Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Turning the other cheek

The section on ethics lacks criticism of this principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.66.247 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Miracles

It seems to me that the section on miracles is a little jumbled while also containing original research in the rebuke of Humes argument. I'm new to this, any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamnavidson (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Science

Hello. I would like to know why you deleted my contribution to Criticism of Christianity? Many Christians believe that Christianity was the cause of the scientific revolution because the scientific revolution occurred in Western Christian culture. It occurred in Western Christian culture, but did not arise from Christianity. "The first "modern" scientists were pagan polytheists who formalized geometry, cosmology, botany, mineralogy, pharmacology, medicine, etc. And, no, their science did not depend on their theology either; they just happened to be living in pagan cultures at the time." --Slickarette (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid your revision because you're pushing your point of view and not using a neutral tone. Please take it to the article's talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to explain how citing a perfectly credible source after providing a contribution to the "CRITICISM of Christianity" page in regards to Science and Christianity is "pushing my point of view and not using a neutral tone". Your explanation was too vague and not specific enough. Please give specific details as to why you removed my contribution before I decide that it was a legitimate thing to do.--Slickarette (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Things that NEED to be added

This article needs to mention the following: 1.MODERN criticism of how compatible christianity is with science. The section on science only mentions medievil age science but says nothing about how christians have opposed evolution, the big bang, stem cell research, homosexuality as genetic, how long early humans lived, etc).

2.Stories in the bible that were taken from other religions The story of Noah's Ark is a good example of story the bible's writers took from another religion, specifically Babylonian myths. Other stories(including Adam & Eve, Moses, etc) bear more than a striking resemblance to Sumerian mythology.

3.Stories that have been exaggerated The David and Goliath story is a good example. The earliest sources of this story place Goliath at about 6 ft, 9in but later stories raise his height to 9 ft. Most historians also agree that the Hebrews did not obliterate early Canaanites as the bible describes. 63.146.74.177 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for that. This is one of those articles that easily gets out of hand if WP:V and WP:NPOV are not adhered to properly. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you had, say, a specific list of scientific claims (such as 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge by Eternal Productions, which is one I'm responding too myself. I'm sure there are others.) couldn't you show some of the claims, and then reference what peer reviewed scientific journals say about the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.17.51 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't even bother... this page is clearly biased and in full support of Christian viewpoints.--Slickarette (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Materialism" and Gandhi

I have put a disputed tag in the section because this seems to contradict Gandhi's wikiquote article that says he didn't actually say that. Would like some experts to weight in. Are there any reliable sources that actually state that Gandhi used this a criticism of Christianity?--JasonMacker (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bible Quote as Citation, POV

I removed the comment "Incidentally, the Bible seems to support collectivism, with two people murdered for refusing to sell and redistribute their property and possessions to the early church. " as it is both POV and original research. PepperBeast (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Elucidate your interpretation of the term "original research". I need clarification concerning why this would be classified as original research. Thanks. Nashhinton (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:PRIMARY. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." PepperBeast (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Bible be a secondary source? Response needed thanks. I see many citations in this article that refer to the Bible. Explanation needed. Nashhinton (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The passage of concern is below and is the essential text for the reviewing process and the awaiting confirmation of whether it classifies as an accurate secondary source AND whether it should be a proper citation:

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events." (Acts 4:32-5:11)

Would the above be an ideal secondary source for the below sentence?

"Incidentally, the Bible seems to support collectivism, with two people murdered for refusing to sell and redistribute their property and possessions to the early church. (Acts 4:32-5:11)".

If not, should there be any alteration of the structure and prose of the above sentence or the selected passage that is of concern regarding its role as a proper secondary source (translation issues)?

Thanks Nashhinton (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the Bible is not a secondary source. Please read WP:SECONDARY. PepperBeast (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear, I suppose. Nashhinton (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists reject the theory of evolution

The bias of this article when it comes to the conflict of Christianity with science has come up several times on this Talk page. What has not been mentioned is that liberal Christianity—especially mainline Protestantism—is not in conflict with science, but Christian fundamentalism most definitely is. The article needs to discuss this and make it clear.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 46% of Americans reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

Is that not relevant to this article? And to quote from Wikipedia's own article on Christian fundamentalism:

In recent times, the courts have heard cases on whether or not the Book of Genesis's creation account should be taught in science classrooms alongside evolution, most notably in the 2005 federal court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Creationism was presented under the banner of intelligent design, with the book Of Pandas and People being its textbook. The trial ended with the judge deciding that teaching intelligent design in a science class was unconstitutional as it was a religious belief and not science.

There are plenty of reliable sources that deal with the rejection of the theory of evolution by Christian fundamentalists. A recent example is Broken Words, written by an evangelical Christian. – Herzen (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Alleged bias in "Origins" section

ThoughtfulMoron has tagged this section as POV-section. I have created this Talk section so that this allegation can be discussed.

I don't see this section as biased. The point that "Christianity is not founded on a historical Jesus" is made developed, and then responses to that are given. This seems to be a case of "both sides of the story" being told in a fair manner to me.

I might as well mention that although I am an atheist, I am under the impression that today, very few scholars take seriously the idea that there was not a real, historical Jesus, a significant part of whose teaching is related in the gospels. – Herzen (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My reason for tagging this section as POV has nothing to do with the historical evidence for Jesus' existence - I'm quite happy to accept that most scholars think that he did exist. But that's not the point.

The point is that this section makes no mention at all of the possibility that the stories about the life and teachings of Jesus may have been embellished over time, thanks to the "Chinese whispers" effect - the Gospels are not primary sources, but were written by literate Greeks living decades after Jesus' death. So is it not a fair possibility, having been based on oral accounts many years after the event, that the stories behind the origins of Christianity may have been exaggerated? You wouldn't know it just going by this section. The casual reader looking at this part of the article would have no clue that any scholars have reasonable doubts about some of the important truth claims made by Christianity. As I've said before, like the article itself, it consists of about 1% criticism to 99% apologetics.

It is clearly skewed in favour of the idea that the stories of the Gospels are true. Someone who didn't know any better, reading this part of the article as an introduction to criticism of Christianity, would be left with the impression that there is no reason at all to doubt that the origins of Christianity were grounded in absolute truth. This is dead wrong, and I think it's a disgrace that this section, and the article as a whole, is so unbelievably slanted in favour of this proposition. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you say conflicts at all with what non-fundamentalist Christians believe. Unlike the Muslims with their Koran, Christians do not take the Bible to be the literal word of God. The historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation, followed by Christian scholars, understands Biblical texts in exactly the same way you do. So the problem you are talking about does not exist. A mention could be made of the fact that some Christian fundamentalists believe that all the stories in the Bible really happened as they are described in the Bible. But that has nothing to do with Christianity per se (fundamentalism is a relatively new phenomenon in Christianity, only about 150 years old), so this article on "Criticism of Christianity" is not really obligated to discuss it. – — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzen (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I still think you're missing the point. The point is that there exists a very real possibility, one that a reasonable number of Biblical scholars believe to be the case, that some extremely important "facts" of Jesus' life, believed in by both fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Christians, are falsehoods/exaggerations etc. Take the resurrection for example; this is central to the Christian faith, and I think most Christian scholars would admit that if it were proven tomorrow that Jesus was not physically resurrected, then that would pretty much falsify Christianity. Now, while a respectable number of Biblical scholars believe in the resurrection, it is also indisputably true that a reasonable number of Biblical scholars do NOT think that Jesus was raised from the dead, and in fact believe that the historical evidence suggests otherwise, and that this story is a mythical exaggeration. But to read this section, you would have no clue that this was the case. You would have no idea that anyone in the world thinks that there are legitimate reasons to doubt the historicity of any of these stories. You would be left with the impression that just about every historian thinks everything in the Gospels is 100% true, and everyone who doubts them is a fringe lunatic history-denier. An article on "Criticism of Christianity" is surely obligated to discuss legitimate historical criticisms of the Gospel narrative, otherwise what on earth is the point in having such an article to begin with?! ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who doesn't realize that if Christ wasn't resurrected, then Christianity is a false religion? (By the way, the Resurrection was not necessarily associated with any physical events.) Doesn't everyone know that Jews and Muslims don't believe that Jesus Christ is God and that he was resurrected? That makes it obvious that the Resurrection can be subjected to doubt; in other words, maybe it didn't occur.

Still, if the article were modified to address your concerns, I don't think anyone would have valid grounds for objecting to that. – Herzen (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary for an encyclopedia to be explicit, not just to assume "everyone knows". Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic is old but the POV tag still exists so I would like to contribute my thoughts.

I agree with Herzen that the information in existence is mostly neutral. I also agree with ThoughtfulMoron that criticisms regarding the compilation of the book itself, which is the canonical document of Christianity, should occur in this area. I will continue looking for an adequate citation and update the area should I find one.

My current edits: I have removed the last sentence of the second paragraph ("Similarly, the existence of the category of life-death-rebirth gods is questioned by mainstream scholarship.[178]") as it does not support nor deny the statements in the paragraph to which it is attached. It, instead, appears to introduce the topic of life-death-rebirth gods unrelated to Christianity and therefore not suited to this paragraph or topic.

I have further removed the next paragraph and quote (a talk by A.N. Sherwin-White) as it does disturb the neutrality of the section and is not required to understand either the criticism nor the refutation of the criticism that Jesus was a historical figure. StefanijaSili (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Where to add Hindu criticism?

If you look at this page Criticism of Muhammad, you can find "Hindu criticism", but here in this page, I am really not sure where to add it. Someone should help me with this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't looked at this article since my last comment here. I also am not familiar with the "Criticism of Muhammad" article. However, I think it's pretty clear where to add a "Hindu criticism" section. In the "Criticism of Christians" section (maybe that should be changed to "Criticism of Christianity"?), add a section called "Criticism from other faiths" or "Criticism from other religions" or something like that. Then the "Hindu criticism" section can be a subsection of that. As a side note, at least a new section "Muslim criticism" is required as well. – Herzen (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

At least you could pave a way, definitely gonna try. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I just tried, added new section, called "criticism by other ideologists", seems relevant among atheists and everyone else. Hope you can contribute with "Islam", and "judaism" or any other followers you know of(being critical). Bladesmulti (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Atheism is not an ideology, it is simply the default position and dealing with reality. Thus, placing it together with religions makes absolutely no sense. Also, I don't know if there is such a thing as Judaic criciticism of Christianity. The Jewish response to Christ, as far as I can tell, is to ignore him, as opposed to explicitly criticizing his teaching. Remember, Christianity is older than Judaism as we now understand it – Herzen (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Dealing with reality", well this one is probably matter of opinion, atheism is solely based on the concept of rejecting a god of any type. In what sense Judaism is younger than christianity? I would really like to hear about this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Judaism is a response to the destruction of the Temple, something that happened after Jesus died. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but still, torah was written in 2000 BCE, And Christ born after 600+ years. Anyways, It might be very hard to find any quotes by jews, being critical cowards christianity, but probably there would be many. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I recall an introductory article in the The New Oxford Annotated Bible, which is the Bible I read, stating that the Talmud is more important to Jews than theTorah. As far as I can tell, evangelical Christians are more attached to the Hebrew Bible than Jews are.

It would definitely be nice to get some material of Jewish criticism of Christianity. But as I suggested before, my impression is that the preferred Jewish response to Christianity is irony. Whereas Muslim theology comes down to a denial that Christ is God, as far as I can tell. I recall a pasage by Adorno calling Christ a "magician", which may be representative of how Jews think of Jesus and Christian belief, but I don't think that Adorno is relevant to this article, since he was an atheist. – Herzen (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Atheists are allowed to be Jew, and I couldn't find Adorno calling Jesus a "magician", even if he said, if you can find, add it to Criticism of Jesus instead. I added 3 jew's criticism to the section just now, check them, at least 2 of them would be need if not all. Emil Fackenheim seems to have been critical towards christians and maybe the religion too, but can't confirm it now. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are nice additions. I'm pretty sure that Adorno's remark was from Dialectic of Enlightenment. It was also a remark made in passing, so it isn't worth mentioning in the article. (Also, the article brings up Hume's critique of the Christian notion of miracles, which I think is essential.) The Muslim section needs to be expanded, because, to the best of my knowledge, what Islam is concerned with is showing that it is better than Judaism and Christianity. It is really a kind of meta religion. Brief mention should probably also be made of Mormonism, but if nobody gets around to doing that, I can live with that. – Herzen (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh it's hard to find the muslim criticism, i know only muhammad who criticized christianity, if you remember that quote "may allah curse all those who have made worship place out of there prophet's grave", but that also included Jews(in his own words) so not adding it, other than that, he especifically criticized christianity, as follows:- "They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God."[1] How it would be? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Added the muhammad's quote. Now about the neutrality tag, you think it's still necessary? It's added above the lead for long now. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Herzen, "idoltary" can be added into this article? See there are numerous sources that suggests Christian's worship of the images/idols of mary, jesus, etc, Not saying that same thing(idolatry) is not done by other religions, but christians particularly criticism those religions as "pagan" or anything, while doing the same thing themselves, so it has been criticized as hypocrisy.[2], this one is interesting you can read yourself too, that how it's defended, here. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly think that bringing up idolatry in this article is pretty necessary. (FWIW, the main religion I identify with is (liberal) Christianity, but I think a guiding principle in this article should be "Turn the other cheek." Being open to criticism is one of the guiding ideas of Christianity, as I see it.) – Herzen (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Some have noted that "jesus" was made by Constantine because of god "Zeus",[3], [4].. Other than that, Thomas Paine made many quotes about christianity, few of them:-

What have we learned from this false thing called "revealed religion"? Absolutely nothing that is useful to man, and everything that is dishonorable to God. What does the Bible teach us?—rapine, cruelty, and murder. What does the New Testament teach us?—to believe that God had sex with a woman engaged to be married. The belief in this debauchery is what is called faith.

Voltaire:-

[Christianity] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. … My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out.

Maybe we can't add all criticism, but these can be placed somewhere, considering that this page is not even as big as original page Christianity. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you litter the page with lots of extreme quotations do you actually add anything to the page other that a list of extreme points of view? FMMonty (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked that where those quotations can be added or summarized, as both Voltaire and Thomas Paine weren't taking responsibility of any religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

African Traditional

The African traditional section needs to be balanced or split into African Traditional religion and African criticism. Currently the section is dominated by a large blockquote that is about European cultural imperialism not African religions (and I don't want to get involved with the silly revert game that comes with editing it). Could someone also please put back the improvements made to the quote template I made that were then simply reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 10:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just tell, how it's not related with the christian criticism? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not related to Criticism by African Traditional Religions, and has the appearance of being quote mined. The problem here is that there is a whole set of criticism in African thought that isn't related to African traditional religions, but rather are criticisms that Christianity is part of Europe's Cultural Imperialism of Africa. I would still have issues with that being a prominent quote in another section without context as it is a very extreme viewpoint that has been selected for it's shock value. FMMonty (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The author who writes it, is clearly a proponent of African traditional religion, and criticizing christianity. There is notable persecution of these followers by the colonizers who imposed christianity, that is what he's talking about. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'author' was a rather famous academic and Kenyan historian. The section quoted is context by Mugambi, a summary of his view of the beliefs of Ochieng. This context was to help understand Ochieng's discussions Carr, and their relevance to Mbiti who claimed Christianity was African, rather than an Imperialist tool. Ochieng didn't want Africa to go the way of the middle east or the west, but instead to follow it's own path. FMMonty (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove the whole then. Instead of attributing. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I usually try to correct peoples contributions and keep them in context. You rolled that back instead of discussing it, hence my discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 12:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a great deal of criticism of Christianity from the African Traditional viewpoint. I will re-add the section with a quote that is more explicit regarding that as opposed to general African criticism not related to African Traditional religion as the previous quote was perhaps not as clear. That should solve the problem. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on Nazi criticism

The Criticism of Christians section includes a huge 5 paragraph subsection on Nazis, which is far larger than any other subsection. While I think it is important to mention Nazi persecution of Christians, this material needs to be trimmed down to a more reasonable length per WP:UNDUE. The subject is already covered in detail at Religion in Nazi Germany#National Socialist attitudes towards Christianity. I would suggest linking to that article and summarizing the material here. Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2014 (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)

Many people are obviously upset that religion and science are compatible, and wish to still believe in the myth of a conflict. Portillo (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this section is ridiculously biased. It includes one actual criticism of Christianity (which is supposed to be the topic of the article) from Carl Sagan and 5 paragraphs about how the conflict between science and Christianity is a myth. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari thanks for commenting but such broad criticism is not helpful. What do you suggest to improve the section? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Add some actual criticism from prominent scientists. There are entire books on this subject, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. You could start with Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, just to name the two most obvious. Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

as could you. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I actually don't think the section is biased. The only problem I see with it is that it treats Christianity on a much too general and abstract level. Mainline Christianity has no conflict with science; fundamentalist Christianity most certainly does. If this section does not point this out, it is worthless. – Herzen (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

so WP:FIXIT. i already started to. there is nothing stop you. don't kvetch. fix. and talk if others disagree. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of an Agenda

Don't you guys find it a little odd that criticism of Christianity in the United States, a modern and still relevant nation, is immediately followed by a large and detailed section on Nazis, followed by....no other country? To the casual reader it would appear that the authors of this article are implicitly linking Americans who criticize Christianity with Nazis, which is grossly inappropriate at best and brutally offensive at worst. Why are we giving such detailed discussion to a political entity that is long dead, while neglecting criticism of Christianity from...I don't know, China? Russia? The UK? Australia? Are Nazis some sort of authority on non-Christian matters? Methinks someone wrote this article with more than religious discussion on mind. 163.29.35.147 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Closer inspection of the sub-section reveals more glaring problems, such as suggesting that Nazism and Nazis in general were anti-Christian. They were not. Hitler was born and raised a Catholic; many top Nazi officials, such as Wilhelm Stuckart (who co-wrote the anti-semitic Nuremberg laws), were devoutly Christian and penned the laws under Christian beliefs; the Holocaust was largely instigated by organizations who targeted Jews because they rejected the blood of Christ; the first chapter of Mein Kampf had Hitler stating that he was executing (his presumably Christian) God's will; the first international treaty signed with Nazi Germany was with the Vatican. Were there some anti-Christian sentiments in the Nazi Party? Sure. But the article doesn't mention the fact that the Nazi party's ideology was heavily drawn from Christian beliefs, which should honestly not be surprising considering how a vast majority of Germany's population (and Nazi Party members) were Christian. 163.29.35.147 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to contribute to the article. PepperBeast (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My edit would trim significant portions of the Nazi portion, while creating a more appropriate separation between the section and the American section. I'm not comfortable with such changes until I am able to contact the people who wrote up the Nazi section or I am resigned to the possibility of never being able to contact them. In any case, I wanted to discuss it with the editors here first. It won't do any good if my edit's rejected as vandalism. 163.29.35.147 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Article is still really slanted

All through the article it reads like every point has to be followed up with some odd quote of a specific person's POV counterpoint. It is painful to read and criticism of "other" religion articles do not waffle back and forth like this. Criticism_of_Judaism - Criticism_of_Islam - Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Maybe each section could have a reference to a counter point section in the christian apologetics article? Regardless of the outcome an article about criticisms should spend the vast majority of its focus on criticism and leave the counterpoint to other articles. The article seems pretty stable so I prefer to use the talk page first and possibly make edits after discussion. Lipsquid (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Biblical criticism

The so-called "massive deletion" (about 5% of the article) of sourced text was because it was off-topic.

Dispite its name, Biblical criticism is about is about the academic treatment of the Bible. It is a collections of different areas of study, and it is carried out both by those who favor and (I assume) those who disfavor the Bible. Criticism of the Bible is about "criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance." If fact both of these two pages have hat-notes distinguishing between the two in just this way.

You don't really need another reason to remove it but I have also noticed that Criticism of Christianity is well over the recomended artcle size per Wikipedia:Article size. tahc ^chat 22:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk first, delete second or at the very least don't delete 5,000 words at once without consensus. Lipsquid (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with your opinions about what subjects are allowable in the article. Lipsquid (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Developing a consensus means that we discuss the issue. To do that you have to give reasons and such for your opinion. You cannot just say "I disagree". That would imply that you have no reasons aside from personal taste.

I will also point of that not only does the main hatnote on Criticism of the Bible distinguishes itself from Biblical criticism (as I said above), the Criticism of the Bible page has no section Biblical criticism (or any of the sub-fields of Biblical criticism). Yet many would think that the "Scripture" section of this page (Criticism of Christianity) should cover the same topics as Criticism of the Bible (or maybe a sub-set there-of). Maybe you would like to ask a few people at Criticism of the Bible and/or Biblical criticism what they think of removing the "Biblical criticism" sections(s) from this page. I am not claiming that the page cannot use any ideas from Biblical criticism-- it could if relevant to one of the other sections, but Biblical criticism is not by itself a form of "criticism of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance."

By the way, deleting 7000 bytes is only about 1200 words. tahc ^chat 01:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias in lead

This edit by User:UberCryxic perhaps inadvertently gave a somewhat nasty tone to the lead.
Critics are said to have...

• "attacked Christian beliefs and teachings"
• "scrutinized and criticized various aspects"
• "negated the historical accuracy of the Bible"
• "focused on the perceived corruption"
• "launched ... systematic and comprehensive assaults"
• "attempt[ed] to refute existence of God"

... while Christians have...

• "experienced ... attacks"
• "faced substantial attacks"
• "defended Christianity from the attacks leveled against it"

My problem with these phrases is the use of loaded words to give it a strong sense of bias. The idea that these critics all team up to "attack", "assault" and "scrutinize" Christians who have to "defend" themselves against this onslaught makes us look like a bunch of outnumbered and oppressed victims. Now, content-wise:

• "Following the French Revolution, prominent philosophers of liberalism and communism, such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, criticized Christian doctrine on the grounds that it was conservative and anti-democratic."

This is misleading. In the United States, the modern term "liberal" may nowadays mean "progressive" and just about the opposite of "conservative", but the liberalism or rather utilitarianism that John Stuart Mill followed was absolutely not. Also, Marx was not a communist. He was a Marxist (yes, there is big a difference).

• "In the late eighteenth century, the French Revolution precipitated a wave of secularism in which hundreds of churches were closed down and thousands of priests were deported."
• "The Russian Revolution and several other modern revolutionary movements also led to the suppression and marginalization of Christian ideas."

Neither of these are "criticism of Christianity", and neither relate to arguments used in said criticisms. Even as results they are irrelevant without context. This is secularization or religious oppression/suppression and has far more to do with anti-clericalism than this article. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me make a few brief remarks since my edits were singled out for criticism. As you can see from the link you provided, the lead before my changes (if you can even call it a 'lead') was short, unspecific, and generally dull. There are other inauspicious adjectives you could apply, but the 'unspecific' one is the most accurate. It talked about vague criticisms of Christianity in the abstract without actually saying what about Christianity people were actually criticizing. It's unfortunate that my edits came off as "nasty" to you, but my sole intention was to add more detail and make the introduction comprehensive. At the very least, the introduction is definitely comprehensive now, although of course it needs to be further redacted and analyzed for bias, focus, and scope. The same prosaic statement also applies for 99.9% of all articles on Wikipedia. The tone of the article is quite fair because it reflects the subject: this is an article about the criticism of Christianity, and the introduction talks extensively about that subject. For example, if we had an article about praising Christianity, there would be a lot of information about how Christianity has been praised. But this is an article about the criticisms that Christianity has received, so the content duly reflects that reality. I hardly see any difference in tone between this article and the Criticism of Islam, to give just one example. The only difference I see is in the level of detail (this article is more specific about who's making the criticism).

It's beyond the scope of this article (and its talk page) to delineate between the specific philosophical beliefs of people like Mill or Marx. If it helps, we can simply drop the ideological terms and say something like: "Prominent modern philosophers like Mill and Marx have criticized...etc." Either way, Mill was a member of the Liberal Party, and historians and philosophers ever since have generally seen him as a liberal thinker (I would strongly dispute your characterization of him, but again, that's beyond the scope of this article). It's trivially true that communism and Marxism are not the same thing. Just like it's trivially true that communism as a modern political movement was intensely inspired by the writings of Marx, hence the easy association. There's a sense of nitpicking in some of these observations that's difficult to justify, although I have modified the part about the French Revolution to specifically mention that many politicians and philosophers went after Christian teachings.UBER ^(talk) 02:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110710172712/http://www.eewc.com/About.htm to http://www.eewc.com/About.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070816154915/http://www.sram.org/0802/faith-healing.html to http://www.sram.org/0802/faith-healing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041215174321/http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=30 to http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

History section

The current title is ambiguous. Is it "History of criticism" or "Criticism of historical behavior"? From the content, the latter seems intended. If that is the case, I propose to rename the section to "Criticism of historical Christianity", or something to that effect. Paradoctor (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570452_2/Abolitionist_Movement.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580647_2/Civil_Rights_Movement_in_the_United_States.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eewc.com/About.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211120552/http://www.infidels.org:80/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211120630/http://www.infidels.org:80/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/index.shtml to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism by other religions

I think the "Criticism by other religions" should be split into the other sections of the article according to the type of criticism. Except for the Trinity these topics already have the sections needed, and criticism from the POV of Judaism is covered more outside this section already that within it. tahc ^chat 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links moved to talk

In case there's something here that could be used as a reference or to find references: --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

General

• Professor James Tabor's educational site on the Jewish Roman world of Jesus
• Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE
• Froom, LeRoy (1950). The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers (DjVu and PDF). Vol. 1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Skeptical

• The Warfare of Science With Theology by Andrew White
• New Testament contradictions by Paul Carlson
• Christian Anti-Semitism
• PBS Special: Apocalypse! Contains Jesus' apocalyptic promises along with those of Saint Paul's.

From other religions

• Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened): English translation of Isaac of Troki's 16th-century Jewish anti-Christian polemic
• Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Unhistorical Character of the Gospels

Apologetic

• Reasonable Faith http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
• Probe Ministries
• Ravi Zacharias International Ministries http://www.rzim.org/
• Stand to Reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
• Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/

Debates

• "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier (audio) http://www.philvaz.com/CraigCarrierDebate.mp3
• The Great Debate: Does God Exist?-transcript in PDF of a formal debate between presuppositionalist Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein.
• The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
• The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
• "Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).
• "Is Christianity Good for the World?" A written debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson in Christianity Today magazine (web only, May 2007).
• God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren Debate between Christian Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris as reported by Newsweek (April 9, 2007).
• "Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off." A video debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad. Report of the debate posted on the Nightline website. Video of the debate posted on The Way of the Master website.
• The Jesseph-Craig Debate: Does God Exist? (1996)-Transcripts of a debate between Christian William Lane Craig and atheist Douglas M. Jesseph.

Spreading biased misinformation

Under the title of Of criticism from other religions the editor of this part has attributed the verse 31 Surah AL-Tawba chapter 9 to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) while it it is a verse from the Qur'an not the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad,the part goes as follow:" Islam's prophet Muhammad said that Christians had to follow one God, but they have made multiple, he said:-

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God."

For the sake of integrity of this site the verse should at least be attributed to its source which is the Qur'an not the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). No one attributes the verses of the bible to its authors but to the bible even though it's known by whom most of the bible is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.66.131.2 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone. There's no reason to accuse editors of "spreading biased misinformation" over what is most likely a simple mistake. I've corrected the attribution. And actually, people do attribute verses of the Bible to their authors where the authors are known, e.g. the Pauline letters to Paul of Tarsus, the Revelation to St. John the Divine, etc. PepperBeast (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not enough information about the actual criticisms

This article reads a bit too much like a summary of Christianity than an overview of its criticisms. Multiple sections spend more time explaining why or how the criticisms might be incorrect, or simply explaining the Christian views of the subject, than providing information about the reasonings and the people behind the criticisms. The Role of Women section is a notable example. Most of the space there is dedicated to explaining Christian views on women and why God is referred to as Father, not discussing why Christianity has been criticized for its views on the role of women. Teagraves (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It is and will be hard to write a good section on (criticisms of) the role of women, since Christianity (for the purposes of Wikipedia) does not agree on the role(s) of women. The intellgent criticism is (mostly) various parties of Christianity making criticism of the others views, while the natural topic of the page is criticism from those outside Christianity. tahc ^chat 17:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Crucifixion

According to the koran and muslims, jesus wasn't crucified like the bible says he was. muslims have interpreted the koran passage in a variety of ways (e.g., someone took his place, it was made to look like he was, etc.). But the fact remains the story about crucifixion as told by followers of jesus, according to muslims/koran, is false or misleading. There are a lot of different sources on this. See one below for example

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZRenjUoud3kC&pg=PA119&dq=quran+jesus+was+not+crucified&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=quran%20jesus%20was%20not%20crucified&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.88.67 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929141601/http://www.faithstrengthened.org/FS_Biography.html to http://faithstrengthened.org/FS_Biography.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207010849/http://www.stnews.org/News-201.htm to http://www.stnews.org/News-201.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

{{subst:Requested move|Societal views on Christianity|reason=Per [[WP:NPOV, which states that an article Criticism of X be renamed to Societal views on X.}}

Wikiquote link does not exist

The Wikiquote link in "See Also" section leads only to a search result page, which means the exact page about this topic does not exist. Obonggi (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Obonggi (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Christian actions"

The phrase "Christian actions" seems quite inappropriate, just as "Muslim" or "Jewish actions" would. This is especially egregious because the phrase is usually used to refer to actions that are in accordance with Christian principles, whereas what is meant are actions by Christians. Clean Copy^talk 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? The whole sentence is "Critics have attacked Christian beliefs and teachings as well as Christian actions, from the Crusades to modern terrorism." Are you arguing that the Crusades and terrorism are in accordance with Christian principles? Because it looks a lot to me like the criticism *is* aimed at (some of) the actions of Christians. If you move on the main section about historical behaviour, it's all about things done by Christians that may or not be in line with Christian principles and not necessarily undertaken in the name of Christianity. PepperBeast (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. That's exactly why I suggest using the phrasing "actions by Christians," rather than "Christian actions." Clean Copy^talk 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120155247/http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q1208/q1208.html to http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q1208/q1208.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011080305/http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007_09_01_archive.php to http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007_09_01_archive.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221073735/http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/Lang_BushAndTheRiseOfChristianFascism.html to http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/Lang_BushAndTheRiseOfChristianFascism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112123105/http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf to http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Translation of Almah as Virgin and "Christian Persecution Complex"

These two sections have been removed from the article without prior discussion to the talk page, without any reasoning (except a WP:NOR in synopsis). I think they should both be included in the article as they are both relevant.

• Translation of Almah as Virgin: a)Prof Francesca Stavrakopoulou discuss the mistranslation.[5] b)Richard Carrier on the same issue[The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy][6]
• Christian persecution complex is a criticism to Christians in the West of being intolerant to left-wing and liberal christians.

I think they both have a place in the article Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems there is no objection. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you cane to that conclusion. Erkill has voiced some objections above, and I don't think the material belongs in the article. A long discussion of almah isn't a criticism of Christianity without a referenced explanation of why it matters, and otherwise, you should be linking to the relevant article, not repeating the material here.

And the comments about Christian Persecution Complex look like WP:OR WP:synthesis from top to bottom. PepperBeast (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur with above. This article is the wrong place for such material, even if it was properly referenced. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Christian Persecution Complex is OR? There are puplished academic articles on that subject, so, doesnt look so WP:OR to me.
• Conserning almah and the claim that is irrelevant, by the same token we can delete half of the article. Nevertheless here are some articles that clarify the importance of almah [7], [8] forgery in Christianity pg62-65 Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty simple fact of history that the Virgin Birth prophecy is a mistranslation.... why it matters? Well, that mistranslation challenges three of the foundations of 4th Century onwards Christianity: the virgin birth; the idea that Jesus is the phrophesized messiah from the OT; and the Bible as Perfect. Sethie (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I certainly don't have a problem with that kind of summary (referenced, of course) appearing in the article. PepperBeast (talk)

Neither do I. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

User from Greek WikipediaUser:ΕρΚιλλ is trying to initiate in en.WP an edit war by removing two chapters of the article. ("Translation of Almah as Virgin and "Christian Persecution Complex")[9]. The "Criticism of Christianity" (most of it) has recently been translated into Greek [10] and I am planning to move forward on translating all parts of it within next week. There have been reactions at Greek Wikipedia concerning different parts of the article, including the two aforementioned chapters. So, User:ΕρΚιλλ, is trying to remove context from this article so it would be easier to remove it later from Greek Wikipedia. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about you. You added the section Persecution Complex so it would be easier for you to add it in the Greek Wikipedia later on. As for the section regarding the translation, it was correctly removed by the user because it is clearly an original research (WP:NOR). ΕρΚιλλ (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Persecution Complex is relevant to Criticism of Christianity (Christians). The translation of Almah was not a NOR although better citation can be found, it is a common story. See article: almah Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User Τζερόνυμο is transferring here from the Greek WP his anti-christian disrupting editing and warring, by adding irrelevant pictures (e.g. Slaves logged in Brazil (by whom?) ) and deleting sources on early christian anti-slavery views.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)