Talk:Criticism of Christianity

No persecution of Mulims or crusades mentioned in criticim section

I realy think someone should add more info on the persecution of Muslims by Christians during the crusades. These were in my opinion quite pointless conquests based on racism and power, mainly by military leaders and the pope. Nor is there any mention of the killing of Jews or atheists in this section. I'm sure this is one of the lasting legacy's of Christianity. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lasting legacy's of Christianity? You make it hard for me not to accuse you of a serious POV violation. What if I was to tell you that the Insurgency in Iraq, Intifada, Hamas, 9/11, Munich hostage kidnappings, Bali bombings in Indonesia, bombings in India, Taliban in Afghanistan (Events of the last 30 years only) were to be one of the most lasting legacy's of Islam, how would you feel? Would I be justified in calling these Islamic persecutions of Christianity? Now, whilst you are formulating your mental defense against these, think how I am reacting to you suggesting that a "pointless war based on racism and power" is one of Christianity's lasting legacy's.

Most western sources will state the Council of Clermont as the Pope's intention to protect Eastern Christians from the recently arrived Seljuk Turks. Besides, the idea that the Crusades was a war for power is not justified by the massive expenses involved in them. Indeed, more money and power could be found in conquering southern Spain from the Muslims, or attacking their fellow Christian neighbors, which the Christian Kingdoms in Europe had been doing for quite some time. So zealous were the Christian knights that many in Spain abandoned the Reconquista for the Holy Land. You need to see the aftermath of the Battle of Ascalon in which the vast majority of the Knights who served in the First Crusade and survived went home, having fulfilled their vow to "free" Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulcher.

Your statement that the war was motivated for racism is also moot by the fact that the Byzantines, Christian allies of the Crusaders were in direct alliance with the Islamic Fatimid Caliphate. Furthermore, Peter the Hermit, a key leader of the First Crusade was himself a fluent speaker of Arabic and on behalf of the Crusaders received the ambassadors of the Fatimid Caliphate and they attempted to negotiate a peace treaty. So much for racism there, my friend.

Finally, I think you make a good case for your own dismissal of the Crusades as persecution of Muslims; the aim of the Crusade was not to kill Muslims but in your words "pointless conquests based on racism and power" - if its based on race, and power, its got nothing to do with Religion than has it? Then it has nothing to do with how Muslims are persecuted. I could go on and on blowing holes into your highly offensive statement, but I will leave you to respond and contemplate. Gabr-el 04:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think Islamic terrorism is a lasting legacy of Islam since it was done people claiming to be Muslims but not what you mentioned. You see several were done for a cause other than Islam but I don't deny 9/11 wasn't. Gabr-el we have crossed paths before, please don't confuse yourself with culture and religion with nationalism. I didn't mention POV.

1. The first crusade was against Muslims AND Eastern Orthodox Christians - it was based on power because the leader of that particular crusade wanted to become rich.
2. There was racism on behalf of the crusaders. Most Western sources say the Muslims were looked down upon because they rejected the theory of the Holy Trinity and so the crusaders were called to kill any Muslims in the city of Jerusalem.
3. Eastern Orthodox Christians when some of them did ally themselves with the Muslims they too were hated by Europeans. It was a racial battle in many ways.
4. The Pope launched the attacks on Muslims for loot, historians even say so because the pope was corrupt.
5. The Crusades were done in the name of Christianity so yes, it is a lasting legacy of the crusades.
6. For 104 years the crusaders stayed in Jerusalem and it is documented that they discriminated the Muslims based on religious differences.

I would appreciate that yuo don't call me "mental". Remember what happened before? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened before? We both issued apologies. I may remind you that everyone is equal in their demand for respect. I did not call you mental, so don't make up stuff.

The Pope was not corrupt in 1095, you're thinking of other popes. The Pope would have not increased his wealth from a campaign so distant. Not all Christians were Eastern Orthodox andyou make too many vagues assumptions. You forget the large pool of Turcopoles recruited by the Crusaders. Futhermore, their objective was not to kill Muslims, their objective involved killing Muslims, but their objective was to free the Holy Land. I already stated elsewhere how the Muslims living in jerusalem afterwards suffered heavy taxes, as did Christians living in Islamic lands.

The First Crusade was not against Eastern Orthodox Christians, because it was the Eastern Orthodox Emperor of Byzantium who called for help! There's a difference between individual drunk soldiers being racists, and labeling the entire campaign as a racist Christian legacy.

You're going to need to cite a lot of your theories my friend with neutral and reliable sources. Gabr-el 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1099 - > 1187 is not 104 years, its 88 years. Gabr-el 23:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

LOTR, make up your mind! You say its a racist attack - then its not religious persecution is it!! If the Pope was corrupt, then religion was not on his mind but money! So much for religious persecution than. If the Christians attacked each other as well as Muslims, then its not Christian persecution of Muslims, but Christians going war-crazy over the region, in much the same way that the Ottomans did in Europe later and how Mamelukes and Baibars did too.

Attacking Muslims is not the same thing as Islamic Persecution. This article already has section about Christianity and violence. Gabr-el 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. The definition for racism is persecution of race, colour and beliefs (that includes religious, political and social). Are you telling me that Hitler murdering nearly every Jew in Europe was not racist? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

By your definition then, If I kill a white man, I am obviously being racist against white people. No? Sounds like we're missing something, no? Its called Intention. Hitler murdered Jews BECAUSE they were Jews. Racism is when you prejudice against someone based on race. Not based on non-racial matters. Islamic persecution is persecuting Muslims BECAUSE they are Muslims. And in warfare, every city was thoroughly sacked after a long and gruelling siege warfare. What about the 100,000 Armenians slaughtered at the Siege of Antioch in 1268? Is that racism? Or when the Ottomans sacked Constantinople? Gabr-el 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I would appreciate it if you didn't lie about the so called "siege of antioch" as pointed out by the following transcript:

Proposed deletion of Siege of Antioch (1084)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Siege of Antioch (1084), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The siege never happened. The article has been unreferenced for months because there are no reliable sources for this event.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Aramgar (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thus you all your arguments have been discredited. The attacks were racist after all.サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What?!!! Explain yourself LOTR. What has a poorly and wrongly referenced article about a non-existent siege got to do with the motives of the Crusades? Gabr-el 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You should not accuse me of lying either. Make the difference between honest mistakes and labeling someone as a liar. Gabr-el 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is being used as an excuse to remove all criticism from the article about christianity

the problem: from the main article about christianity, there is only one link to this article, at the bottom. over at the other article, the existence of this article is being constantly used as an excuse to not include any criticism of christianity in christianity. as a result, the article is incredibly biased and does not even mention the existence of people that are critical of christianity anywhere.

we need to link to the corresponding section of this article, and point out the existence of valid criticism, whenever it is appropriate in the main article about christianity. this article has been turned into a tool to keep the main article about christianity biased indefinitely, and to hide away all criticism indefinitely. if there are different views about one topic, a wikipedia-article should inform about all of those different views. they shouldnt be hidden away in a different article.

i hope that the wikipedia-community can find a way to reduce this bias. imagine how it would be like if the same thing would happen to the article about communism and other articles that discuss ideologies, religions or belief-systems that are controversial. something needs to be done about this.Kurtilein (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a "criticism" section in the main articles on Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism. Islam has a paragraph pointing to Criticism of Islam, probably about the right balance. Also the Christianity article is not biased in the sense that nowhere (as far as I saw from a quick reading) does it assert that Christian beliefs are true or positive - it seems to present it neutrally. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, there's also not a "criticism" section in the article on Atheism. Instead, it links to the article on Criticism of atheism - exactly the way Christianity (Criticism of Christianity), Islam (Criticism of Islam), Judaism (Criticism of Judaism), Hinduism (Criticism of Hinduism) and Buddhism (Criticism of Buddhism) are handled. Christianity is handled in exactly the same way as the other major world religions, and in exactly the same way as atheism. In terms of structure, I don't see how you can get more even-handed than that. EastTN (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we have a situation where Kurt is demanding that Christianity be held to a higher standard; is this correct Kurt? Also, we do not link mulitple times to an article; once is not only sufficient, but recommended. This looks an awful lot like a personal crusade about nothing but a specific POV. --^StormRider 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a section mentioning criticisms of immorality in Atheism. It just doesn't have a 'Criticism' header. Ilkali (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is being seriously discussed at Talk:Christianity#This_Article_is_incredibly_biased. My sense of the discussion is that the separate articles are likely to be maintained, but there may be a more explicit mention of criticism made in the main article. The discussion centers around whether that should be woven into the article, or pulled out in a separate, summary "criticism" section. That may be the best place to continue the discussion. EastTN (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no praise about Christianity in the normal article. There is no praise of Christianity( I.E. the missionaries). Therefore, I don't think there need to be any biased against Christianity in it. If you find any biased for Christianity in the Christianity page then remove it or put it in a separate article. Remember this is a not a site for your personal vendetta against Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.155.132 (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the introductory paragraph

The introduction to the article has recently been edited in a way that focuses on criticism from within Christianity by a particular theologian. I have several concerns about these edits. First, they make some assertions about the relative importance and merit of internal criticisms that aren't sourced and may represent a particular POV. ("Yet, some of the most objective criticism comes from Christians themselves.")

Second, it highlights a quote from a specific theologian completely out of proportion to the actual content of the article:

Noted conservative Christian theologian Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian has provided this plain-spoken criticism of Christianity:

The most compelling proof for the existence of God should be the fact that the Christian faith has been able to survive twenty centuries of abuse inflicted upon it by the church. On all counts, the church should have shriveled up and died several times during its tortuous history. Despite clear distinctives for beliefs and practices assigned to it by its divine founder, despite easy access to God's inscripturated revelation, despite the ever-available guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church seems to be hell-bent on losing its way and becoming sidetracked down paths of self-destruction.

— Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, Prof. Emeritus: Wheaton College (IL.)

This creates the impression that Dr. Bilezikian's criticisms are central to the article, when they are in fact not. Beyond that, while the quotation is colorful, there is no specific criticism here other than that the "church" (and this quote doesn't tell us which church or churches he has in mind) consistently becomes "sidetracked." Give the source cited - Bilezikian, Gilbert."Biblical Community versus Gender-Based Hierarchy." Priscilla Papers, Summer 2002 (16:3) - I suspect that he's criticizing certain historical approaches to the place of women in the church. If so, this material would seem to be a better fit in another article - perhaps Women in Christianity.

More generally, whether or not "internal" criticisms should be included in this article was discussed a while back here.

The lead should provide a summary that represents the content of the rest of the article. If we decide to include internal criticism, it should be incorporated into the body of the article first. I still believe that this article will be better focused and more readable if the scope remains limited to external criticisms of Christianity as a whole. Internal criticisms can be covered elsewhere, and including them here runs the risk of turning this article into a grab-bag of denominational and doctrinal squabbling. But if we decide to expand the scope of the article, we need to be careful to do it right, and to keep the lead representative of the overall content of the article. EastTN (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, EastTN, for taking the time and energy to offer your critique with such tact, diplomacy, and wisdom. I willingly yield to your sage insight on the matter. I do believe Bilezikian's criticisms are germane to much broader perspectives than the gender issue, despite the platform for his comments. Somewhere there should some "inside" perspective rather than solely a dartboard for fairly traditional objections. Without that, there's not much here to appeal to changes from within, a la C.S. Lewis et al. Once again, my sincere appreciation to you. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Afaprof01, I agree - we do need to find appropriate places for internal debates and criticism. I'm not familiar with Bilezikian's work, so I honestly don't know how broad they may be. If his primary focus is gender issues, maybe it would make sense to start with the articles dealing with them, and then work outward.

More broadly, it might make sense to have an "internal criticisms" article. Figuring out what goes in it is going to be tough, though. Most internal critics tend to address specific denominations, hierarchies, doctrines or practices, rather than Christianity as a whole (perhaps because the ones who do tend to leave Christianity entirely?). For instance, we can talk about gender issues, but there are many Christian groups who make no distinction between men and women in ordination or anything else. Martin Luther was a forceful critic of the Catholicism of his day, but not of Christianity itself. In my mind these internal issues, while very important, are fundamentally different from criticisms such as "Jesus never lived" or "modern science has made the concept of 'God' superfluous."

I guess my instinct - and that's all it is - would be to put criticisms of how historic Christianity has viewed the role of women in an article on that issue, Luther's criticism of Catholicism in articles on Luther, the Reformation, and criticism of Catholicism, etc. That's mainly because an article that threw it all in together would seem to be a real mess to read. On the other hand, if there are internal critics of Christianity that have fundamental criticisms of the religion or belief system as a whole, maybe it does make sense to put them here. I'm just having a hard time thinking of any, because they typically have a view or approach to Christianity that they do like and are pushing.

But bottom line, I do agree that we need to find an appropriate place to put this stuff. The trick can be finding the right spot. EastTN (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long

At 115kb, this article is too long. I propose to split out sections into new articles such as Criticism of Christian scriptures and Criticism of Christian doctrine. We can then review and reorganize what's left. --Richard (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to oppose that for now. First, the readable text portion of the article is much shorter than 115kb (it has a lot of footnotes). Second, we already have articles on Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible, Biblical criticism, The Bible and history, Ethics in the Bible, Christianity and slavery, Women in Christianity and Problem of Hell. Rather than creating more subarticles, we need one really good, solid one to pull all of these issues together. It may, at the end of the day, end up to be too long. But given all the other work the article needs, splitting it up would seem to me to be at the bottom of the list of priorities. EastTN (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing reference

The reference to this part of the article "Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises-—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing-Jesus died a "shameful" death (Deut 21:24)" is incorrect. I don't know if the author actually checked the link but Deut 21:24 does not exist. It only goes up to verse 23. Not sure what the deal is with that but hopefully it can be fixed. JB Pretender2j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.136.253 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility with Science

This section, among others, is ridiculously biased. This is a "Criticism" article, but unfortunately, I count a sentence and half a paragraph about the criticism itself, while the rest of the section is on how the criticism is incorrect, existing in popular culture, a misconception, etc. I understand that there should be some counter-criticism, but this is far too much. Unfortunately, from what I've read above I'll probably get reverted immediately if I don't post this before I start editing this, so I'll wait for some people to discuss this before I edit.

P.S. Yes, I'm a non-christian. No, the argument that I'm here to push a POV is invalid. (See abusive ad hominem for details.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.155.215 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You have some merit, but if you are going to add in criticism, it must be referenced. Gabr-el 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Same for Christian apologies! The science and the Christian arguments should be treated the same way, and as a Christian I use to be annoyed very often on street preachers using WP for their unsourced non-mainstream theologies that they've concocted privately, using the bible as their sole source. Now back to Mr. 68.122.155.215:s original question, if you see apologies that use the bible as their sole source, or no source at all, then you could peruse {{better source}}, if too numerous need, then Template:Religious text primary. If the statement sounds absurd and unfounded: delete it mercilessly! The WP:discipline on the Christian side is decidedly lacking here. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the section 11:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC), it is written much worse than at 27 March 2009: It is just a long declaration that science and Christianity is compatible, which has nothing to do with Criticism. There is no criticism against Christianity at all in that section, although we all know that there is a heavy criticism against Christianity from Humanism (life stance) based on the idea that "Christianity dictates the world view to such a degree that science is hindered very much" (not my opinion, but the criticism exist). I think I'm going to fix that section. The general principle is that:

1. in the Age of Enlightenment the idea emerged that religion is contrary to development, reason and science, (prob caused by a lot of collisions, safex the Galileo affair, the burning of Giordano Bruno, and other cases)

2. during the 18th to 19th century, this was perpetuated by a number of conflicts such as the clashes with fundamentalists around and against Charles Darwin,

3. during the 20th the mainstream churches silently submitted under science and its rules, while not quite updating the logics of their theologies ...

True science history instead shows that religion and science is not in a sissy-harmony-loving relation, but rather in an uneasy antagonist truce, where religion provides theological/philosophical speculations that could also be used as methods in science. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging material from Anti-Christian sentiment

Does anyone have any comments on this proposal? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I oppose that because this deals with (reasonable) attacks on Christianity for what a particular reason. So Christians have been accused of citing violence (Crusades), sexism (adam and eve) etc. Anti-Christian sentiment sounds like an umbrella term that can include criticism, but also can include racist attacks for instance. It would be like having criticism of Judaism and anti-antisemitism as the same article. Gabr-el 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I don't edit any Christianity related article much, I'm going to add my two cents here. I oppose this for the same reason Gabrel stated. It's one thing to go "I don't like Christianity because of ________, _______, and ________." and another thing just to go "I hate Christians, arrgh" or something like that. Deavenger (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. The intent of my proposal was not to merge the whole of Anti-Christian sentiment here but to put material of a "I don't like Christianity because of ________" kind into this article and racist-like attacks into Persecution of Christians. I don't see that a third article for the umbrella term is necessary given that we have these two. Do you disagree with any of the specific pieces of information I've suggested moving, or my assessment that two articles are enough? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the other talk page, I think there's a natural role for all three articles. The natural focus of Anti-Christian sentiment would seem to be a discussion of negative popular, cultural or governmental opinions and attitudes towards Christians and Christianity. Irreverence towards Christian symbols, negative portrayals in movies and literature, public opinion survey data, attitudes towards conservative Christians, statements of governmental leaders condemning Christians and Christianity, and so on would all seem appropriate parts of that discussion. Persecution of Christians would seem the appropriate place for any concrete actions taken against Christians or Christian groups and any specific disadvantages placed on them. Criticism of Christianity of Christianity would be the natural place for any specific, rational arguments against Christianity.

In other words, Anti-Christian sentiment would discuss the prevalence of beliefs and attitudes that could motivate Persecution of Christians. Criticism of Christianity would discuss the intellectual arguments used to support or justify Anti-Christian sentiment and Persecution of Christians. These are all three distinct concepts: "I don't like Christians," "Let's get those dirty Christians," and "Of course it makes sense to hate Christians, Christianity doesn't make any sense because . . . " EastTN (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry EastTN, I missed your reply at the other talk page. What you say makes sense as a justification for three articles; I'm convinced. Given that there's probably no need to move anything here, then, though I think some stuff in Anti-Christian sentiment would still be better placed at Persecution of Christians.

Do you think it would be useful to put some hatnotes at the article tops directing people to the others? I know there are See Also links between them but I can picture a lot of people coming to e.g. the Sentient page when actually looking for Persecution and missing material (or even deciding to add it, which is presumably what led to the current rather overlapping situation). Olaf Davis (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points. Some of the material certainly should be moved, and a set of hatnotes would make navigation between them much easier. EastTN (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added some hatnotes. If you can think of a way to improve the wording please feel free. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Source - "Slavery in the Bible: Passages from the Christian Scriptures (New Testament)"

I've flagged this source for verification of reliability. It's been added to source the statements:

"The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize the institution of slavery. Historically, passages in the Old Testament of the Bible have been used as justification of the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done."

The source is an essay on a web page that gives as it's source a talk delivered by a Rabbi in 1861.

"The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.

1. Rabbi M.J. Raphall, "The Bible View of Slavery," delivered in New York City, 1861. Available at: http://www.access.digex.net/~bdboyle/bible.slavery.txt"

I don't doubt that supporters of slavery have appealed to scripture over the centuries, as have opponents of slavery. However, this doesn't strike me as a particularly good source for the historical uses of scripture on this issue. Based on a quick read through it, the essay quotes Rabbi Raphall as saying that the Christian scriptures don't forbid slavery, and then pulls a series of scriptures and gives the author's own analysis how slavery is treated in the New Testament.

If we want to make the point that there was a historical pattern of slave owners appealing to scripture, there's got to be a better source.

Textual Corruption

The section is very problematic.

• Ehrman's view on mass theologically motivated corruptions supporting an orthodox Christology goes against standard textual criticism approaches. Noting that "conservative reviews" are those that disagree doesn't seem to be the fairest of representations of how he is viewed overall.
• It talks about how newly discovered manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that New Testament texts contained interpolations. The DSS have no textual connection to the NT, or these interpolations.
• Similarly, they are not newly discovered NT manuscripts listed e.g well over 100 years ago for Sinaiticus.
• There is a double up of examples, first listed in para 1 and 2, then again in the list.

I'll be fixing these up, and if anyone has any suggestions do please contribute! --Ari (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also just noted that the cite for Misquoting Jesus was Orthodox Corruption of Scripture--Ari (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Breakdown and Reformating

Reading over the article there are many sources that refer to specific secs or individuals not the actual faith of what is contained in the Bible itself. I thin at least retitling of this article to be that of Criticism of Christians, although it be small I thing with the implications of some of the sources that they do refer to specific individuals not to faith articles. most of the articles do not reference the bible but other sources of other individual beliefs. I'm sure this is true on many of the other religious criticism pages. I suggest the complete overhaul of this page or a simple renaming of it to reflect the information that is contained here in. If some one wants more specific examples of this I would glad to provide you with some. one of which is the controversy of church vs science. not only are there notable members of the Cristian faith that have been scientist including King Solomon with whom is a contributor to the bible itself but was also known for his study of plants and animals. Also the creation vs evolution, that yes there are many Christians that do dispute the fact that evolution does not exist, besides the fact that evolution is still a theory and has not been proven, which if we remember back to high school, a theory is something not proven only speculated. that aside there are plenty of Cristian scientists that fully promote a evolution/mutation/creation theory. I can provide with source if any one wishes proof. my point is that if an individual is being used here to display the the entirety of the Christan faith. instead it should be placed in this article that these are Christians that also may or may not be devout and that do not represent the whole faith and that those are their own beliefs not the dogma of the bible that is presented in the new and old testament.Caboosie (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Caboosie

Criticism of Judaism

There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One possibility is to merge criticisms of many religions into one Criticism of relion article. Thoughts? Greggydude (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That article would be enormous. The criticism articles are huge on their own. Not practical. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe ther should be one central page with limited information which links to more indepth articles on each religion. And many critisms are replicated through multiple religions anyway. Thanks though Greggydude (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That would make some sense, but we need to delineate carefully what is a criticism of religion as distinct from atheism or agnosticism as alternative beliefs - otherwise there will be a lot of unnecessary overlap. We also need to consider that criticisms of religion and criticisms of religious institutions are very distinct things that don't really belong in the same article - e.g. distrust of the Roman Catholic church as a powerful international institution is not at all the same as theological/philosophical objections to Catholicism. Barnabypage (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is overlap a bad thing? You don't have to be an atheist to be critical of religion. But I agree that criticisms of religion and religious institutions are distinct things.Greggydude (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What's important here is that all religions on Wikipedia are dealt with in a neutral manner. No religion can be devoid of any criticism, that is censorship, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (WP:Wikipedia is not censored). All religions have criticisms, which Wikipedia must cover. It is not acceptable to have the situation where there are criticism articles for some religions while not for others. Space25689 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TrueGreggydude (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Input needed re new sidebar template

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_27#Template:Criticism_of_Christianity_sidebar. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and colonialism

I was surprised to find that there is no section in this article on colonialism.

I have started a new article titled Christianity and colonialism. It's intended to be about the debate as to whether Christian missionaries was a force for good, helping the indigenous peoples and moderating the excesses of the colonial powers or if Christian missionaries were just the "religious arm" of the colonial powers, abetting their agenda and having a negative impact on the indigenous peoples.

If you can help improve this new article, your assistance will be much appreciated.

--Richard S (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)