Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 1

message: We need to be careful that the criticisms and links concern Christianity specifically, and not religion in general (there are other articles for that).  KHM03 16:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you are speaking of the  under Christianity and Science, the referenced article does expand on the issue in specific terms.  Perhaps it would be better though, as a "see also".  I'll attend to that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: The picture of George Bush is WAY over the POV boundary.  George Bush is a Christian but how are his policies representative of Christianity?  What doctrines or teachings?  This article is to be critiques of Christianity, not Christians.  Let's keep our eyes on the ball, and try not to be as POV.  KHM03 10:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush picture 

message: This is another section which badly needs work.  We can cite many sources critical of the Christian  (particularly Roman Catholic) response to AIDS...why a political radical?  We can do better.  KHM03 13:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV/AIDS 

message: Much of the critiques & quotes in this section likely valid, but could the editor who placed them please give the sources?  It would help improve the article and the veracity of the section.  Thanks...KHM03 14:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: I think we can all find faults with things we love. I love Christianity with a passion. But does that mean I should ignore real criticisms? I have encountered problems in my own church with my status as a women. I think it only right that we should pay some attention to this issue. Only then can we let God's love shine into our hearts.Lizzyfoursixty 07:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of women 

message: Any objections to a major overhaul of this article?  KHM03 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all, as long as I'm not expected to do it?!!! (I have exams in two weeks from now.) I think the article could do with a major overhaul. AnnH (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think one is badly needed TMS63112 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a seriously flawed article.  For one, how can ANY Criticisms of _____ article be NPOV?  Wikipedia requires for a NPOV that BOTH sides of an argument be offered.  This invalidates the entire purpose of this article.  If anything, each criticism section should be within the parent articles.  For example, the criticism of the "God hates fags" creeps should be in their specific section.  My 2 cents.  I would like to delete or totally rewirite this entire piece.  There is no way that it can conform to current wikipedia standards. --circuitloss 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: KHM03 - I'd really like to see your suggestions happen.  This article needs to move towards theological criticism and away from "criticisms of stupid christians."  The first place to start would be rewriting the intro to make this clear (delete "the actions of its followers") and focus on the theological inconsistancies and dogmatic disputes internal and external to Christian theology.  All of the "stupid christians" stuff should be within their parent articles. There is already an article on Christian views of women so that section here is redundant, or should intro and link to the other piece.  The "inconsistancies" can stay, and so should the "Christianity and Reason" part I think.  Most of the rest needs to be somehwere else. --circuitloss 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for a rewrite

message: Any objections to redirecting this mess to the "criticisms" section of the Christianity article?   Just wondering.  KHM03 20:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gonna try it.  KHM03 23:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect?

message: "that there seem to be two different versions of the creation story in the Book of Genesis. In the first Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created out of clay or dust. In Genesis 2, Adam is created, gets lonely and God makes Eve out of Adam's rib. Even if one were to say that the second story is just to clarify the first, it doesn't explain the dual creation of Eve, in the opinion of some."
The author of this argument seems only to be refering to:
Quote: Genesis 1:26-28: 
26 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 
What the author wrote himself is quite inconsistent at this point because God was refering to the fact:
1. that "he made both male and female", not necessarily refering to the time that it was written
2. Verse 27 explicitly states: "in the image of God, he created him" (refering to Adam)" at that time. (the Bible doesn't "explicitly state" "in the image of God, he created them, refering at that point to Adam + Eve)
3. Location: Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, back then if you know about "Pangea" was quite bigger then the Garden of Eden itself so at this point, the Bible could be refering to everything else out of the Garden of Eden. (writer's note: I don't think "God" would be stupid to just create Adam + Eve in the Garden of Eden)
Here's a verse from the aftermath of the killing of Abel: Genesis 4:15-24 says: 
"15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 
16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.
17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.
19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 
20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 
21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 
22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of [g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.
23 Lamech said to his wives,
       "Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
       wives of Lamech, hear my words.
       I have killed [h] a man for wounding me,
       a young man for injuring me.
24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
       then Lamech seventy-seven times." 
4. As Genesis 4:16 says: Cain left God's presence and "lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden". This means there had to be other lands (with other people) either then the Garden of Eden.
In my opinion and in a somewhat Biblical-scientific context, the argument has way too little evidence to support it's allegation of inconsistency. 
 
It should be deleted.
Cite: http://www.biblegateway.org/passage/?search=Genesis%201-5;&version=31;
--N0N4am0r 01:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incon. of Christianity 

message: "the story logic of Christianity itself is inconsistent. Many such critiques focus on the idea of a blood sacrific of God to God. "For God so loved the world that he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so if you believe this story, He will not be forced to torture you forever."
umm.... you know that John 3:16 has billions (exageration) of translations
I can quote different versions and aren't "illogical".
    John 3:16 (New International Version)
    New International Version (NIV)
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
    NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
    16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] 
    that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
and
    John 3:16 (King James Version)
    King James Version (KJV)
    Public Domain
    A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan
    16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
    that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
If critics can't understand this, what would this world become?
This is what the verse is saying (if you don't understand): 
God created this world and loved it so much, but then Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3) thus the world could of been forsaken. God instead, choose to give his son (Jesus) (Matthew 27:32-54) up in return for the lost souls (lives) of sinners. Basically he gave us the gift of salvation (as the christians call it) for free, we just have to believe in him so we don't get sent to Hell (also how christians interprete it).
More clarification:
God created a world for us to live in (Genesis 1:26-30) and to rule but our ancestors (Adam and Eve) sinned thus we were all doomed but God chose to save us. Simple as that.
--N0N4am0r 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, if you are going to quote the bible, keep it in context. By taking passages out of context, one use the bible to say, "there is no God,", but in context, it says "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God!'" (Psalms 14:1 MKJV). I will try to avoid editing this page unless in extreme circumstances or vandalism, due to the fact that I may not have a NPOV, for reasons that are pretty obvious by my name, so please be accurate in your information. --R.H._Jesus_Freak40 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story Logic? 

message: :Rwandan Genocide ... bishops... neglected to send help
vs.
:Rwandan Genocide ... bishops... refused to send help
There are several documented instances (see Rwandan Genocide) of actual direct refusal, not merely neglection. Discuss? Clinkophonist 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neglected or refused?

message: :For a parallel discussion, see Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV.
*This article is full of weasel terms.  ("Some critics have maintained that Christianity itself isn't founded on a historical figure.", "A number of other critics fault Christianity for influencing education.", "Some critics have argued that claims that Christianity is the only true religion have led misguided people to fight wars on the basis of that religion.", "Some critics have argued that Christianity can be an intolerant religion.")  This is a pretense of neutrality.  All such language should be rendered neutral by attributing opinions to specific, named people.  Where no such people can be found, the content should be excised for being original research.
*As per Wikipedia:Content forking, the overall scope of this article may well be non-neutral (as it is non-neutral with Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism), since it implies that all of the discussion of the subject is negative.  This article's scope should be refactored to be either about all discussion of the subject, not just the negative, or to be about specific fields of discussion of the subject where all opinions within the field are included.  (Turning this article into a pro and con list is not the solution.  Pro and con lists are based upon the erroneous notion that neutrality equates to exact balance.  Neutrality is about ensuring that Wikipedia has no opinion and advocates no point of view.)  See how Criticism of Objectivism is now Objectivist philosophy, and includes all discussion of the philosophy.  Rendering this article neutral will almost certainly include changing its title.
Uncle G 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice start of general re-factoring. I misinterpreted your edits regardinng "internal consistency", but now I see the grand scheme. --Pjacobi 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your plan doesn't seem too popular, and several people (inc. myself) keep reverting and changing your plans.  Your plan may be well intentioned, but seems to be producing even more POV / accuracy problems.  Please work with those who are editing your work for POV / accuracy reasons, and don't just revert.  You've reverted the work of some good, long standing editors on several pages (Wesley, SimonP, Str1977, just to name a few), and that's hardly working with others.  Please work with us, even if we all don't agree with your plan.  KHM03 12:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, Clinkophonist, please work with others.  If we don't agree with your plan, we have every right to adapt them and change them.  Creating more POV pages won't solve the real POV issues in this article.  We can make progress, and you can be invaluable, because it seems you have some pretty good ideas.  But just reverting other people's attempts at getting to a more NPOV spot in order to push your own agenda and POV won't solve anything.  Please work with others and "play nice"!  Thanks...KHM03 13:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just seems to be you. I have reverted no-one's work (except your deletions). If you actually check what I did, I simply seperated the content and moved it to a seperate page. See below, where you are calling one such seperate page a POV fork, when it is actually what this article originally said before I moved it and changed what this article said to be more neutral. Personally, I'm quite that when you are unable to see who is responsible, that you believe what is actually my version of a text - the summary - to be a more NPOV version of what you consider to be a POV fork, which is actually your (plural) version of the text. (It's also quite amusing that you accuse me of creating POV forks, when the POV is your own, and the version you think is less POV is actually mine) Clinkophonist 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously, we disagree.  I feel that you've created far greater POV problems by spreading the POV stuff around to multiple articles.  As I've said before, I think your intentions were good, but the results have been less than satisfactory.  The community (myself included) will surely work with you to fix the problems.  KHM03 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from stating the obvious, have you noticed that it is a hell of a lot easier to fix POV problems concerning, for example, discussion of christian attitudes towards race, sexuality, equality, etc., when it is under a title such as "Christianity, tolerance, and equality" than when it is under a title such as "Criticism of Christianity". Clinkophonist 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendering this article neutral 

message: The Christianity, tolerance, and equality article's content is entirely critical of Christianity; it seems reasonable to merge it with the content here. Any objections? Wesley 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be merged here; it is simply a POV fork of this article. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  KHM03 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Flex 19:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, MERGE the article.--Midnite Critic 20:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree as well, but whatever bits of Christianity, tolerance, and equality are put into Criticism of Christianity will need to be very de-POVed. AnnH (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, merge for the reasons already given and because the CTE article actually deals with two topics (Tolerance and equality). Str1977 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Clinkophonist, there are seven votes in favor of the merge and only yours against, so far. How long do you propose we wait for more voters to join you in opposing the merge? Wesley 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Both versions are heavily POV, I don't see any substantive difference in that regard. Based on the definition of criticism that you seem to advocate, both positive and negative aspects of Christianity could be discussed here, so that's no reason to split that section off either. Once I finish removing all the uncited original research, and material that's duplicated from other articles (that have been around much longer), length won't be a problem. You haven't convinced me or anyone else that I can tell that that Christianity, tolerance and equality shouldn't be merged to here. Wesley 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Christianity, tolerance, and equality 

message: ===Ethics in the Bible===
Some of the ethical decisions in the Bible, especially the Old Testament are considered morally questionable by many modern groups, and often do not match up to modern expectations. Some of the assertions critics claim that the Bible makes include the subjugation of women, condemnation of (perhaps only some forms of) homosexuality, and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites.  Some critics and religious groups argue that these situations should be judged by the standards of the time, which they match much more closely.  Additionally, some Christian denominations and theologians interpret these passages in other ways which do not support the subjugation of women, etc.
:I pulled this out for two reasons: first, it is completely lacking in verifiable sources; second, the criticism offered would apply equally to Judaism. Both of these deficiencies need to be remedied if this is to go back in. Wesley 23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is by its nature a criticism about which it is hard to write an informative, neutral entry, but I think it should still go in there. That it could equally apply to Judaism (or Islam, or...) doesn't invalidate it. I suppose reference to a book raising these objections would count as a source? Thomas Ash 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage would certainly be more appropo on a "Criticism of Religion" page, rather than specifically this one.  The "main article" the section points to presents a host of problems.  KHM03 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, that's why I moved it to an article called Criticism of the Bible, and summarised that article instead; I still don't see why you reverted me doing that. (Religion generally is inappropriate, I don't see even extremist Buddhists Hindus Sikhs or Jains ever advocating the genocide of Canaanites, mainly because they wouldn't care; and the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Confucianists, etc. aren't really going to care that much about what the bible says about sexuality, what with it not being their holy book). Clinkophonist 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Yes, reference to a book whose author raises these objections would count as a source. I wonder whether wikipedia has addressed references which themselves use "weasel words?" At any rate, it shouldn't be that hard to find an author who makes these arguments,  but without any citation, it's just original research, or the wiki editor's opinion. Many other parts of this artice do manage to find someone to quote, which is part of why I'm picking on this section. Wesley 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you denying that anyone raises or has ever raised these criticisms? If not, then I don't see why it needs a quote. All it is stating is that people have raised the issue. We don't attribute "some people enjoy sex", because it is obviously true (that some people enjoy it); it is equally true that some people have raised the criticisms - it doesn't need a cite because it is bloody obvious (that the criticisms have been raised). Clinkophonist 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Read the line right above the Edit summary. It says, "Content must not violate any copyright and must be basd on verifiable sources." If the criticism is noteworthy, then surely someone has published the criticism who can be cited. Wesley 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved here from the main page 

message: Some of the ethical decisions in the Bible, especially the Old Testament are considered morally questionable by many modern groups, and often do not match up to modern expectations. Some of the assertions critics claim that the Bible makes include the subjugation of women, condemnation of (perhaps only some forms of) homosexuality, and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites.  Some critics and religious groups argue that these situations should be judged by the standards of the time, which they match much more closely.  Additionally, some Christian denominations and theologians interpret these passages in other ways which do not support the subjugation of women, etc.
:I pulled this out for two reasons: first, it is completely lacking in verifiable sources; second, the criticism offered would apply equally to Judaism. Both of these deficiencies need to be remedied if this is to go back in. Wesley 23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is by its nature a criticism about which it is hard to write an informative, neutral entry, but I think it should still go in there. That it could equally apply to Judaism (or Islam, or...) doesn't invalidate it. I suppose reference to a book raising these objections would count as a source? Thomas Ash 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage would certainly be more appropo on a "Criticism of Religion" page, rather than specifically this one.  The "main article" the section points to presents a host of problems.  KHM03 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, that's why I moved it to an article called Criticism of the Bible, and summarised that article instead; I still don't see why you reverted me doing that. (Religion generally is inappropriate, I don't see even extremist Buddhists Hindus Sikhs or Jains ever advocating the genocide of Canaanites, mainly because they wouldn't care; and the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Confucianists, etc. aren't really going to care that much about what the bible says about sexuality, what with it not being their holy book). Clinkophonist 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Yes, reference to a book whose author raises these objections would count as a source. I wonder whether wikipedia has addressed references which themselves use "weasel words?" At any rate, it shouldn't be that hard to find an author who makes these arguments,  but without any citation, it's just original research, or the wiki editor's opinion. Many other parts of this artice do manage to find someone to quote, which is part of why I'm picking on this section. Wesley 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you denying that anyone raises or has ever raised these criticisms? If not, then I don't see why it needs a quote. All it is stating is that people have raised the issue. We don't attribute "some people enjoy sex", because it is obviously true (that some people enjoy it); it is equally true that some people have raised the criticisms - it doesn't need a cite because it is bloody obvious (that the criticisms have been raised). Clinkophonist 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Read the line right above the Edit summary. It says, "Content must not violate any copyright and must be basd on verifiable sources." If the criticism is noteworthy, then surely someone has published the criticism who can be cited. Wesley 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics in the Bible

message: Critics have argued that Biblical teachings stating that a women's role is one of "submission" is somewhat at odds with contemporary views of sexual equality. Dr Linda M. Woolf, Professor of Psychology, Webster University has stated that [3] "Unlike men, however, many women are allowed only an internal spiritual or religious experience and are often denied leadership roles or roles that foster any form of externalization of their faith."
Elizabeth Dodson Gray argued that Christianity "continue to place women in a subservient role that demands their silence and obedience" (National Catholic Reporter, April 1, 1994 v30 n22 p21).
When read in context, both of these critics are speaking specifically about the ordination of women. Does it never occur to them that less than 5% of men are ordained either, thus supposedly leaving 95% of men with "only an internal spiritual or religious experience" and similarly denied any role "that foster[s] any form or externalization of their faith"? The criticism is made and cited, so I'm not removing it outright, but it's weak to the point of being laughable. The broader essay by Woolf goes on to say that the real problems for women came when in America they were told to submit to beatings by drunken husbands and denied the right to vote. (I think she neglected to mention the right to own property.) Those are much bigger problems than just not being ordained, but those problems are not nearly as widespread as the ordination policy. I guess my question is whether this is worth keeping in the article. Wesley 17:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your call.  KHM03 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Overall I think the article has bigger problems than to worry overmuch about this bit, at least for now. It does have a supporting citation, I just modified it to indicate that the quote was mainly talking about availability of ordination. I'm open to other suggestions though. Wesley 03:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and Women 

message: I feel this question needs to be asked because several commentors don't seem to comprehend that Criticism is not the same thing as an Attack, and can include praise. Clinkophonist 21:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure haven't seen a lot of praise on this article (or its relatives)!  KHM03 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Clinkophonist, are you suggesting that this article should be balanced by some documented praise of Christianity? In your judgment, would adding such praise make the article more or less NPOV? There seems to be great inherent difficulty in writing any "Criticism of ..." article in NPOV fashion, however you define criticism. Wesley 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, if you read the article and pay attention to how the word is used, it does appear to be used more as if it meant attack: "sharply criticised", "heavily criticised", "has come under heavy criticism for its..." These phrases are not intended to mean that people are applying careful judgment or interpretation of Christianity; rather, its clear that they have judged Christianity and have reached a negative conclusion regarding it. As the Criticism article notes, this is in fact a common usage of the word in the English language, and not just in this article. Wesley 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Criticism? 

message: Moved here from the article:
Africa has the greatest incidence of AIDS per capita in the world, and the heavy proportion of fundamentalist Christians in Africa, all expounding the abstinance-not-condoms message, is widely viewed as contributing to this.
There are at least three uncited claims in this sentence, two of which I rather doubt. First, the incidence of AIDS per capita in Africa is so high in large part because Africa uses a much broader clinical definition of "AIDS" than is used in North America and many other parts of the world. Any sickness that might be connected with the immune system, or that has symptoms vaguely similar to those experienced by what the US considers AIDS patients, are labeled AIDS cases, at least partly in order to qualify for more international aid. Drug companies also stand to benefit from an overbroad definition.
Second, I strongly doubt that there even exist any statistics on the proportion of fundamentalist Christians in Africa; if there were any reputable stats, I rather doubt they would show that such Christians are in a 'heavy proportion.'
Thirdly, the "widely viewed as contributing to this" is completely without context. Widely viewed by whom? The wikipedian who wrote that paragraph and a dozen of his friends? Wesley 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS and fundamentalists 

message: Substituted at 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment