Talk:Apostasy/Archive 1

message: I'm atheist, and I have never heard the term "deconversion" in my life.  How widespread is this term?  Does this sentence have to be a sweeping generalization?
--Egomaniac 22:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheists and agnostics use the term Deconversion to describe loss of Faith in religion

message: :Where is the example of a cult that exists today that has capital punishment for apostasy? I had reverted that remark because of the missing example. Andries 04:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital Punishment

message: "There is empirical evidence that people who have strong religious faith are happier than people who do not have a strong faith."
I would prefer that this line be removed until a link to actual evidence is appended to the entry. As it is, the neutrality of the article is slighly suspect.
:There is an abundance of evidence. I read it several times in the newspaper. Andries 15:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See e.g. for empirical evidence that faith correlates with happiness here http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/content.asp?ID=290 Andries 16:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical evidence... where? 

message: What is best? one article on Apostasy with subheads for each religion (se proposed TOC above) as we have it now, or adding new sub headings about Apostasy on each one of the articles about religions? A combination of both? What will the readers  expect? --Zappaz 16:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is best? 

message: I am surprised about:
#The removal of Maria Monk as a notable apostate, by Andries
#The comment about Monk not being an apostate by Antaeus
Can you please explain the reasons for these edits? I have researched Monk's story quite a bit, and do not understand the reason for these edits. She was controversial, of course. She may have lied all the way... but the story is most definively applicable, and if true, a clear case of apostasy. --Zappaz 04:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maria Monk was born as a protestant but then pretended having been a Catholic and criticized Catholicism. This is not apostasy according to the definition which is formal renunciation of one's religion. She critized a religion to which she she never adhered. It would have been apostasy if she had criticized protestantism.  Andries 09:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, you pointed out the reason yourself:  "if true, a clear case of apostasy."  But those who investigated Maria Monk's story, including the Protestant investigators like Colonel Stone who would have no reason for bias against her side of the story, came to the conclusion that it wasn't true.  To put her in a list where she belongs only if her story is true and omit any mention of the high probability that she "lied all the way"?  One might as well include Prester John in a list of world rulers of the 12th century, while omitting any mention of the probability that he never existed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maria Monk 

message: The hadith were quoted before Qur'an.  Just... so POV.... needs  fixing. gren 17:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy In Islam 

message: I think the section on NRM's has become too large and I want to merge most of it into the page for Opposition to NRM's where it really belongs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements ). Andriesb 23:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given your situation, it will be a very hard read for you, Andries. Regarding your proposal about mering the section on NRMs, I disagree. It belongs here. Thanks. Also note that I am expanding this section now with some more material. We may need to split it to its won article later on. --Zappaz 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: please note, that Andriesb is another Dutch or Flemish speaking contributor but not me. I am Andries. Andries 18:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in NRM's 

message: Purported al-Zarqawi tape denounces Shiites, calls Iraqi government 'apostate'  Interesting reminder about the uses of the accusation of apostasy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Apostate in Arabic, it is a very bad word to use against a fellow Muslim. --Zappaz 01:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-profile accusation of apostasy 

message: Apostasy, as departing from the teachings of Jesus and His apostles as written in the bible. --Svnutn 13:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in ''Christianity'' 

message: I have read all the articles by Carter and Bromley in the book and it does not contain the following statement
In studies by Lewis Carter and David Bromley, it is presented that the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions movements shifted from these groups to the coercive activities of the anti-cult movement. As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. These studies also point out that the lack of any widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions has in itself become the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.
Bromley, David G. (Ed.) The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religiuos Movements and Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, 1998. 
Andries 21:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read both articles? The text is not a quote but a summary of some of their findings as presented by Melton in his article Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory.  --Zappaz 15:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I removed a paragraph that is not contained in the reference

message: The position of Sufyan Al Thawri about apostacy is wrongfully stated in the article. This is not what he said. the writer completely misunderstood what Sufyan said.
:Please feel free to correct it.--a.n.o.n.y.m   t 14:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufyan Al Thawri and apostacy 

message: There are two theological points listed as signs of apostasy which have in history as well (or more often) been signs not of apostasy but of heresy. Apostasy is not the denial of single doctrines - it is a complete denial of Christianity (which sure includes denial of central teachings). If denial of the deity of the holy spirit is the only "symptom" it's not apostasy but a case of heresy, this should be made clear. --Irmgard 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity - distinction between apostasy and heresy

message: "As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. "
This sentence in the middle of the para seems to be an evaluation of the study, not from the study itself. What is the reference for that? --Irmgard 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When we addd that text we did not have the benefit of the ref/note templates. I will have to go back and find it. And will do so, believe you me. :) --ZappaZ  14:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bromley and Shupe 

message: Abbreviated as it is a repetition of Carter and Bromley already stated above --Irmgard 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a repetition, as it covers other aspects. Please check and restore any useful text that is not duplicated. Thanks. --ZappaZ  14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melton 

message: Please provide attribution and source to "some of the critics" for NPOV and to avoid weasel words:
Some of the critics complain about ad hominem attacks on them by their former organizations or by apologists of their former faith.
Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will deweasel them, but the directly preceding sentence should be attributed too "Some of the groups being criticized, in turn, claim being the target of religious intolerance, or hate by these critics." Andries 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. That statement is now attributed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "some of the critics" 

message: This is totally wrong. It's not illegal in Turkey. Though Turkey is not a muslim country, it's secular. But I changed the article to show it's not illegal in Turkey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.177.64 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal In All Muslim Countries 

message: Judaism explicitly demands that apostates be stoned to death, as stated in Deut 13, and referenced in Exodus (Moses ordering those praying to the golden calf to be killed). I am also removing the part that states Islam requires apostates to be killed; there is no mention of it in the Quran, and only occurs in the different interpretations of Sharia Law.
66.42.54.89 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no concept of an apostate in Hinduism as there is no procedure of conversion to or away from Hinduism. Converts to other religion from Hinduism may adopt other religions but cannot abandon Hinduism.
There appears to be a contradiction here.  Could someone please rephrase, and if possible, elaborate on this section?
Some sources are needed.  Perhaps we should include some of the text from the Bhagavad Gita above. Dforest 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostasy in Judaism and Islam

message: :There is no concept of an apostate in Hinduism as there is no procedure of conversion to or away from Hinduism. Converts to other religion from Hinduism may adopt other religions but cannot abandon Hinduism.
There appears to be a contradiction here.  Could someone please rephrase, and if possible, elaborate on this section?
Some sources are needed.  Perhaps we should include some of the text from the Bhagavad Gita above. Dforest 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I have removed the assertion that capital punishment is also proscribed for certain other faiths than Islam because I don't know any. If you re-insert it then please mention the names of these religious movements. Andries 05:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Blasphemy ≠ Apostasy. And please sign your comments. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of capital punishment for certain faiths other than Islam

message: *Ok, in the Judaism section, I see a big problem.  Being a Jew is being in an ethnic group, not a religion, i.e. you are a Jew if your mother was a Jew, regardless of what you believe.  See:  Jew and Judaism and Who is a Jew?.  Therefore, anyone listed in the Judaism section needs to be confirmed to have been a believer or practicer of Judaism to qualify to be listed, regardless of their ethnic origin.  This means if they were over the age of 13 when they became an Apostate, they had to have had a Bar mitzvah or Bat mitzvah or they must claim to have practiced Judaism.  If they haven't done any of these, then they can not be counted.  Fanra 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Albert Einstein identified with Israel, and was a Zionist. He is certainly not an "apostate" for having not been a practicing Jew. --Metzenberg 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Jewist person is not an apostate unless he practices another religion. The various mitzvot (Jewish commandments) are worded this way: prohibition on idolatry, have no other Gods, etc. Thus, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Baruch Spinoza, and several others do not belong on this list. I can think of several others who do, and I'll add them. --Metzenberg 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would personally agree that apostasy demands a renunciation of the earlier belief system. Generally, Christianity does not require people to renounce Judaism, as Christianity generally sees itself as an "extension" or "fulfillment" of Judaism. Maybe the section with names could be removed entirely, with perhaps an explanation to that effect and (perhaps) a link to other pages dealing with conversion? For what it's worth, I'm not sure but that people who convert from Christianity to the Unification Church or from any branch of Islam to Bahai might not be disqualified from this list on the same basis. I do however note that one convert from Islam to Bahai is listed as having been executed for apostasy. Clearly, in any case such as this when there is a legal definition of the word which may also apply, it would qualify for inclusion. However, I would try to ensure that it is made clear that the definition used by the court is not necessarily the definition used by each of the faiths involved. John Carter 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fanra, you're correct except Jesus did not renounce the Judaic leadership either.  Rather, He denounced them.  Jstanierm 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaism Section Disputed

message: The article says that there is no apostacy in Hinduism but then later, there is a list of Hindu apostates.....? (Reahad 21:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction II 

message: Forum postings are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. See WP:V and WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unles sources are provided for these sections tagged with  withn a reasonable period of time, that material will be deleted from this article, in accordance with Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ex-Christians" 

message: Spiritual desertion, an all-but abandoned article, describes a concept that seems similar if not equivalent to apostasy. Since there are no links to that article, I am seeking opinions on whether it would be appropriate to redirect it here. -choster 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostasy vs. Spiritual desertion

message: I am a bit uncomfortable with "Apostates of new religious movements usually make a number of allegations against their former affiliation and their leaders, including failed...".  The use of "usually" cannot be supported since by far the most apostates just go off and lick their wounds in silence.  And as an apostate (whose opinions are therefore automatically suspect! :) ) I also find the term "usually" to have possible negative connotations in this context -- it can give the impression that we apostates are making knee-jerk reactions. I propose this instead: "Apostates of new religious movements sometimes make a number of allegations against their former affiliation and their leaders.  These allegationss can include failed...".  Tanaats 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the edit. Tanaats 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue that these that "go off and lick their wounds in silence" are not referred to as "apostates", but as "leavetakers", "defectors", etc. Apostates, in this context, are those that usually do actively criticize their former groups/religions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back. Tanaats 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Only some sociologists make this distinction sometimes. And sociologists are not the only ones who have written about the subject. Andries (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Usually'' make allegations? 

message: I have removed references to the organisation, Elan Vital, from this article as the organisation is not an authority on apostasy, nor a scholarly source.  Elan Vital's opinions on significant topics should be confined to the Elan Vital article.  --John Brauns 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the references to Elan Vital.  This group and its leader are not authorities or scholars on apostasy or new religious movements.  Moreover, the links to Elan Vital FAQ make the sentence unbalanced, and doesn't even mention it's (Elan Vital) critics' website.  Statements like this should be limited to the articles Elan Vital or Prem Rawat.  Without mentioning the name of the critics of Elan Vital, Ex-premies, the assertion is not NPOV, and to expand on both the critics and the NRM in this case would be inappropriate for this article.  Sylviecyn 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elan Vital not a reliable source for this article 

message: Is anyone attached to the "Thelema" mention?  I don't think it belongs in the article, and propose that we take it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, by the way, that entire subsection is given undue weight to the traditional meaning of the term "apostasy", and should be forked off into its own article subsection of "apostasy" as defined by cult apologists...  Smeelgova 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take "Thelema" out? 

message: I added the King James Version and New American Standard Bible translations of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to make the scriptural reference more contextural and less opinionated.  Taitken 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to 2 Thessalonians 2:3 additional versions 

message: I'm not sure if I put the otheruses template up properly, and its definition of this article is definitely not worded correctly. backstabb 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses 

message: I've started to archive the really old stuff.  If you wish to continue a subject that was archived, please start a new subject here.  Thanks.  Fanra 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: See above "Notable apostates: Judaism Section Disputed"  Fanra 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All these have been deleted. People are confusing conversion with apostasy. Only these people referred to as apostates in multiple reliable sources should be added to that list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not forget that multiple varying definitions of the word exist. Opponent of one's former religion is only one among several definitions and should not dominate this article. Andries (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: This material is pertinent, but requires sources. Moved here.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced since August 2007 

message: Richardson uses Bromley's definitions page 172. Please read the book before making such changes. Andries (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In page 172 there is no mention of Bromley. In page 173 there is a mention of Bromley's reference to '"subversive organizations". The citation I added to this article is summarized from Richardson's "Theoretical Implications" on page 185-6. Changed page number in cite to reflect this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. It is page 171. Andries (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please explain. Richardson wrote on page 171 that he uses Bromley's definitions. Andries (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course Richardson explains the definitions that he uses at the beginning of the article. What is your view? Andries (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: re-read

message: Jossi removed a paragraph:17:50, 21 January 2008 Jossi (→Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their motivations: rm Dunlop - not an RS, self published stuff) 
But work is cited elsewhere, eg http://www.cifs.org.au/DominiekCoates.pdf which is a paper supervised by Marilyn Rudd, Ph.D. So it is not clear that material removed by Jossi is not RS, please justify EmmDee (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Left it 4 weeks, no response from Jossi, so reinstated paragraph they removed 17:50, 21 January 2008. On balance, think that material (originally added by Zappaz I believe) is RS, though I agree it is a bit marginal. EmmDee (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 21 January 2008 

message: I reworded the first paragraphs and moved one.  I don't think I've changed the substance at all, just improved clarity, but please let me know if you disagree.  One question:  what does this mean? I can't make heads or tails of it.   "any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned" Msalt (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Islam 

message: A quick Google search showed that there is definitely a concept of apostasy and heresy in Hinduism.  There have been numerous incidents of communal violence in India for years and at least some of them appear to be directed at people considered as Hindu heretics.  Here are some sources:
"re: atheism and heresies in India, it is necessary to recall that among those who repudiated the authority of the Vedas outside the Brāhmanical fold and earned the epithets pāandas (heretics) and nāstikas (non-believers in the Vedas), the important ones are the Jains, the Buddhists and the Cārvākas,the followers of Cārvāka also being known as lokāyatikas."  "[Looking For a Hindu Identity], address by Dwijendra Narayan Jha
"Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Bajrang Dal unanimously passed a resolution to teach a lesson to all those who are responsible for causing damage to Hindu Dharma and those who are anti-Hindus/heretics, in the public meeting held at Costa Ground- Madgaon."  [Daiji World.Com, April 22, 2008]
["Saints resolve to establish ‘Dharma Sansad’ to fight heretics!"], Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, April 19, 2008
Chapter three of the book ["A Survey of Hinduism"] by Klaus Klostermaier is titled "Hindu Dharma: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Hinduism"
:I removed the following paragraph:
However, recent legal changes in India (a predominantly Hindu country) limiting the ability of citizens in certain Indian States to convert religion from Hinduism based solely on personal belief also suggest that apostasy does enjoy widespread social disfavour.
:This is wrong, the law states that people can change faith (not just from Hinduism) only on the grounds of a sincere personal belief. It prevents people changing due to threats, bribes and enticements. -- preceding unsigned comment made by Q Chris 08:52, 15 December 2008 
::I continue to have problems with this section.  Right now, it reads as a defense of Hinduism without any citations.  You ignore the citations I just made showing anger toward Hindu heretics.  Buddhism is completely ignored, yet the existence of sects within Buddhism seems to show that there is doctrinal exclusion.  And the writing is very squishy ("Somewhat accepted"? What does that mean?).  It appears to be difficult to find a neutral and solid description.  I'm planning to remove the section entirely until and unless we can put something solid here.  Any ideas? Msalt (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is insufficient evidence anyway to judge for or against apostasy in either religion as neither have as hardline rules regarding this - the actions of a callous few should not be regarded as the norm, but cannot be dismissed entirely either. Therefore the topic should just be removed.155.198.72.63 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in Hinduism and Buddhism 

message: I have removed the section of material on the alleged massacre of 7000 persons during the Albigensian crusade.
Although sloppily repeated in many history books (particularly those aimed at a popular audience, which generally have lower standards than books for academics), the fact is that this episode is apocryphal, not real.  There is only one source for this episode and it is a generally unreliable chronicle written more than 100 years after the alleged episode.  Furthermore, the bishop who allegedly approved the slayings did not even go on the crusade and was, in fact, no where near the town in question -- he was hundreds of miles away in Paris (we have documentation demonstrating his presence there).
There is considerable evidence remaining contemporary to the Albigensian crusade, from both sides of the conflict, and there is no mention in any of the contemporary evidence of any massacre of this nature.  
I have a PhD in Medieval History, so I speak with some authority on this matter.
Maw000000 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be true, but please stop edit-warring (that is, constantly removing the text, after others reinsert it) until this dispute is resolved.  Otherwise, you are in danger of being blocked regardless of the merits of your position.  If you, McSly and Skomorokh can't resolve the issue here on talk, you should start any one of several levels of dispute resolution.  A Request for Comment is a good starting place to build consensus and/or get an outside opinion. Msalt (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, personally my problem with the edits had nothing to do with the content since I don't know much about the subject and everything to do with the fact that a anonymous user was deleting a whole paragraph without any explanation. In that case I usually revert the edit and ask for a reason which I did in this case. Since that we have a reason now, it's already better. That being said, the paragraph was sourced so if we need to remove it, it would be nice to have a reliable source stating that it did not happen. Maw000000, keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Finally, since it seems to me that only the quote is in dispute, not the underlying events, maybe it would be possible to rewrite the paragraph stating that the quote is most likely apocryphal but represent the "state of mind" of the people of the time. -McSly (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given your studies it might be helpful if you look at the article over all, perhaps suggest some good verifiable sources, and offer any big picture corrections.  My main concern with that quote was that a lot of space was devoted to a single incident, however horrible it may have been, in an article that discusses the entire history of apostasy under Christianity in  two paragraphs.  Are there useful (and sourced) broader statements we can make about apostasy in Christianity?  I'm frankly still confused whether heresy falls under the subject of apostasy, or just renunciation.  Either way, I'm sure there are both  prominent individuals and long term trends that could profitably be added to this article. Msalt (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Material on Christianity, 5/15/09 

message: "It must also be pointed out that under the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned, terms which the Prophet accepted." This sentence is broken. I'm not an expert on this subject, so "i'm posting here for the interested to fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DNJH (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs fixing?

message: This article is missing a section that clearly states that Baptism is an apostasy against satanism. As it can be read in the ancient Greek verses, when one is baptized and the chrisma is performed, the father-in-law apostates against satan for the baptized child. 87.219.84.58 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism