columbia etc., etc. all missed that memo.  Shall I forward the news on to them Gio?  RussianBoy 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RussianBoy -- There are numerous problems with Gio's proposals and with his apparent understanding of Christians and Christianity, but your tone was somewhat less than friendly and really just unacceptable.  Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Thanks...KHM03 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree KHM03. Everyone should be more civilised. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should end this particular thread, as it possibly getting a little personal. There are other threads to discuss the article itself. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet More 

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