Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit war

User:Skylax30 is trying to initiate yet another edit war. He made an edit, the edit was reverted, he insisted on that edit, reverted again and propose to establish consensus but he re-entered his text, claiming that I had the burden to establish consensus which is tottally out of the policy as per WP:BRD. On addition to that, he made a comment in the talk page, [attacking me].

Skylax30's edits are wrong because they are irrelevant with the subject of criticism to Christianity. No author of the two papers is articulating or answering criticism to Christianity. Cherry picking two figures from the whole Christianity to construct a false narrative is not productive in Wikipedia, it is a SYNTHESIS and a fallacy. He took their words out of context and placed them in the article as per his POV. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

When you run out of arguments, cry "wolf". Let's see what Tzeronymo is doing here: In a paragraph about criticism of Christianity for slavery, he is adding this photo:

Public flogging of a slave in 19th-century Brazil, by Johann Moritz Rugendas

. A black slave is flogged by another black, and various people -whites and blacks - are looking. There are 2 armed men, one black and one white. He is requested to explain here what exactly is the photo saying about criticism of Christianity. He is also deleting 3 lines about views of slavery in the Byzantine empire, while the article has a longer paragraph about the same subject in the West, starting with the lines "Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has been subjected to significant internal conflict and has endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. ...". He is trying to make a point with accusations of "false narrative", "POV" etc. And, obviously he understands 'consensus' as "veto", as has shown in many other discussions.

I am waiting answers to the above questions before I report the case to the Admins Board.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is calling "wolf", you did attacked me in your previous post. I am telling you, once more that you should follow the WP flowchart to establish consensus.

• Conserning Slavery in Byzantium, the author is NOT answering criticism to slavery in Christianity, or he is making criticism to Christianity. So why do you cherry pick some lines of his work and place it in the article? It is misleading.
• Conserning the two Christian scolars (John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa), you made no argument but my contra-argument would be the same as above.
• Conserning the picture, I was not the one who added the picture, but we have to talk over it before it gets revoved. It has been there too long to just erase it without any excuse. Seems to me that it depicts a slave being flogged in a christian country. Anyway, maybe we should wait for other opinions, maybe the person who actually added the picture@Tobby72:

Feel free to report the case anywhere you want. Just tag/ping me.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I hopefully resolved the issue by referencing a secondary source. Skylax30 edits were not referenced to a secondary source. I found a source on the subject and it is now referenced. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, much better now but may I pose an objection or two? a)Is it a reliabe secondary source? Are the two authors well established scholars? b)The addition you made is more appropriate to the "Christian views on slavery" since it is not either critic nor an answer to the criticism of Christianity. Thanks anyway for your contribution. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The information I added was as valid as anything else in the section on slavery. I also don't post anything that isn't from valid secondary sources. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tzeronymo, the sources in the article do not generally "answer criticism" but do tell some basics on the subject. For example, the next sentence of the same section refers to the Western Europe Middle Ages, having as source a Robinson, here [1]. I don't see any "answer to criticism" by this Robinson. For the completion of the article, we must add early Byzantium, otherwise there is a huge jumb from St. Paul to Middle Ages. So, I am expanding and improving the article and I don't need your permission (which you present as "consensus").

The article already includes references to early Fathers, like St. Patrick, Pope Pius I, and Gregory of Nyssa is already there. I don't see why John Chrysostom should be excluded.

No matter who introduced the picture, it is irrelevant. Brazil is and was a multicultural and not only a "christian" country, flagelation of a slave does not necessarilly indicate a position of the country on slavery (free men were also corporally punished for various reasons), and any interpretation of a painting has to be supported by sources.

I remind you that you are banned from the Greek WP for disrupting it as a whole, while I am banned because of some "local" concerns. Your anti-christian war in the Greek WP has been noticed by many, and at times ridiculed WP, like when you posted this picture

(Παροιμίαι 13:24)]] to which you added the legend "Flogging was an educational measure, supported by the Bible (Proverbs, 13:24)". Here [2], July 14th 2017. It was soon deleted by the rest, of course. --Skylax30 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you got 6 months ban for personal attacks(3months) and "creating puppets"(3 months) and I got 3 months because an admin is hunting me constantly. The same admin that got you 3 months ban because it was "obvious" that you had a puppet- you both used the word "OK!" plus your humor was similar. Go figure. There is no anti-christian war, anywayzzz I guess it is time to say goodnight. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

See? The christians did not whip your bum.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On this subject, there is still an open question on the reliablity of <ref>Glenn Sunshine, “Christianity and Slavery,” in True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism, ed. Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2013), 292–293.</ref>. Is it a reliable Source as per WP:RS? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it", does the Source claim such a thing?

Was slavery through Europe largely eliminated during Medieval times? And was it due to the effords of the Church? Two objections:

1. The source is not a Reliable Source
2. Even if it is RS, strong claims require strong evidence
3. The source doesn't claim such a thing

One can read at desertnews.com: "Sanneh says Arabs operated as slave-traders in Africa seven centuries before Europeans did. Before that, Christianization had largely eliminated the ancient practice in Europe". So the source is discussing slave trade by Arabs, not for slavery as a european social phenomenon.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I find this sudden insertion of a deluge of material clearly intended to make medieval Christian acceptance of and support for slavery look better concerning (aside from the fact that it's all written in the passive voice, which is bad for separate reasons). It's clearly being inserted to advance a point of view, and seems to be obscuring the historically indisputable truth that the vast majority of Christians in the Middle Ages accepted slavery as consistent with their religion. It's also worrying that patently biased scholars like Rodney Stark are being cited without contextualization. NewUser277 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly!Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I find that some "Neoturks" of the 21st century understand that there is a point "criticising" social phenomena of the past with the criteria of the present, and swelling wp articles with the byproducts of campus political correctness. Soon we'll see articles like "Unethical slaughtering of humans in Procolombian America", or "Anti-ecological practices in Upper Neolithic". If there was a serious supervision of this article, this should only include criticism made in various periods with the criteria of the respective periods. Actually, when I tried to do this, material was erased (e.g. early fathers, Byzantine Emp. etc), because it was clear that Christianity was centuries ahead of other civilizations. --Skylax30 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not discussing relativism and absolutism in this section of the talk page. If there is a criticism of Christianity in a Reliable Source, then there is a place for it in the article. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See, that last sentence worries me, because I don't think mainstream historiography supports it, and I think it reveals the bias and deceptive intent behind this dumping of a bunch of primary sources and material from apologists into the article. Irrespective of the reliability of individual sources, it is obscuring the historical reality of widespread Christian acceptance of slavery in the Middle Ages and thus making the article non-neutral and less informative. NewUser277 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"widespread Christian acceptance of slavery in the Middle Ages" is one thing, and "criticism" of that fact is another. Actually most of the sources cited in the article are only dealing with the history of slavery and do not really "criticise". Most of the article is a SYNTH, in the sense that anti-christian users do criticism by using material that was not intented for that use. There must be very few serious scholars who "criticise" phenomena that happened 1000 years ago. Most of this critisism is found in journalistic sources and pages of newly-minted revolutionarios.

Btw, could user NewUser277 kindly assure me that he is not a new account of an old user that I used to know. Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Slavery in Christianity

Text and sources used in the article should be relevant to the subject of the article. It should either be criticism or debunking of criticism. Cherry picking quotes from irrelevant sources (ie Islam) are not helpful.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this an order?--Skylax30 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is an opinion that I thought you shared a couple of days ago: "Actually most of the sources cited in the article are only dealing with the history of slavery and do not really "criticise". Most of the article is a SYNTH, in the sense that (...) users do criticism by using material that was not intented (sic) for that use". Well said. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, if we clean the rest of the article from info that is not meaned to be criticism. Still, some background information should be included. E.g., what was the legal status of "free" and "slave" at various eras etc.--Skylax30 (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Some background information is included in textbooks of criticism or debunking criticism. Cherry picking among an ocean of literature some lines that suit your narrative is not constructive. I 'll ask for a 3rd opinion if you don't mind. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone we know?--Skylax30 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no "textbooks of criticism", and almost nobody published an essay with the word "criticism" in the title. All is in your imagination. However, we are ready to give to the article more than you bargain for.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As for the 3rd opinion -->here. As for no "textbooks of criticism", oh, I assure your there are many books appropriate. Starting from ancient times to modern notable scholars such as Michael Martin, Dawkins, Harris and many more. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not seeing a dispute here. You both agree that some sources are undue, so remove them. If you have a particular phrase, source or revision that you want a third opinion on, feel free to ping me. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Many sources are "undue" but I am not going to proof-read all this article. Actually I'm not removing a source unless it's obviously irrelevant or misleading. Instead, I enjoy to add sources that refute myths and PC. Tzeronymo is insisting on the theme "Oh-how-bad-are-those-Christians", removing whatever doesn't fit.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I 'd urge you to stop commenting on me and focus on the article.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest compiling a short list of sources or claims that you believe should be removed, and explaining each here so they can be discussed. As for the diff that started this thread:

• The source of a criticism does not negate the criticism; however, in many cases it would mandate in-line attribution. This would be the case, for example, if the critique exhibited some kind of bias, religious or otherwise. Widely-accepted criticisms (eg. of slavery) do not on their own suggest such bias.
• The statements discussed here are not critical statements, but statements of accepted historical fact; as such, they do not require special attribution. The facts themselves are WP:DUE in the context of this article.
• However, the inclusion of these facts in a "criticisms" section could imply criticism, making the inclusion WP:RS. To avoid such appearance, the word "however" could be removed.
• Which leaves us with a due statement of fact, which is a good start! Now we only have four dozen other similar statements to sort through, seeing as half the section is made of background information that doesn't belong there.
• The entire paragraph of Paul can be safely removed. Then reorder the text such that no criticisms intermingle with background information, as is the case now (see placement of Kirchschlaeger and Glancy for an example). Then everyone can go have icecream. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with @François Robere:Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet another irrelevant edit

@Skylax30: may I ask why you keep adding non relevan material such as this one? Why don't you add it to Christian views on slavery? Seems much more appropriate. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Because I think it is very relevant. There is already a large paragraph about the views of various early christian Fathers on slavery, supposedly to be a "critique" of christianism (actually a presentation of history of theology). Therefore, academic opinions explaining those views, are inseparable from the "critique".

If your motivation is only the removal of the article of all irrelevant material, you could search other topics too, like Colonialism and the "source" Jake Meador, one of the millions of liberal bloggers who write their opinion on religion and politics, a "social media consultant with Rentping, an apartment marketing company". This "source" is supporting the phrase "Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists." Marketing apartments in liberal economy is one thing, theology is another.

The point of view that you are trying to promote in "Slavery" is simply surpassed. Deleting modern serious sources and causing endless discussions is a waste of time.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not talk about each other motivation, they are irrelevant. You have a point though, that a lot of the material in the article is neither criticism or commentary on the criticism. My argument is that we shouldn't have the mistakes of the past lead us to more mistakes of the same kind. (the arguement with Jake Meador...is whataboutism). So unless you wont object undoing the edit, I am taking this to the "third opinion", again. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Skylax30, you shouldn't have re-inserted the irrelevant material [3]. The burden of building consensus lies on you according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Tzeronymo. The text I incert is VERY relevant, and from discussions here and elsewhere is clear that you abuse the rule of consensus. As I told you several times, "consensus" does not mean that I must have your permission to improve and develope an article, which is THE fundamental principle of WP.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Skylax30, your addition is IRRELEVANT because a)it's not a criticism on Christianity b)is not an answer to criticism and b)is not even a summarized background information. So it doesn't improve the article. 07:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τζερόνυμο (talk • contribs)

"Don't take offense Tzeronymo, but for cases like yours, WP has provided the WP:BOLD. "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.". Also, "Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes". However, the phrase I add IS relevant, because it comments and explains a previous paragraph that is assumed to be "criticism". Another solution is we delete all the relevant material (about Paul etc). Even if it was irrelevant, still it would not be a harm.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If I fix it one more time, we will end up in an edit war, that 's why a third opinion will be much helpful. Your edit is not directly relevant because it discusses different views on slavery among Christian dogmas or people. It is more suited in Christian views on slavery. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Wikipedia being what it is, I'm urging editors to stay focused on the text. The way the Wikipedia community usually handles edit wars and personal animosities is by throwing the belligerents into a well and seeing who comes out first. It's nasty. Whether the passage belongs in this article or in some introductory or background text depends on whether the source presents it as a reply to criticism, or whether we're presenting it as such on our own accord. If the source presented this as a response to criticism, then it can be placed either immediately following the criticism (where it is now), or in a dedicated "responses to criticism" section. If the source did not present it as such, then it is WP:OR and should be re/moved. As an aside, criticisms of the structure: "I follow moral system X, another person follows moral system Y, I can't understand why they don't do what I do" are non sequiturs. I suggest the editors check Kirchschlaeger and see if our presentation faithfully represents his (and if it does... well, that's another discussion). François Robere (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @François Robere: for jumping in once more. Your insights are really helpful and based on WP policies. As one can conclude after examining the cited text, it is not related to criticism of christiany (it is not either criticism nor an answer to criticism). So, if you agree, I am going to remove the disputed text from the WP article.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The lead

The lead should summarise the text. Which part is summarised by the phrase prominent philosophers of liberalism and communism, such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, criticized Christian doctrine? The phrase is unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The source must be no6: Robert R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995), p.630. The citation is in the next sentence. As for the first part of your observation, you 'e got a valid point. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I have tried to remove my template, but I was reverted.

I don't believe a Total History of the Whole World (I know that the title is different, I mean any such book) may be a reliable source here. Engels should be mentioned, and many others.

If there is a section about Nazism, why nothing about other similar actions. There were state supported atheisation organizations in Communist countries, see Company of Propagation of Secular Culture in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't know about nazism but A History of the Modern World is a Reliable Source. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

General sources don't inform about details, like Engels.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Robert R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World was published in 1950. I hope it's being updated, but still 1995 is 23 years ago. Such books are generally Western-centric.

BTW A History of the Modern World quotes subjects from Swedish, does anyone have the English book?Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Marxism/Communism

Wasn't the Freemasonry involved in anti-Christian actions in Mexico and Spain? Manuel AzañaXx236 (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church has been in conflict with Freemasonry since its beginning. Other denominations vary widely in their positions relative to Freemasonry. However, I'm not sure how that relates to the Article's topic. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the topic? Good left and bad right? Reduction of Communism to Marx proves that the page ahould be rewritten. Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The topic is Criticism of Christianity. Where is the Reduction of Communism to Marx and what does it prove?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What about reading a book about the subject?Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What about answering my question? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant to this article's topic, and no further answer is required. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism in Nazi Germany

Why exactly Anti-clericalism? The subsection covers several subject.Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Nazis rejected Christianity as a Jewish idea, writes Timothy Snyder in "Black Earth". [4] Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There was a conflict regarding Aktion T4.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2018 (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)

I would suggest introducing the material along a timeline as to when it happened. For example, this would make the Criticism of primitive Christians by their contemporaries a distinct entry. Why the Christian Martyrs, why the spectacle of Christians in Roman Colosseums (what was the justification), why Nero's persecution of Christian, why Jewish persecution of Chrsitians, etc.

The Criticism of the post Nicean council Christians another, the reader could then be pointed to relevant events of the era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilher13 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

This should be in the lead section, at least some of the content, in brief. What do you think?

Many critics and scholars of Western and secular backgrounds have questioned the alleged internal consistency of the Bible and the reliability of the Bible, while also criticizing its moral and ethical message.

Christianity has also been viewed as a form of European colonization and have received much criticism of what some perceive as the destruction of indigenous cultures and people such as the genocide of Native Americans and colonization of Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.212.241.21 (talk • contribs)

References

- Note: from the edit above I removed material that was already in the lead to make the proposed edits clearer - Comment: the lead provides a summary of the article content (see MOS:LEAD) - the lead as it stands provides an adequate summary of the article content and does not require more specific instances - the information on slavery and colonization is adequately covered in the article section "Criticism of historical behavior" and ethics in the bible are covered in the "Ethics" section - Epinoia (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ancient religion and platonic tradition

The article lacks a paragraph dealing with the issue of criticism of Christianity by the followers of ancient religion, Egyptian, Greek and Roman etc. as well as the ancient schools of philosophy: stoic, platonic etc. This is an essential topic which cannot be overlooked, especially in view of the importance of its theoretical meaning and historical facts, as well as its bearing on modern debate.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So find good references, write up a paragraph or two, and add it to the section "Criticism by other religions". TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree that it lacks perspectives from Ethnic Religions, which suffered most severe suppressions due to the church. Polytheist01 (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Biased

Is it just me, or is this article rather heavily weighted towards the Christian side? It doesn't seem to properly take account of rational reasons to believe that Christianity is non-divine in origin, preferring instead to take a swipe at the tiny minority of scholars who don't believe Jesus existed, and the "relationship with science" bit seems particularly slanted - no mention at all of the total lack of scientific evidence for the Christian doctrine of the afterlife (which many have commented on), very little input from those who believe that Christianity cannot be reconciled with science, and a whole lot of other inconvenient truths which seem to be missing for some odd reason. Is it unfair of me to think that this article is in clear violation of the NPOV rule? Also, does the fact that the neutrality of this article has been called into question multiple times and without resulting in any changes mean that it is time to put a "neutrality disputed" tag on it? Thanks in advance. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 13:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's pretty slanted. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that a problem with the Science section is that it does not distinguish between liberal and fundamentalist Christianity. The Christianity of fundamentalists who adhere to Young Earth creationism is most definitely in conflict with science. To quote the article about it: "Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that 'God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years'..." A majority of Americans do not accept the theory of evolution, because of their "Christian" beliefs. A clear conflict of (fundamentalist) Christianity with science. I think it's scandalous that the article doesn't mention this. The string "fundamental" does not appear once in the body of the article.

There is a Talk section titled "Compatibility with science", but it doesn't mention the difference between fundamentalism and liberal Christianity either. I suppose this is attributable to the influence of the New Atheism, which in effect treats all forms of religion as equally irrational. Wikipedia should do better. Some varieties of Christianity have accommodated themselves to science; others have not. – Herzen (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is absurd that it does not go into detail about the (possibly more prevalent) forms of Christianity which are obviously in direct conflict with science, such as the ones that endorse Young Earth Creationism. Also, like I said, where's the criticism of the Christian belief in the afterlife? I can only think of a few reputable scientists who believe in any form of afterlife, whereas the vast majority do not for good, scientific, reasons that are not mentioned in this article. It is also incredibly scant on detail about the arguments that traditional Christian stories have been embellished, it does not detail the rational explanations of Christianity as a natural phenomenon, and in general the article seems to give a lot more credence to those who defend Christianity than those who criticise it. I thought it was supposed to be balanced? Why does it give so little space to those who criticise Christianity and so much to those who counter these criticisms? Frankly, I think the article flat-out sucks. I honestly think something needs to be done about its apparent bias. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Believing in the afterlife has nothing to do with science. The afterlife as conceived by Christianity (but not, for example, Mormonism) has nothing to do with the natural world, which is what science studies. Belief in God and/or the afterlife are matters of faith and do not involve empirical claims. Thus, they cannot be criticized in the way that Young Earth creationism can, for example.

Christian stories are not really a problem. Mainline Protestantism responded to the Enlightenment by "rationalizing" Christian belief: the Bible is not to be taken literally or as infallible. You don't have to believe anything in the Old Testament other than that God created the universe from nothing. (That is central to Christian theology.)

You and others are welcome to make this article less "biased". (I don't know how much resistance you'll encounter; probably a considerable amount.) I myself am not interested in this subject. Since I grew up in the West, I take Christianity for granted as a tradition, even though I am not a believer. (For what it's worth, my impression is that all of the "Criticism of x religion" articles are biased in this way. That's probably because believers in the religion are more interested in the article than outsiders are.) – Herzen (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with your assessment of Christian belief in the afterlife; if this is what Christians claim, then it sounds like a cop-out. They say that in some way we survive the death of our brains and our disembodied "soul" goes somewhere else. Is this not a vaguely scientific claim for which no evidence is provided? It is directly relevant to the natural world because it relies on the assumption that we all have an immortal soul even when we live in the natural world. But whatever, I'm probably wrong, I know nothing.

Anyway, yeah I think you're probably right about the bias. Most non-believers don't have anything personal at stake when it comes to criticism of religion, the way adherents of that religion do. :P To be honest, I don't know if I can be bothered because, as you said, they probably won't be very tolerant of people editing this article to make it balanced, however I DO think that we should at least slap a "neutrality disputed" tag on it as several people have already commented on this bias before me and nothing has been done to correct it. What do you think of that? ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the section on science as disputed, and created a new Talk section on that below. Yes, this has been brought up several times, and yet nothing has been done about it, as you say. It's a really staggering omission, given that roughly half of Americans reject a well established body of science for religious reasons. And fundamentalists don't even deny that they reject the theory of evolution: they just use the postmodern ploy of claiming that science is just another "point of view". – Herzen (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm going to put one on the article as a whole, since there are other problems that I and others have mentioned that haven't been resolved, e.g. the MASSIVELY slanted history section that makes no mention of natural explanations for Christian stories. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. Extremely biased article closely monitored and heavily edited by christian administrators who would block any edits they judge as ‘disruptive’, and it is supposed to be a discussion of Criticism of the Christian faith!! They should refrain themselves from unfairly meddling with non-christian voices. Polytheist01 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2020 (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)

This Article is Too Short ! And Exceedingly biased towards the christian side! So many topics such as trinity haven’t even been included !! Polytheist01 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No section on the Trinity?

The trinity is one of the biggest objections Judaism and Islam have against Christianity. --Converting to insanity (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to add Trinitarianism, or pseudo-monotheism as a major critique (which it is!) but was immediately reverted by administrators who identify themselves as Catholic. Lol. Polytheist01 (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you just tried to insert it into the lede (with scare quotes). I'm not sure what you think "Trinitarianism" on its own adds to the lede. It's also not appropriate to "call out" other editors based on what you imagine their religious beliefs to be. PepperBeast (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This Article Is too SHORT

Get off the soapbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is Far Too Short! I am Shocked just how so, so many topics have not been covered or even mentioned! Due to the unjustifiable amount of interferences and prejudice this page suffers from christian users and administrators this is No Longer a fair platform for Open discussions on the flaws of their religion- which is ironically what this page is here for! This page Should receive views from strictly non-christian perspectives and be extended much, much longer! Polytheist01 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC) This page is not "a fair platform for open discussions". It is a page for discussion of how to improve the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Also, stop trolling. PepperBeast (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Chop-church

I recently WP:PRODed Chop-church as non-notable dictdef, that was declined. I added some sources but I am still not seeing any SIGCOV, and as a name for a corrupt church official I think it would be best to merge this here, where we can mention this as a synonym for a corrupt priest (in Early Modern UK or whatever?). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've not seen mention of corruption in the coverage of the chop-church topic. It seems to have been more a pragmatic isssue like a mutual exchange. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Closing with no merge, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)