Talk:Christianity/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Catechism

The Catholic Church in charlotte has a book which goes over many of their doctrines, beliefs, and practices. This is what should be used when discussing anything that is Catholic. This book is called "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". With this book none of the silly beliefs of non-Catholics need to be even heard let alone be treated as true. Unfortunately the vast majority of Protestants don't have a catechism. To put both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches in the same article as the Catholic Church is an effort in futility. The Catholic Church, being 2000 years old with the oldest Protestant Church being at the most about 500 years old. They are both called Christian, however, there isn't much of a likeness except that they both believe that Jesus is God.Anathasius (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

that's pretty ignorant, blind faith in God brewing intolerance for others. Maybe your faith is only that...BLIND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.151.33 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my... Buddy, the Pope teaches us Catholics to follow Christ's command, "Love your enemies". (Matthew 5:43-48). The Protestants, who are Christians, and not our enemies, accept Christ as the Son of God, who suffered, bled, died and rose again for the forgiveness of our Sins. There are major doctrinal differences, but this encyclopedia is not the place to discus them; on wikipedia we present what there is to present, regardless of what I or you believe. Gabr-el 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of Christianity that always amazes me. What belief or doctrine is greater than following Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? To even imagine that there is a "greater" knowledge or something more important than following Jesus astounds me. Yet, we see this type of thing over and over again from each group/church/denomination, etc. within Christianity for the whole history of Christianity. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has a rich history filled with some of the most sublime examples of discipleship as can be found. However, we can find equally valuable examples within Protestantism or any other "ism" within Christianity. Be a zealot of humility or love, but leave the zealotry for doctrine or church outside of Wikipedia. Cheers. --^StormRider 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done Storm Rider, for your excellent and restraining response. My own response as you can see, is modelled by your own brilliant example of Christian unity. Gabr-el 05:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are all christianity article locked? can't I make corrections or additons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.187.96 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of heavy vandalism by IP but to make corrections or additions IP must type it the discussion page.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What belief or doctrine is greater than following Jesus Christ? What about there might be something I do not properly understand or maybe I missed something. Kazuba (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes as following Christ? Gavin (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a great topic, but I am not sure there is a benefit to the article. Jesus summarized discipleship by his two great commandments in which is found all the gospel: love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and love thy neighbor as thyself. Understand that I am not advocating that the Catechism or other similar works are without merit, but rather I am advocating that there is nothing greater than knowledge of Jesus Christ, his perfect life, him crucified, risen from the dead, sitting on the right hand of God, and will return one day. With that knowledge one becomes committed to walk the way of Christ Jesus and emulate his example. If one could magnify obedience to the two great commandments, all else would fall into place. Peace and harmony would exist among all Christians. If there is anything else to discuss, it would be best to cover it on personal discussion pages. Peace.--^StormRider 07:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Denominations

Why is Anglicanism listed under the Roman Catholic branch? It's a reformed church and belongs to the Protestant grouping. Some parts of it would like to claim to be Catholic, others shy away from it. It's worthy of note that the RCC itself considers Anglicanism very much a protestant sect ("absolutely null and utterly void", anyone?). It seems a rather... unlikely place to put a church which formally came into existence at the English Reformation. Was the listing compiled by an Anglo-Catholic, perhaps? 82.108.42.66 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Nefertum

Please note that the Assyrian Church of the East is nor Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Oriental Orthodox, nor Protestant nor Restoration. Because of its ancient history (separated from other bodis before the Council of Ephesus), Assyrian Church of the East should have own sub-paragraph in section Denominations.

The Chart is very clear (see yellow line), while the related text dont't mention such body (that includes also the Ancient Church of the East and perhaps other churches). A ntv (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can recall the sections on denominations to not claim that they cover every possible Christian group catagory-- nor is it needed for the article to cover every possible Christian group catagory.

Eastern Christianity is just a part of Christianity, and Syriac Christianity is just a small part of Eastern Christianity, and the Assyrian Church of the East is just a small part of Syriac Christianity. Christian theology]] is so very very small a group that it is to give it its own sub-paragraph would be undue weight.--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Article correctly distinguish between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Because the Orthodox Church of the East cannot at all be placed in one of the above group, nor in any other group, it needs to be distinguished. This also for relevant historical reasons (1600 years of separate history) and for theological reasons. Christianity->Eastern Christianity->Syriac Christianity is not a valid grouping. It is like to say Christianity->U.S. Christianity. A ntv (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrian Church of the East has not had any noteworthy impact on Christian theology. Likewise, his not an article on Christian history nor Christian theology.

While it does have some historical significance, it should be mentioned in the history section if that is why we are saying it is noteworthy. There are other, more important IMO, things left out of history section-- but since the whole section is too brief maybe that doesn't mater much.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East has not had any impact on Christian theology - then by this rather bold and ridiculous statement, the Assyrian Church borrows all of its theology from everyone else, despite being one of the first and most isolated Churches in history? Gabr-el 05:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I said rather, "The Assyrian Church of the East has not had any noteworthy impact on Christian theology"--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy is a POV in this case, which is self-aggravating. Not much is known about the ACOE. Consequently, it's theology is dismissed as "not noteworthy", as is so much by western academics, who try to make up for their lack of understanding by saying that there is nothing else to understand. The result? These "un-noteworthy" people remain out of the spotlight, so that they are not known and hence the vicious cycle of ignorance remains. One cannot deny the importance of the ACOE. Gabr-el 06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could say: The Assyrian Church of the East has not had any noteworthy impact on Western Christian theology: but this statment is at least false for the RCC. If at present the tradition of the Church of the East is limited (about 1-1.5 million people considering also the related Indian Churches and the Chaldean Church), in the early Middle-Age the ACoE spreaded as far as China being comparable in size with the Western Church. 151.96.3.241 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not to insert a sub-section, but simply to modify only the sentence: Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into five main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Restorationism in: ..as being divided into six main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East, Protestantism and Restorationism. 151.96.3.241 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been, in the past few years, many claims that various denominations to not fit into the broad categorisation of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. So far I've seen these from Baptists, Anglicans, Mormons, JWs, Ethiopians. We don't claim that the categorisation is rigid, but it's a widely used categorisation and we should talk about it. Most denominations that are claimed to lie outside it are either a) usually grouped into one of the three, despite claims that they lie outside or b) small enough not to be worth listing in an overview. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many or most of the groups in Category:Controversial Christian denominations and some in Category:Nontrinitarian denominations will claim to fall outside this system.

The Church of the East is not in Category:Controversial Christian denominations or in Category:Nontrinitarian denominations. Or we keep all the Eastern Christianity as one gruop, but if we want to divide it in Eastern Orthodoxy+Oriental Orthodoxy we cannot leave out the Church of the East. You can check article Eastern Christianity. PS: Baptists and Anglicans are borne after the Reformation, Mormons and JWs are not trinitarian, Ethiopians are Oriental Orthodoxy. But you cannot fit the Church of the East in any of those gruops. That because it separated form the others in a very ancient past (about 430 AC) and is still alive. I'm not a member of such a Church, but if our grouping has an historical base, as it has, it shall includes also the Church of the East. A ntv (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Assyrian Church of the East is different, and I am not saying that you/it is Nontrinitarian, etc. I am saying that many other churches will not fit the "five main groups" summary system either. Yet, we cannot include them all.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The perceived age of a church has little value, but rather a congruence of beliefs is more important. When we think of orthodox/mainstream Christianity, we look at similarity of belief and not how long each church has existed. We should do the same thing with the Church of the East...what is it most like and that is the section in which it belongs. --^StormRider 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the Church of the East never accepted the third ecumenical council (Council of Ephesus), while it is accepted by the others bodies, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and most Protestants. Please note that the issue discussed at Ephesus was essentially a Christological controversy and so extremely relevant for a grouping based on belief. Also the sacraments of the Church of the East are different from EO, OO and RCC (that simply to list a few differences, but we could add the different veneration of Mary and so on). For these reasons it cannot be grouped with OO, EO, or RCC; Nor it can be grouped with Protestants because it doesn't accept the Sola Scriptura and it has a strict apostolic succession. I cannot say which is the section in which it belongs. A ntv (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that its very nature makes it a one of a kind Church, very distinct and unlike all others. Gabr-el 01:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have briefly mentioned the Assyrian Church in the first paragraph. I do believe that the age of a Church has historical noteworthiness. This does not mean that it is better or worse than all other Churches in Christianity; only that it became independent first. Gabr-el 03:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that including it in the first paragraph as you have constitutes undue weight. If it should be included, it should given its own sub-paragraph, as was originally suggested. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it less weight given if it were a small part of a paragraph and dealt with quickly, then have its own paragraph, in my opinion at least. Gabr-el 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no consensous on having it here, I have moved the Assyrian Church to the history section.

Please comment.--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to add this information in Denominations, but if you want to add it in history you shall underline also that the Oriental Orthodox broke out because they didn't accepted the 4th council. So the first split (still alive) was the Church of the East (3th council) and the second was the OO (4th council). More, you cannot include the Church of the East under a paragraph about Costantine, because ACoE was placed out of Costantine's Empire and so Costantine had no power on it, while he had power on all the other Christian world (apart perhaps the OO Armenians). So even the decisions of the first council (Nicaea 315) could not be enforced in Assyria till they were officially accepted by the ACoE in 410 (Seleucia-Ctesiphon synod). All these particularities make the ACoE unique. In other words, you cannot summarize the history of Christianity in the IV-V century in a few lines. So it is better to include ACoE in Denomination section with its own link. A ntv (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the Assyrian church does not belong in the lead. While I can see why Gabriel thinks it's a "one of a kind Church, very distinct and unlike all others", the same can be said about hundreds of other churches. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

If this is the opening sentence from the Buddhism article, Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices, considered by some to be a religion, but not by all., and this is the opening sentence from the Hinduism article Hinduism is a religious tradition that originated in the Indian subcontinent, then why isn't this article, which focuses on judeo-christian mythology, referred to in the same clinical way? This is the opening sentence of the Christianity article Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. The New Testament is an aggregate of myths, parables and proverbs assembled over a period of centuries, so why isn't it referred to here as a compendium of judeo-christian philosophies and codes of conduct? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all the New Testament is no a compendium of philosophies or codes of conduct. Another major difference is that the NT purports to be a record of people who are not mythological, but who actually lived. You are comparing apples and oranges. The opening statement is the most accurate statement developed to date. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

the issue is what is a Religion. The definition of Religion usually refers to a specific supernatural claim, that is considered by some to lack in Buddhism but not in Hinduism nor in Christianity. The supernatural claim differentiates religions as Christianity or Islam from philosophies and codes of conduct. We cannot leave out the term Religion. Check also the definition of Islam A ntv (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is how to give the best short, useful definition of a particular religion - in this case, Christianity. That must be shaped by the nature of the particular religion involved. Buddhism is characterized by the thinking and teaching of the Buddha. Hinduism is characterized less by a single, unified metaphysical world view, but rather by the various religious traditions that grew up on the Indian subcontinent. Christianity, in turn, is centered on Jesus of Nazareth - but in contrast to Buddhism, it isn't just his teachings that characterize Christianity, but also the Christian understanding of who he was, and what his life and death mean for his followers. The current sentence is perfectly clinical - it's just describing a religion that is defined differently than Buddhism. It is reasonably parallel to the first sentence for Islam - the difference arises because Christians understand the role of Jesus (son of God) to be central in a way that Muslims do not see for the role of Muhammad (prophet of God). EastTN (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think is it highly unnessecary to include "considered by some to be a religion, {but not by all.}" Alex Bieser (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I happen to agree with you, that phrase (in its current, shorter form) was a compromise reached in fairly intensive (and ongoing) development of the Buddhism lead. It was left in largely to avoid the inevitable and interminable discussions sparked by editors and readers who will argue at length that Buddhism is exclusively something other than a religion.

As for this lead, while I personally would prefer a more historically situated introduction, it's a bit refreshing that such a short, denotative definition is, after all, workable for Christianity. /Ninly (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also the second sentence under "Early Church and Christological Councils" seems to lack any verb. 125.238.14.73 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It had apparently been fixed by the time I saw it, though I did make some minor wording changes to the sentence. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:A ntv comments "Not all early Christians were Jews" [1]

Not all Jewish Christians were Jews, see also Proselyte and Godfearers. The sentence in question begins "Christianity began as a Jewish sect"; that "Jewish sect" is Jewish Christianity. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the point you are trying to make? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish sect, from which Christianity began, is Jewish Christianity. Seems like the article should mention that, even if some people are under the impression that Jewish Christians were only Jews. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You proposed to modify a sentence in the introduction to Christianity began as a Jewish sect, so-called Jewish Christianity . I reverted it deleting the addition so-called Jewish Christianity. Introduction of Article Christianity is a delicate issue. Jewish Christianity has two different meanings, a historical one and a contemporary one (see the link). It is not a unambiguous term. Even if we consider the historical meaning Jewish Christianity#Jewish origin of Christianity, we see a very early division between those who were circumcised and those who were not circumcised (from the above link). We cannot unanimously speak of "Jewish Christianity" as the name of the "Jewish sect" that is the early Christianity. "Jewish Christianity", when used as a name for early groups, usually refers to the early Christian groups like Ebionites. Moreover, Introduction is not the place for these detailed historical information. Article History of Christianity is the appropriate place, where anyway there is already the sub-section "Jewish continuity", with already a link to Jewish Christians. The aim of introduction is simply to explain to who dont know about Christianity, that Christianity cames from the Jewish religion. A ntv (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's link "as a Jewish sect" to Jewish_Christianity#Jewish_origin_of_Christianity. I'll be bold and do it. And, yes, an early division among Jewish Christians was those circumcised and those not circumcised, also a division among Proselytes and probably Godfearers as well. See Circumcision controversy in early Christianity for details. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to your new edit ([Jewish Christianity#Jewish origin of Christianity|Christianity began as a Jewish sect]). The issue here is simply to explain to who don't know about Christianity, that Christianity cames from the Jewish religion. You cannot delete the reference to "Jewish" as you did, linking a particular aspect of the Christian history. There are many different views on the early Christianity (discussed in History of Christianity). In the introduction we shall be very neutral, not overweighting only to one aspect (the Jewish continuity) over other aspects. I kindly ask you to revert you edits, to propose here in Talk the change you want to do, and wait for some Consensus, that is not only me and you. A ntv (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you disagree with the statement: "Christianity began as a Jewish sect". What would you propose in it's place? "Christianity began as a Jewish and Gentile sect"? "Christianity began as a Jewish sect but some [who?] propose other continuities"? 75.15.207.22 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentence "Christianity began as a Jewish sect". I don't agree with the new link under it, edited yesterday by 64.149.83.195 (Christianity began as a Jewish sect). I suggest to return to the situation before yesterday: Christianity began as a Jewish sect. A ntv (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Those links aren't useful, people know what Jewish means and they know what sect means. The appropriate link is a link to a discussion of the Jewish origin of Christianity. Jewish Christianity#Jewish origin of Christianity is one possibility, History of Christianity#Jewish continuity is another. 75.15.197.47 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Greek Jewish Canon" [2]

No such thing, clearly Original research. Wikipedia editors should know better. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with everything the anon is saying, but I agree in his outcome on this one. We have LXX linked, there's no sense in modifying it with "Greek Jewish Canon". Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with PaterMcFly that Greek Jewish Canon could be appropriate for the LXX (the pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism was only one Judaism in such a time, and the LXX is fully Jewish). But I agree with 64.149.83.195's outcome (without Greek Jewish Canon). Christianity is a general Article, more details and different views shall be find in the Septuagint Article. A ntv (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism, such as Philo, Josephus, Paul of Tarsus. They each claimed canons, but neither are identical, and neither match the modern canon of the Septuagint, however that is defined. The original Septuagint was only the Torah. See also Development of the Jewish Bible canon. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Can we please just keep this page semi-protected indefinitely? Frank, I am getting tired of seeing this article vandalized by so many enterprising juveniles. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second that. Gabr-el 05:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I third that but i don't think it is possible to semi protect indefinite periods. Even IP make very good edits. They should not be neglected. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I fourth that

Semi-protected indef (sock attack + random vandalism) If you feel this is no longer needed in a couple of weeks, don't hesitate to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC

Many articles are semi-protected on a de facto permanent or near-permanent basis. That's only sense. Experience shows that articles with a long history of development are very, very, very unlikely to be improved by anonymous edits. The main benefit of allowing anonymous edits is on stubby or undeveloped articles. dab (𒁳) 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias, sweet bias.

The History Tag overlooks objectivity in order to present Christianity in it's best possible light. I particularly take offense to how it paints Christians primarily as the Victims of persecution, but fails to mention much of the persecution at the hands of Christian's, both against other sects and against peoples of other faith. --Lucavix (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats because you are under the fallacious belief that a religion and its adherents are one and the same. Often, the Spanish and Portuguese Christians exploited the Indians of South America and at the same time the Roman Catholic Church via the Jesuit Order tried to prevent such abuses. Now, what has this got to do with Protestant Christians for example? Are the Protestant Christians to blame here? No!

Or take for example the Catholics who were persecuted in Northern Ireland during the Williamite era. Are we to blame Orthodox Christians for this? No!

To say that Christianity is responsible for certain offenses is pretty pathetic, bigoted and as ridiculous as to say that Islam is responsible of 9/11 (when its not, a certain small group of misguided Muslims are responsible). Note the difference; a religion does not commit good deeds or bad deeds, its their followers that do so.

In short, to present the offenses of Christians throughout history as the history of Christianity is like presenting Adolf Hitler as a criticism of Humanity. They're such large groups of people, with conflicting ideas. You say that you are a Psychology Professor- I am greatly disturbed that a "Professor" such as yourself is prepared to group 2 billion people together and commit a fallacy of generalization, when offenses committed by Christians do not speak for all Christians and do not speak for Christianity, because Christianity is a way of life, not some large group of people all equally guilty of crimes.

If you want your fill of Christian criticism, knock yourself out here.Gabr-el 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job!Prussian725 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good arguments, Gabr-el, but not completely correct, IMHO. There are crimes committed by individuals (all crimes are committed by individuals) of a given community that can be attributed to the community. Following your examples, Islam is not responsible for extremist terrorism, but it is responsible for systematic oppression in Islamic countries. Christianity (maybe more precisely the Catholic Church) is not responsible for individual missionaries raping Indians in South America, but it is responsible for sending the missionaries in first place, to indoctrinate the Indians, smashing their identity, culture and moral freedom in the way. The Catholic Church is not responsible for an individual priest abusing a child, but it is responsible for the crimes of the Inquisition against the religious, moral and scientific freedom of many. Denying that is like saying that Nazis didn't kill Jews, but just "some people who happened to be Nazi killed some people who happened to be Jew". With this reasoning, Christianity didn't suffer any persecution: just individuals (who happened to be Christian) did. And don't tell me that the fact that they were persecuted because they were Christians makes a difference, because for you the fact that a given persecutor was so because he was Christian doesn't make a difference either. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

it's as simple as WP:SS. There is some criticism of Christianity and some historical persecution by Christians, and these articles should certainly be linked from here, but due to the sheer scope of this article, it cannot dwell on the topic at any length. If the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire is treated at greater length, that isn't an attempt to score sympathy points for the poor unloved Christian victims, it's because that phase is of extreme important to the early formative history of the religion. That said, the Islam article has an "other religions" h2 section that hints at some of the more problematic points, and this article should have something analogous. For example, the "Ecumenism" section should have the wider scope of "Christianity and other religions", and address the question of militant proselytization as opposed to presenting "ecumenism" as an inherently good thing. --dab (𒁳) 17:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This Article is incredibly biased

all criticism has been removed from this article, and can only be found in criticism of christianity. so this article only presents one side of the story. there clearly are not enough links to criticism of christianity, and all that is necessary for the christians to keep this article biased is to remove as many of those links as possible.

as long as all criticism is removed from this article, it really needs to be semi-protected indefinitely, because it is this bias and this absence of criticism that causes people to add criticism to the article. this article needs to be merged with criticism of christianity. until this happens, people will need to continue to point out that this article is biased. Kurtilein (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What illogic led you to the idea that 2 billion Christians with such a vast array of different beliefs should all be collectively held responsible for crimes committed by a minority of Christians? Gabr-el 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: it is enough a link to criticism of christianity. A ntv (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"What illogic led you to the idea that 2 billion Christians with such a vast array of different beliefs should all be collectively held responsible for crimes committed by a minority of Christians?" what illogic led you to the idea that there is no criticism that applies to christianity as a whole? this article is as big as it is because it describes many beliefs that are agreed on by a majority or a significant part of christianity, why shouldnt those beliefs be challenged using criticism that is SPECIFICALLY targeted at the belief that is being described?

and it is NOT enough to just link to criticism of christianity. not if there is only one link at the bottom of the article. the articles need to be merged, or there should be a link to criticism of christianity whenever it is relevant, and many different sections of this article are adressed in criticism of christianity.

its not fair that the oppinion of all non-christians is completely removed from this article, using only the existence of that other article criticism of christianity as justification. if there are different oppinions about one topic, the wikipedia-article should REFLECT those different oppinions, and not marginalize them. Kurtilein (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all valid and notable points of view (critical or otherwise) on the structure, theology, and institutions of Christianity should be visible and easily accessible to a reader—see WP:NPOV. Thus a link(s) to the criticism article should be visible (note that there is one in the Infobox), although some wikilinked mention of criticism should probably also appear in the article. However, I disagree that the articles should be merged, mostly in the interest of WP:SIZE. /Ninly (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: more visible links, and more than just one link at the bottom, would definitively help to adress the problem. there are topics where there is a section in criticism of christianity that nicely corresponds with a section in christianity. i already tried to edit another link to criticism of christianity into christianity, it didnt work, the person reverting it argued that there already is a link at the bottom of the article. maybe someone that is better at editing articles could try again, i get the impression that we have to deal with some people that consider christianitys freedom from criticism to be more important than the quality of wikipedia and the quest for truth. Kurtilein (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Placing a statement that isn't really appropriate in the current format in the lead and saying that you want someone else to fix it isn't the proper way to add things. It is better to come to concensus on the talk page with appropriate statement(s) and then add it. This isn't censoring, it is only adding quality information to an article. Marauder40 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles should not be merged; that is absurd and very ill-advised. But I do think a section of "Criticisms" should be added to this article. It should be a summary of the Criticisms section, and have a main article link at its top. It seems the last time this was addressed was a year ago, between 16 and 19 December of 2007. It is available at Archive 45 of this page. Someone brought up the point, and it was essentially summarily dismissed by another user. I think a change does need to be made. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposal to merge the two articles. This article should contain legitimate criticism of Christianity from reputable sources. If the criticism is more directed to a major denomination it should be noted. Whether these criticisms are covered in a section by itself or in the related section, I am somewhat ambivalent since both have their merits. --^StormRider 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

By "in the related section" do you mean, for example, that a criticism of belief about the Trinity would be included in the Trinity subsection of the Beliefs section? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

According to some wikipedia-policies that really seem to be important, the articles need to be merged. maybe merging the articles will be the only way to accomplish a neutral point of view here. quote from wikipedia:neutral point of view

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article." so if this is generally considered unacceptable, maybe it is unacceptable here as well? Kurtilein (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A POV fork is possible on Wikipedia, but this is not one. I am surprised that you want this article treated differently than all other major religion articles as stated below. Why should this article be different?

Carl, your example above is correct. Criticism are written in the sections specifically. It is only an alternative. I guess I am not quite as ambivalent as I stated above since I prefer where appropriate to have a criticism section. As a reader of Wikipedia when I look for an topic, I am trying to learn about the topic. For example, when I am studying the Christian Trinity I want to read about the doctrine of the Trinity as professed by reputable theologians. I am NOT looking for what a critic thinks of the doctrine. When it comes to religion I think we have this odd application of neutrality. To be neutral we must state not all people believe in the doctrine or that there are others that believe differently...it is one of those DUH moments. It is perfectly neutral to describe a Marian beliefs without any statement that clarifies that Southern Baptists believe differently. We should treat approach the subject neutrally, but there is no need to state the obvious. We should state who believes, but a long litany of who does not believe or who disagrees with Christian doctrines is not neutral, it is just bad writing and an abuse of the policy.--^StormRider 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Storm. I too have a preference for a separate criticism section. It seems to be in line with other articles (or at least Jehovah's Witnesses). I also think its prominence would do more to allay Kurtilien's concerns. Moreover, I was hoping to just see if the lead of Criticism of Christianity was any good, and more or less copy that over here. Seems the easiest solution. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Islam is now a featured article, we can develop things for Christianity based on that method. If you notice, the Islam article doesn't have criticism in large glaring sections. There is a link in the Islam info box and where it is appropriate in the article certain criticisms are mentioned. Nothing blaming the entire Islam religion for things like 9/11. It is one thing to keep sections of the article balanced it is another to give an informational article on Christianity and undue weight section on criticism. Marauder40 (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a glaring criticism section? It would reflect the trend of having a daughter article summarized in its parent. I fail to see how a brief (I'm envisioning 1-2 paragraph) section on prominent criticisms would be undue weight. It seems you're fine with adding criticism, though on the individual sections manner. It would be easier, frankly, to give it its own section. And there is precedence for this, for example Jehovah's Witnesses (though I'll grant it isn't FA-class). Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As you said Jehovah's Witnesses isn't a FA. Islam is and it is a recent FA, not by some old standards. The method that Islam uses is to address criticism in places where it is important to address it within the context of the article and points to a seperate article to address criticisms that shouldn't be blended into the overall article. Its a balanced approach that leads to easier flow when reading. Glaring criticism sections just lead to people adding more and more criticisms that they feel are important without blending it into the existing article. What is good for Islam, should be good for Christianity. Marauder40 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Pairing a main article with a criticism article seems to be the accepted practice for articles on major world religions, and is also the approach take for atheism (Atheism/Criticism of atheism). To make it work, both the main article and the criticism article have to be neutral (i.e., the main article must simply describe the religion or world view involved without making any claims that it is "true," and the criticism article must include both the criticisms and the responses). Done right, though, it seems to work pretty well - and helps manage the size of the articles. While I don't have any philosophical objections to Storm & Carl's one or two paragraph summary section approach, it's going to be very difficult to keep the section manageable if we try to summarize all the arguments and counter-arguments. EastTN (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in FA-assessment that specifically requires, or even encourages, this method? "What is good for Islam, should be good for Christianity" makes sense, but I've never seen it explained just why it is good. I'm not sure I buy "easier flow", but that might be personal preference. And if people added cruft onto a glaring criticism section, that will be dealt with quickly-enough on such a high-profile article as this. But if there is a policy/guideline in assessment that prefers the integrated method, I'll be won over immediately. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily policy per say, but if you followed the FAC process for Islam and also the one that Roman Catholic Church went through you would see that is the reasoning behind why you don't see huge criticisms throughout Islam. Honestly Criticism sections IMHO are cop-outs. The non-thinking man's method of addressing different POVs. If you can't incorperate things within the flow of the article, you have to question whether they belong in the article in the first place. People need to consider what is the purpose of the article. Is the purpose to give an overview on Christianity or is its purpose to be an all encompassing article on all aspects of Christianity?Marauder40 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I concede, let's do it your way. Shall we each take a section and include what we can? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't think you understand what I am getting at. I am not proposing any specific changes. It is more up to the person proposing POV changes to come up with specific issues that they believe belong in the main article as opposed to the "Criticism" page. Just saying an article is POV especially one of this scale that already has a criticism page that is linked to the Crit article in at least two places in the main article doesn't cut it. You can't add every criticism to this article otherwise you get an article that reads something like "Christianity was founded on the teachings of Christ, who some believe existed and some don't but some people think this and some people think that and some people think etc. etc. etc." There has to be a consensus to whether something belongs here or there, not just one person's opinion. Having a section called "Criticism" on this page, just lends to having a section where people keep adding things that are already addressed on the other page. Islam talks about what Islam is, the tenants, the history, the beliefs, etc. In some cases where the crit is obvious it lists it in the article, most criticism (and rebutals) exist on the Criticism page. Marauder40 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of asking the pro-forma question "where could we stick some criticism?", perhaps we should look at the article and ask if there are places where either 1) links to important, relevant articles are missing, or 2) there's a discussion that's clearly incomplete. For instance, there's a whole constellation of articles dealing with Jesus of Nazareth and whether or not he was historical, mythological, criticizing him, etc. Rather than trying to cover all the criticisms here, perhaps we should focus on making sure the interested reader has a clear link path to other articles such as the ones on Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, Jesus myth hypothesis, Judaism's view of Jesus, Jesus in Islam, Criticism of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, Religious perspectives on Jesus etc. Right now, I think you can get to most of them, but in most cases the path isn't very direct. Helping the reader navigate through all these related articles would seem much more valuable than dropping in a couple of sentences that could not possible summarize all the competing views. No one article has to do everything. EastTN (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but even the added links should be appropriate and not added just to add "criticism." If it makes sense in context it should be linked/added. If not it shouldn't. Like I said before the criticism is not hidden. The main criticism page is linked in at least two places on the page, including the topicbox. Marauder40 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

this article is in violation of wikipedias "neutral point of view" policy

criticism of christianity is completely missing in this article. as long as this is the case, this article needs the template that the neutral point of view of this article is in question. unfortunately, i dont know how to do this: help needed.

unless this article links to criticism of christianity in such a way that EVERY reader notices that criticism does exist just as if the criticism would be in the article itself, this article does not have a neutral point of view. please help me by adding the appropriate template.

quote from wikipedia:neutral point of view: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article."

this is the case with christianity and criticism of christianity.Kurtilein (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The approach taken here - Christianity (Criticism of Christianity) - is entirely consistent with that used for the other major world religions: Islam (Criticism of Islam), Judaism (Criticism of Judaism), Hinduism (Criticism of Hinduism) and Buddhism (Criticism of Buddhism). It is also consistent with the way atheism is handled: Atheism (Criticism of atheism). The use of two articles to cover the belief system and the associated criticisms of that belief system is not something unique to the articles on Christianity. 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 article structure, I don't see how you can get more even-handed than that. EastTN (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

EastTN: you can get more even-handed by following wikipedia policies. if criticism is hidden away and marginalized by reducing it to just one link at the bottom of the article, wikipedia policies are violated. check communism for an example on how it should be done. maybe a link on TOP of the article would help, it should be pointed out that this article on its own does not have a neutral point of view and will not give you the full picture unless you also check out criticism of christianity. in its current form, there is a problem with the article that needs to be resolved, and the fact that the same problem exists in other wikipedia-articles about other religions shouldnt be an excuse not to fix it. Kurtilein (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurtilein, this does not represent a content fork. The each of the articles mentioned explicitly links to the associated "criticism" article. No content is being hidden, and the criticism articles all include both the criticisms themselves and the responses to criticism. The Christianity article (and Hinduism article, and Judaism article, etc.) are all quite long - for each it has been necessary to spin out a number of articles to cover all of the relevant material. Christianity is not getting a free ride - see for example the Jesus myth hypothesis, Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, Historicity of Jesus, List of Christian evangelist scandals, Catholic sex abuse cases, Christianity and homosexuality, History of Christianity and homosexuality, Criticism of the Bible and Internal consistency of the Bible articles. Perhaps they could be better linked together (there are already multiple cross links in place), but no one is hiding anything - Wikipedia is full of material critical of Christianity; it simply will not all fit into a single article. EastTN (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

EastTN: Articles should be split by splitting the topic into smaller subtopics, leading to smaller articles about those different subtopics. the problem are point of view-forks. the subtopics cannot be different points of view about the same topics, this is considered unacceptable. i think the reason can be seen here: the fork effectively removes an important point of view from the article, and this point of view, which deserves a part of the article on this topic according to the amount of sources and the relevance and other factors, is reduced to a few links that can easily be overlooked, without any mention in the text. this is bias. people that want to get quick information about christianity will only look at parts of the text of the article christianity. they will get the impression that there is no valid criticism, because they know wikipedia policies and expect all relevant points of view to be in the article. my understanding is that this is a problem that seems to have creeped into all articles about major world religions, and that needs to be resolved in order to improve the quality of wikipedia. Kurtilein (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurtilein, you need to hold your horses. Can't you see we've been discussing this since you brought it up? Something is going to be done, Storm and I agree on that already. But it isn't going to happen yesterday, as you seem to wish. Just wait, discuss with us on the talk page in a calm and considered fashion, and this will all work. You have a valid concern, and it is being addressed in the way things are addressed around here. You just need to wait patiently. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, and i should show more patience. But this interferes with other things i wanted to do, i wanted to record a video-blog about wikipedia and publish it on different video sharing websites. now what will i tell them? it is necessary to draw the attention of different networks that are frequented by considerable amounts of of humanists/atheists/brights/skeptics/freethinkers specifically towards this wikipedia-article and the other articles about the world religions, or not? could i instead just promote wikipedia, and ask them to think about ways how they could contribute to wikipedia in their own fields of expertise, just raising a little bit of attention to the fact that there is some bias on wikipedia when it comes to articles about major religious movements? before i noticed this article, and the problems it has, my idea was to record a video that is focused on promoting wikipedia and encouraging people to get involved and to contribute to wikipedia. i need to decide on what message i should spread, this is why its difficult to be patient. if i would feel that i would be hitting a brick wall here, i could record my video immediately, but i would prefer a different message for that video. so i guess ill be patient for a few more days. Kurtilein (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely the wrong reason to try to hurry or push changes through an article. The aim of Wikipedia is to produce quality articles, not so you can produce a video about your view of what Wikipedia is or isn't. If you hurry changes through and do it in ways that do not reach concensus you are defeating the very environment of Wikipedia. The change you kept on making did not meet Wikipedia standards so it doesn't stick. Your view on the best way for Wiki to approach religions isn't important. It is what concensus agrees upon. One of the Welcome articles to Wiki mentions the fact that if you can not operate in an environment where your edits may be thrown out, edited, argued about, etc. this really isn't the best place for you. If you can work with other editors to improve the articles and realize that your opinion might not always be right then it is a place for you. Marauder40 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your patience is appreciated. Personally, I believe in WP as a good thing, and think you could say that though it has its problems, they get worked out. You pointed out a problem, and it's being fixed. It might seem slow, but sometime's things on here will take maybe a week or so before they're totally fixed from when a problem is identified to when it is made right. Even if this article isn't that amazing at the moment, you should be able to show them through the process going on on this talk page that bias tends to get worked out of the system. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another way you could spin your video, which is of no interest to anyone I know and is rather focused on your POV, is that you were able to come to Wikipedia without first providing any demonstration of your qualifications, knowledge, expertise, etc. and cause numerous individuals to react to your little exercise. You seem to be confused about Wikipedia; it does not care if you are a humanist/atheist/bright/skeptic/freethinker or even the average Joe Schmuck. All are welcome to contribute and read. Wikipedia is concerned about producing factually accurate, neutral articles about all subjects. It depends upon the participation of people with differing degrees of expertise to spend outrageous numbers of hours voluntarily to write and and then monitor those articles so that the common reader can come and read about almost any subject known to mankind. It is not a blog, a personal soapbox, or even a place to demonstrate an individual's towering intellectual superiority over their fellow humans. Editors that seek to work collaboratively seem to excel here and those who don't quickly lose interest and move on. Of course, you could just move on and say whatever strikes you at the moment. The sun will still rise, Christmas will come and go, and we will each go about our daily business without having been affected one iota. This is not meant to offend you, but to put a proper perspective on things. Cheers. --^StormRider 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

storm rider: The problem is that this article is not a neutral article. this article has turned into a personal soapbox for all those that believe that the best way for christianity to deal with criticism, is to hide that criticism away. for many people, it seems to be unacceptable that there is any criticism in this article, but it is a valid point of view so it has to be in the article according to wikipedia policies. it is clear that the collaborative efforts of the wikipedia-community have led to a point of view-fork between christianity and criticism of christianity, causing both articles to be biased because both focus on only one point of view on the exactly same topic, christianity. i think this problem can be resolved by editing the articles, there are different ideas on how this could be done. you think that its a better solution to just attempt to ridicule my motives, and to give the impression that i want to use wikipedia as a soapbox, in an attempt to undermine the validity of my points and to cause me to become apathetic about this issue. you decided to focus on me as a person, instead of dealing with the concerns about the article that i express. this will not work if people stay focused on the real topic: how do we remove the bias from this article? This is not meant to offend you, but to put a proper perspective on things. Kurtilein (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you do not seem to be listening to the other editors. You want your POV and if it doesn't go that way you aren't happy. Read the Islam article. It is a featured article which means that it went through a Featured Article process that involved many people agreeing what should and shouldn't be in an article about a major world religion. Featured Articles are supposed to be used as examples for articles that aren't currently featured articles. After reading the article, compare it to the article on Christianity. You will see that the treatment of criticism is similar. The purpose of this article is to give an overview on Christianity. Not to address every criticism or complaint about Christianity. You act like people are censoring the criticism. It is easy to find, you can easily click on the Christianity infobox that has a link to criticism or one of the links in the article. Maybe there should be a couple more links in the appropriate sections, that deal with other areas, but it doesn't mean an entire overhaul to an article. Marauder40 (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Sometimes Kurt I just get a impatient and my talk page edits reflect that tone of emotion. What I was reacting to was your statement of making a personal video blog and we should somehow care about what you were going to do. In reality, we don't care. That is not meant to offend, but to rather put your needs in perspective to the community. I agree that no article should be devoid of criticism, but I suspect I disagree with others about what is criticism. For example, a list of doctrinal differences is not criticism. A list of the actions of individuals who happened to also belong to a specific Christian church is not criticism. Criticism follows the rules and principles which regulate the practice of the critic; the art of judging with knowledge and propriety of the beauties and faults of the object of criticism. By criticism, I tend to search for the same meaning as it was first instituted by Aristotle, a standard of judging well based upon knowledge and understanding and not what passes for criticism on most of Wikipedia's articles. For example, see Criticism of Christianity. What specifically do you want mentioned in this article? It would direct us to edit that information quickly in the article. --^StormRider 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

a new indent really makes sense. No problem, i know enough about disputes over the internet to know that they shouldnt go on indefinitely, after a while you need to agree to disagree on something and/or reach an agreement, or just focus on the points where agreement can be reached. but everyone knows situations when its just impossible to keep yourself from criticizing a person. im happy that we now got this out of the way and can focus on possible edits (im not that experienced when it comes to editing, so ill try to get as far as i can and maybe someone can then pick up those ideas). first of all, im still not convinced that the idea of merging the articles is completely off the table. its just a fact and stays a fact that we have two articles discussing one topic from two different points of view here. maybe merging the article is not necessary, because there are two alternatives that might work very well. one option would be to add a criticism-section to the article, i see justification to do so, but i dont see consensus. the second option would be to edit some very important and relevant criticism into the article, and to add additional links. i perceive the problem of bias because of point of view-forks to be quite fractal, meaning that smaller and more specific articles show the same tendency of forking. if a specific point of view is valid but too controversial, and if there is resistence because people consider the absence of that point of view to be more important than the quality of wikipedia, then articles focusing entirely on the supressed point of view are forming, in some cases several of them. but even if there is a fork, articles do not seem to be biased if there still is a criticism-section, or even without it if valid points of criticism are included at different places. i just reviewed the complete article once more, taking notes about possible problems with the article that require more of my attention, 12 items ended up being on the list. some require more research, and i can do some by myself because they are minor edits that wont be controversial at all, but i will select some specific points and propose possible changes to the article, i will add the results to this discussion later. maybe in 2 hours, maybe tomorrow, i need to narrow down the list and its difficult to tell how much work it will be. but now, for the first time, i think that we can really accomplish something and solve the problem. Kurtilein (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

i finally managed to decide on the 3 most important problems that i see with this article.

- The fact that internal contradictions can be found in the bible needs to be mentioned, and a link to an article that describes such contradictions should be provided, for example: Internal consistency of the Bible. This fact needs to be in the article, because it has a lot of implications on all those christian beliefs that are only based on faith and a literal interpretation of the bible.

- Christianity also gets a lot of criticism because salvation is only based on faith and faith alone, and not on the actions of the individual. This means that a non-believer that lives a perfectly moral life will burn in hell for eternity, while christians that sin still have a chance to be forgiven if they have faith. it also causes some christians to believe that a moral life is impossible without god / without religion. some christians believe that good works are necessary in addition to faith, but that does not solve the moral problem that everyone that doesnt believe will experience eternal punishment. Criticism of Christianity has a lot of material about this.

- The section "Christianity in the Modern Era" should be clarified. it should be clear that christianity is still facing various forms of skepticism today, and remains controversial up to this point. as

- i dont know how to do this one, but i think that it needs to be pointed out that many christian beliefs clearly contradict modern science. there are many examples, the virgin birth of a son, turning water into wine, putting all animals that breathe using nostrils in one ship, getting a sexually reproducing species started with just two individuals to start with, talking snakes, wine turning into blood that still tastes and smells and looks like wine, people that live 700 years... there are many very clear areas of conflict between modern science and christianity. Kurtilein (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with adding a link to Internal consistency of the Bible in the section on Scriptures. There are a couple of subsections, and we should give careful thought to exactly where it fits in. We should also think about whether that's the best new link to add. The section already has a "main article" link to Bible, which also has links to all sorts of related articles such as Biblical criticism, Historical criticism in Bible studies, Textual criticism, Documentary hypothesis, Synoptic problem, The Bible and history‎, Biblical infallibility, Criticism of the Bible, Islamic view of the Bible, Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, Gnosticism and the New Testament. It's not immediately obvious to me that Internal consistency of the Bible is more important or relevant than Criticism of the Bible or Biblical criticism. As the article stands, if someone is interested in the Christian scriptures and clicks on the "main article" link Bible, they immediately see all of these additional links in a sidebar, as well as getting a summary discussion of the issues in the text. I'm not sure that's all that bad. The Christianity article identifies the Bible as the collection of scriptures used by Christians and links to the article on it, which summarizes the content, origins and introduces the topic of modern Biblical criticism, then links down into all of the various approaches that have been taken to understanding it and criticizing it.

Kurtilein, may I ask, have you been taking the time to follow these links? In the case of the Bible, for example, Wikipedia has a very large number of articles dealing with content, history, consistency, textual development and multiple schools of criticism (pop over to Template:BibleRelated and take a look). If any reader is interested in the credibility of the Christian scriptures, they just have to click the link to the Bible article and it's all laid out for them. The same is true of Jesus, and most other aspects of Christianity. Wikipedia is a web, rather than a linear texbook - which really works well for large, complex subjects like this. EastTN (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

eastTN: of course i looked at many of the linked articles. but that is irrelevant here. of course wikipedia is a web and not a linear textbook, but the neutral point of view policy applies to all parts of the net. and there is a problem with this part of the net: this part of the net is biased, because all the criticism of christianity has been censored in this article, and has been moved to other articles. the fact that there are dozens of articles that talk about criticism of christianity, of the bible, of the behaviour of christian people, and of the christian churches, should tell you something: maybe this article is underrepresenting that criticism. important points of criticism need to be IN THIS article, in textual form. links are not enough. no article on wikipedia may focus on just one point of view of a particular topic, the fact that this article seems to be biased in favor of religion causes people to create more and more articles critical of religion. this will go on forever, as long as we do not break the christian resistence and add AS MUCH CRITICISM AS THERE SHOULD BE to the main articles about the religions, for example, christianity. Kurtilein (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't one of the definitions of Faith that it is something not provable by science? I think that religions teaching matters unprovable by current science is so much of a given that it doesn't merit specif mention with respect to Christianity. Xandar 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Xandar: this is a very old defense of christianity and other religions, and its a very weak one. the problem is, that your statement is just wrong. even the religious claim that god exists is a claim about reality, reality would surely look much different if a god would exist, science studies reality, so of course science has something to say about this. and many religious claims are even more scientific: the virgin birth, for example. this clearly is a claim that a female human women, a mammal, a great ape, gave birth to a MALE son, and the source of at least the Y-chromosome has to be supernatural (cannot be a man, like, joseph for example), because its supposed to be a virgin birth. science very clearly says that this is impossible. and if we look at older versions of scripture, we can even see that the whole virgin birth-story seems to be based on a translation error! your defense just doesnt work. when you say that the claims that the world is 6000 years old, or that prayer works, or that god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, are NOT scientific claims, you are just wrong, its as simple as that. there are contradictions between christianity and science, and they are relevant for this article, and some of those contradictions need to be pointed out in this article. Kurtilein (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurtilein, the links are not irrelevant. This article describes what Christians believe and do - without saying that it's right, wrong, rational, absurd, goofy, harmless, destructive, obnoxious, quaint, charming, or taking any other position on it. Following up on an earlier example, it says that Christians regard the Bible as authoritative, and briefly describes the differences between the Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible. I'm a non-Christian reader and I wonder what the Bible is, why Christians would think it's inspired, and whether they're crazy to pay any attention to it at all. What do I do? Click the link to the main article on the Bible. That takes me right into a rich discussion of what's in it, where it came from, and the various modern approaches to understanding it. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

Neutrality in this context does not come from including every possible angle on Christianity in a single article - it comes from describing the beliefs and practices that are the subject of this article neutrally and objectively (without taking a position on them), and providing convenient links to appropriate articles that cover the other relevant angles on Christianity (e.g., criticism, how it relates to science, criticisms of the Christian scriptures, historicity of Jesus, etc.). A violation of neutrality would come from introducing a bias into the description here, or failing to provide appropriate, easily accessible links to guide the reader to additional relevant information. As it stands, the article is already quite long. Providing a high level summary of what Christians believe and linking to more detailed discussions is the only practical way to manage the volume of information involved.

This article, as it stands, does not say that Christian beliefs are correct - it simply describes them. It appears that you're unhappy because it also does not say that Christian beliefs are incorrect. Like it or not, re-writing this article so that it takes the position that Christianity is "False" would violate the neutral point of view just as much as would re-writing it so that it takes the position that Christianity is "The Truth (TM)". If we were to put in all of the many arguments that Christianity is false, neutrality would require that we also include all of the rebuttals and arguments for Christianity being true. The result would be a mess - we'd have a debate rather than a lengthy but manageable article that defines what Christianity is in an understandable fashion. This article is not the right place for that debate - it belongs in articles like Criticism of Christianity and Christian apologetics.

The typical reader coming to an article on a particular religion is more likely to be looking for a useful overview to help them understand a neighbor's beliefs, a different culture, or to better understand a reference in a book or movie than they are to be looking for a debate. I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't assume that Buddhism is "The Truth". When I turn to the article on Buddhism, the first thing I want is a description of what Buddhism is. Next, I want to know what Buddhists believe and how they live. Then I may want to dive into a debate over the validity of the belief system - if I'm still interested at that point. While we want these articles to be useful to someone seeking specialist knowledge, they should be organized so that they are also useful and convenient for the general reader. That means starting with the description - which for most religions will take an entire article in itself - while making it easy to link down into the debates and other details. EastTN (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

EastTN: im still not convinced of what you say, and you dont seem to be convinced of what i say. so i will take a different approach. the problem is that christianity is not just a religion or a religious tradition, whatever that might be, but christianity also is an interpretation of reality, it is a system of ideas, a belief-system, a worldview. christianity comes with statements that are supposed to be statements about reality, many of those can be interpreted as scientific hypothesis or theories, and when we do so we can find very clear logical fallacies and flaws in them, and we can find out that some of them have to be false, and recognize contradictions. if christianity comes together with a bunch of idea that at least COULD be analyzed with the kind of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY science promotes, WHY SHOULDNT THEY? its a fact that this article describes some ideas that have the properties i just described, and that not only could be studies and possibly falsified using the scientific method, its much worse than that: we already know for a fact that some of the ideas in this article CLEARLY CONTRADICT science. now i will try to really get my point across by quoting Richard Feynman. it is taken from a speech about pseudoscience, and its about the scientific method, not about wikipedia-articles. i think this kind of intellectual honesty, which works so very well in science, should be applied to wikipedia-articles and the way they discuss ideas as well. and i even think that wikipedia-policies actually completely agree with me. Kurtilein (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

excerpt from Richard Feynman, "CARGO CULT SCIENCE" , 1974:

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with. (end of quote) (small note to clarify the connection i see: this article only presents all the information you need to conclude that christianity is true, but excludes all information that could lead to the conclusion that christianity is false. Feynman calls it dishonest, wikipedia calls POV-violation, i call it religiously motivated censorship, and i agree with Feynmans solution which also happens to be encouraged by wikipedia policies, which would be to include relevant points of view that disagree with a specific idea, and to not put out the idea on its own.) Kurtilein (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurtilein, you seem to be missing EastTN's point about an encyclopedia's purpose as a descriptive reference. What you propose is clearly interpretive, regardless of the scientific method (which is itself rooted in any of several worldviews and assumptions – I see your Feynman and raise you Feyerabend) or other approach behind the kinds of refutations you propose. The article doesn't say, suggest, or imply that "Christianity is (or isn't) true" – both of which are absurd statements to begin with, in my view – or that the reader should draw either conclusion from the information presented. Rather, it says simply (or should) that Christianity is an important part of the world, which developed in such-and-such a way and is formed thusly. To take on the burden of refuting every tenet or belief of a particular worldview, religious or otherwise, whatever the initial purpose of the refutation, is bound to end up mired in its own set of complicated worldviews, assumptions, and POV biases. /Ninly (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EastTN and Ninly. The reader of an general article about one religion looks for the base information about such religion. Interpretation/discussion can follow only after the knowledge of what we are interpreting/discussing. So the interpretations/discussions, as well as detail doctrines, shall be placed in linked articles, even if in well highlighted Articles. For example, in Article Islam is not written than Catholics don't regard Muhammad as a prophet (the reader first looks for raw information). This criticism is anyway included in the Muhammad article. A ntv (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick corollary point: A properly encyclopedic article on criticism of Christianity—or any analogous topic—should seek not to convince its reader that such criticism is in fact valid, but only to describe whatever notable schools or threads of criticism have developed historically (notability being operative here), and may also explain their critical arguments to the extent necessary for a non-specialist to understand the criticism. That is to say, the article on the criticism is subject to the same standards of neutrality as the article on the topic criticized. /Ninly (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add just two other things. First, many people (not all of them Christians) would disagree with the assertion that Christian beliefs can be interpreted as scientific statements or theories. Second, the issues that Kurtilein has suggested should be included in this particular article are in fact covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. We are not dealing with any kind of "censorship" or "intellectual dishonesty" here. The editorial question we're discussing is how best to organize the material related to Christianity for the average reader - no one in this discussion has suggested excluding anything from Wikipedia. Given that fact, I'm beginning to find the repeated accusation of "censorship" tiresome. We may disagree about the best way to split this material up and organize it into articles, but that's no reason to assume an underhanded purpose on anyone's part.

This is the same kind of editorial discussion that we would have if we were editing a textbook on economics and were trying to decide whether it would be best to have (1) a chapter describing capitalism, a chapter describing Communism, and a comparison chapter discussing the relative advantages and disadvantages of each system, (2) a chapter on the growth of capitalism, a chapter critiquing capitalism, a chapter on the growth of Communism, and a chapter critiquing Communism, (3) a chapter on capitalism that included in-line critiques in each paragraph and a chapter on Communism that included in-line critiques in each paragraph, or (4) some other arrangement entirely. When discussing what articles we have and what material should go into each, we're in essence talking about how best to break our material into "chapters." Covering an argument in chapter 5 rather than chapter 2 may be a bad idea, but it does not constitute "censorship" - especially not when you have a good table of contents and index (i.e., Wikipedia links and the search function). EastTN (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)