Talk:Christianity/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Persecution

I suppose the section could reasonably go in either Christian or here in Christianity, but if it is to be here it should be the version that is long enough give a balanced presentation. This current one does not do that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what is going on here. Without this section we have an article that talks about Christianity and it's history with no mention of the inquisitions, with hunts and early persecutions of Christians. Saying it's covered in Christian smacks of burying it away. Christianity thrives on persecution - both historically and currently so it needs to be covered briefly here with explicit links to the main articles. Sophia 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So here in America, Christians are like .001 percent of the population, since there's almost no persecution by Christians for Christianity to thrive on, right? Homestarmy 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the old version that existed before the section was moved.

For those coming in lately, though there was no opposition to the move, this act was not done by any of the long-standing editors. So no need for any suspicions, Sophia. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should integrate the material into the "history" section, or cut it and move it to the article on "Christian", since Christians do the persecuting and are the persecuted. As it is, the section has much redundant material with the preceding section. Also, witch-hunts were trials for a criminal offence, not persecution per se. Also, did they occur anywhere in North America other than Salem, a one time even that resulted in something like 16 deaths?

Lostcaesar 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To ommit the occurence in America would be unfair to European countries, especially those without substantial witch hunting, as for instance Spain. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The occurence in America where one village killed 16 people seems just miniscule and irrelevant, though as I said I think we shouldn't mention it at all under persecution since it was not a persecution, but a trial for criminal acts, a trial in which innocene was a real possibility, witnessed by low rates of convictions in many countries. Lostcaesar 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't have a page on Christianity without talking about persecution of the early church and without talking about Christians' persecution of whoever. But the section can be really short, and just lead to a substantial spinoff page. Of course, that's how I feel about every other section, too. Jonathan Tweet 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - the wikipedia moto is "be bold" after all. The section is troublesome and difficult to summarise even though I think it should be there. Jonathan's idea that it be very short with little or no detail but with explicit links to the main articles is I feel the best. It's impossible to pick "highlights of persecution" either by or of Christians so let's avoid the problems and point the reader to the articles where there is room for balance. Sophia 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefered the shorter version I restored, too, provided it links to the main article which gets into greater depth. However, the longer version we have now is better than none at all.Giovanni33 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what about the idea of integrating it with the history section? Lostcaesar 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that persecution is still a current issue - look at the house chuches in China or the situation in Northern Ireland for example. Sophia 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sophia. There was a reason why this section was created separately. Including it into the history section would either reduce the information or slant the history section.

As for the Salem issue, LC, I think the extent of the witch hunt phenomenon should be mentioned and consequently America too. Otherwise we are left with the false statement that witch hunts were a solely European phenomenon (doubly false as it was mostly a German pheonemon. Note that the text says "to a lesser degree" - you can if you will downtone it even further.

Also I do not fully grasp the point about it not being persecution: sure, the supposed witches were killed because they were convicted of a crime under the then criminal code. However, one could apply the same reasoning to backsliding heretics executed after an Inquisition trial (which was much more up to modern standards than secular proceedings). On the other hand, one could argue that mob violence doesn't constitute persecution as it is not origanized, or that religious wars (to use that reductionist term) should not be included. But one can also argue against it. Sure there are things that definitely do not belong here (e.g. the sentence "European Colonial efforts often placed emphasis on Christianity over indigenous religions")

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to buy yet into how much we need to say about Salem, or whether persecution if 'legal' doesn't count - but on principle of talking about persecution to and by Christians it would seem to fit within the history of Christianity. This does not imply it is only in the past. It is one of many threads that can be traced through history into the present. --Just nigel 11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it would need to be seriosly condensed and I see a lot of opposition to that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In witch trials, the trials were not about religious beliefs. Witches could be Christians — orthodox Christians — and still be witches. Lostcaesar 13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, in response to discussing what could be argued does or does not "constitute" persecution, I just wanted to remind everyone that the root meaning of the word (from Latin persecutare) connotes "to drive people away from their homes"... and by extension, it has come to mean "anything done to deprive people of their homes, livelihood or lives," especially for reasons of their beliefs. Of course, we should avoid trying to redefine the word or give it a different or new definition, in order to exclude or include what we may wish to include or exclude. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, to avoid any further misunderstandings: I did not in earnest argue taht this or that action should not be counted as persecution. I was merely entertaining LC's argument and hypthetically extended it to other phenomena. I myself say include them all (with the one obvious exception). All these cases are special and have to be analysed under the circumstances of the time they occured, but they all have a deplorable place in this rather grim section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew you weren't arguing that, there wasn't really a misunderstanding... I was trying to point out to everyone, that the history of the word from Latin is definitely known and leads to an unambiguous definition, so any attempts to give it a "new" definition can easily be countered... I have certainly noticed a trend in recent times for people sometimes to try to redefine various words for their own pov purposes, in total ignorance of the word's actual recorded history and usage. But I have never noticed you among those doing this, Str! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Codex. I just wanted to make siccar, to use Robert the Bruce's words. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if not to Str, then to whom were you speaking? My point seems clear enough. Witches were not persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lostcaesar 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking to "everyone"! Noone in particular, and it was more pre-emptive before someone did try to do this, rather than reacting to someone who had. As for the "witches", I agree that these women were definitely persecuted, its harder to say if they were "witches" or how to define that word... but they were accused of being "witches", and the ones persecuting them at least claimed to be Christian, even if the word of the Gospel does not allow it. (Even Jesus first followers wanted him to rain fire on a Samaritan city, and he replied that they had the wrong kind of spirit!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But this was not one religion or sect persecuting another. Were the Mccarthy trials an example of Christian persecution which should be in the article because the subjects were persecuted and because the persecutors were baptised? Lostcaesar 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(reducing) Hmm, that does seem to be a slippery slope but I think the witch trials, part of the same kind of thing as the Inquisition, were carried out by some kind of ecclesiastic body, can't say that for the McCarthy trials. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, this depends on which trials you are talking about, as there are two types of witch trials.

The medieval type was carried out by "the Inquisition" which usually meant the local bishop (Inquisition is primarily a method of judicial proceedings - the one that is now standard in most of the world) - later also the Holy Office, was directed against witch-cults as pagan supersitition and heresy. The accused was tried according to the normal inquisition proceedings, which meant that only the death penalty was reserveed for the obstinate and backsliders. These trials were rare, mostly occuring in the late middle ages, and very isolated in the early modern period (mostly in Catholic countries unaffected by the witch craze).
The early modern type was quite different. The accusation was a secular one: hurting one's fellow citizens by means of black magic - seen as not essentially different from more physical means. The trial was perfomed by whoever had the secular jurisdiction (which in case of ecclesiastical principalities were clergy too, but that is a special case) and the penalty was death (with no room for repenting etc.) for first offenders. This form was prevalent throughout the Early modern period in Protestant and Catholic countries (mostly Germany in the broader sense, France, Poland, to a lesser extent in Northern Italy and Scotland) affected and is the one associated with the witch craze.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But at the moment there is nearly as much on persecution as all the rest of Christian history - seems loaded to me. There are lots more topics to cover. Without yet getting into the trickier discussion about which words are best cut from this summary, I think it should be shorter. --Just nigel 12:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also redundant material. Lostcaesar 13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We could always simply state: Christians have been persecuted and have persecuted in history. See Christian/History of Christianity/Persecution ... for details, and then proceed to the current situation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We should cut the Persecution section way back. We should keep it because persecution has a role in the history of Christianity that it doesn't have in other religions (well, maybe Shi'ism). Here's my first draft for what to replace the section with. I start out with the current world situation. I go back to early Christianity. I put Christian persecution in a broader context, and then return to the current state of the world.

Persecution Christians generally oppose persecuting people for their religious beliefs. Christians (as well as members of other religions) are persecuted in many Muslim and totalitarian countries.

Jesus himself was persecuted and killed, as were many early Christians. The authors of the New Testament portrayed the Roman Empire as hostile and under the Devil's control. The image of faithful Christians facing death in the arena rather than renouncing their beliefs was formative for the early Christian church. The ideal of suffering for God plays a large role in some Christian traditions.

The Christian church, however, went from being persecuted to being the law of the Roman Empire. The Church came to support the emperors and kings rather than fear them. The Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire. Christians became the persecuters, killing people for their beliefs. Christians killed Jews, Muslims, and heretics. Christian nations, however, eventually established religious liberty as a human right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Tweet (talk • contribs)

I appreciate the effort, and I agree that the section can be cut down. I hate to just give criticisms, but I have some problems with the draft. You make it sound like the Church experienced some kind of moral decline during the Middle Ages. It sounds a little like Reformation rhetoric. The section doesn't properly nuance the situation, for example it treats the frenetic riots against Jews as some kind of systematized ecclesiastical persecution — more often than not, when this kind of thing would happen (and it was pretty rare), once the Jews were expelled the mob would turn on the clergy and local bishop (it takes a real understanding of the medieval social order to understand why). There were regular decrees against the forced baptism of adult Jews, btw. Also, the "Roman Empire" didn't exactly "become the Holy Roman Empire". The Holy Roman Empire was a Germanic confederation which was connected to the Western Empire only in an idealistic sense. Now the Eastern Roman Empire did become a Christian theocracy. However, the old pagan empire considered itself just as holy. The very city of Rome was sacred ground, protected by various rites and religious orders. The emperor was deified upon his death and, as time went on, even while alive. Diocletian is perhaps the one responsible for completely sacralizing the office of emperor. Lostcaesar 09:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "During the harsh and violent times of the Middle Ages, it became necessary for the Church to exercise its ultimate authority and execute criminals of the highest sort, such as heretics. The modern sensibilities that find these executions to be "persecution" are founded on the premise that Mother Church is not what she claims to be." Jonathan Tweet 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

LC has more or less stated what is also on my mind regarding the first proposal above.

As for the second: definitely no. It is a comment giving an opinion. It is simplistic and not accurate. It is POV. It might be read as endorsing that persecutory measures that did exist in the Middle Ages (with LC I disagree with JT's characterisation above) and it belittles the criticism as "sensiblities" and equates them with disbelief. It is however perfectly possible to disagree with persecutory measures and affirm the complete veracity of the Church's claims. Also, though the word Church is completely accurate, it implies that this is merely a thing of the Catholic Church, as if Protestants had never persecuted a living soul. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

LC and Str, I have attempted to address your concerns. I've posted a new version to the page. Since no one was offering alternatives, I went ahead with my modified version. While it got all hot and heavy with the Jesus Seminar issue, I hope that this edit of mine suggests that I'm not simply out to stick it to Christianity. It doesn't deserve all the dirt that gets slung at it by its detractors. I think it's fair to start and end with the important fact that Christianity (unlike, say, Islam) isn't about religious oppression (any more). And allow me to add that what I did with the Persecution section should happen to every other section in this too-long article. Jonathan Tweet 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the persecution section needs to be trimmed down a little, but I'm not sure abbreviating every section is the way to go. This article should be complete in itself, and adequate coverage of certain things requires a certain amount of exposition. A.J.A. 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Str reverted me without explanation. Str? Care to share your feelings here? Jonathan Tweet 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

JT, are you talking about this? If so your claims are wrong - I did explain my edit in the edit summary. You knew very well that you have no consensus for your edit and still you went ahead. Because of this, you got reverted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a trimmed down version as well, earlier. I prefer it over the long version we have now. But, i prefer the long version over no version at all, i.e. removing the entire section. I think we need a section here but it should be kept smaller. On the other hand, this text by JT, seems good to me to add. Maybe we can find a place for it? That text is:

"Christians, however, went from being persecuted to dominating the Roman Empire. Christian authorities came to support the emperors and kings rather than fear them, and Christians became the majority of the population. Christians variously oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, and/or killed Jews, Muslims, heretics, and other unbelievers. Sometimes they acted as mobs, sometimes as agents of one or another church authority." :)Happy New Years!Giovanni33 18:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems with your edits. It makes the section larger rather than smaller, contradicting a goal we nominally share. Use of the term "however" implies that persecution by Christians somehow refutes persecution of Christians, which only makes sense if you view the section as a competition for the reader's sympathies. It's especially troublesome following a paragraph on modern persecutions; it refers only to ancient Rome and either is simply a poor transition, or an implicit justification for killing Christians now for Imperial policy over a thousand years ago (in passing, consider the implications this would also have for, well, everyone). There's no reason to mention Hypatia. Finally, the part you copied from JT's version is redundant given the rest of the paragraph. A.J.A. 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to the text and reintroduced it (from JT's addition). I am for making it smaller but the main part that is too big is the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph dealing with the persecutions by Christians was small by comparision. I think it should only be two paragraphs of roughly equal length. The "however,' makes a shift from the change of possition of Christians as the oppressed minoirty to the oppressor majority, having aquired state power. But, I removed the however. I think it makes a good transition. It does not indicate any refutation. Both facts stand, equally. Still I removed it.

I completely reject your argument that to mention the persecutions by Christians amounts to seeking a justification for the killing of Christians--past or present. No such argument is made, directly or indirectly. Both accounts are historical facts and both are, in my opinion, to be condemned as should all violations of humans rights (but that is not our job here in presenting the history). About the chronology, that is the way it has been, and this has not been changed by myself. The main and most noteworthy persecution by Christians occured once they assumed power within the Roman Empire, and most of the the crimes against humanity by Christians took place at the peak of their power, ushering in the dreaded dark ages. If you want to reverse it, I don't mind putting the persection by Christians first, followed by the other two paragraphs. Lastly there is no redundancy, as it makes the class connection of the ideology once Christianity assumes the state ideology, and is connected with the ruling classes.Giovanni33 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph describes pre-modern persecution of Christians, the second modern persecution of Christians, and the third pre-modern persecution by Christians. If there's an imbalance there, it caused by the imbalance out there in the real world: modern persecution by Christians simply doesn't exist on a scale worthy of mention together with the others. In geographical distribution, temporal distribution, and sheer numbers persecution of Christians is much more notable.

I don't know what you mean by "the dreaded dark ages", but if you have anything like the ordinary meaning in mind blaming Christianity is just bad history: there were no dark ages in the Byzantine east, which was at least as Christian as the west.

Chronologically the persecution by paragraph should go between the other two. The text you added supports one interpretation of the events and not necessarily the most sound one. I wonder what Athanasius would have made of it.

Finally, in the future, when you tell someone what "your" argument is, do refrain from misstating it for rhetorical advantage. As any reader can see, my argument concerned inserting the word "however". The fact that you treat leaving it out as a concession proves my point: it matters to you, and your stated defense (that Communism, Saudi Arabia, etc. chronologically preceded Constantine) is hardly creditable as the honest belief of an educated person. A.J.A. 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this. People complain that the persecution section was too big. Did not Christianity cut a bloody swath through all of Europe from its rise in the 4th / 5th century, to the late 1600s? Does not the bigotry and persecution (I'm beginning to hate using that word) continue even today? There's two facts to this, the first is that in one way or another, Christianity has thrived on persecution. The second fact is that the most notable events regarding the religion IS the persecution of 'heretics'. Look at how much scientific progress stagnated during the dark ages. When people finally got bold enough to begin scientific progress again, they were nearly put to death for disputing Genesis. If the persecution section was like Historical persecution by Jews (ie: not there) that'd be one thing. But to shuffle away the most 'shining' moments of Christian faith into a couple of lame sentences just stinks of pro-Christian cover-up. Consider that there's twice as much written about Christians BEING persecuted. So we just shuffle 1,500 years of torture, genocide, and massacre in the name of God into a footnote? Uranium - 235 05:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You say you do not "get this", but you might get it a little better if you read the boxes at the top of this page about talk page etiquette, read wikipedia policy about discussing peoples' religions, and especially read WP:NPOV to learn about how everything written on wikipedia must conform to a "neutral" point of view. People often find this last part takes the most practice, but cheer up! I'm sure you'll get it! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, don't avoid the subject. Omitting significant historical information isn't a 'neutral point of view'. And secondly, don't patronize me. If people are offended that I'm suggesting we make a bigger section on the dark side of Christianity, I really don't care. Some people actually believe the holocaust never happened. And finally, by your own admission, this article itself violates the 'NPOV', since people are actively trying to shuffle away and hide the 'bad stuff'. Are you suggesting we should remove most references to the Third Reich from the Germany page and shuffle it into a brief footnote? By checking out your own user page, I question YOUR neutrality regarding this subject.Uranium - 235 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough page to edit with passions on all sides, so it's especially important to focus on the topic and not individual motivations for editing. There are a few here who will smile at me writing this as a year ago I was the new editor accusing others of religious bias. This article is entitled "Christianity" so unless it is to take on multi-volume proportions there will be no room to fully develop all areas of the topic. Hence the subpage is an attempt to cover all relevant information without presenting the reader with an unmanagebly large article. Persecution is an important part both of Christian history and current day events, which is why it is given it's own section. To present balanced "high-lights" is very hard so all input is welcomed but you must bear in mind that any resultant text must be balanced and as far as possible not reflect individual editors hobby-horses. Currently I don't think we are too successful at this, as certain events are overplayed such as Hypatia and the French revolution but other events such as the crusades, inquisitions and the Church dominance of western academia are not given the space they should. Make some suggestions to get the ball rolling and we can all pitch in and discuss. Sophia 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain my revert (I explained it yesterday but my post got lost without saving):

Gio's additions have next to nothing to do with the section's topic:

"Christian authorities came to support the emperors and kings rather than fear them, assuming a privleged and dominant possition." has nothing to do with persecution. Furthermore it is misleading as it implies that Christians changed their stance toward the government when in fact the government changed its stance towards the religion it had persecuted before.

"Having aquired such influence and power, Christians variously oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, and/or killed Jews, Muslims, heretics, and other unbelievers." This information is already included in a more appropriate tone. The wording here trivializes what happened and also lumps to together different groups and events that must be distinguished.

"Sometimes they acted as mobs, sometimes as agents a church authority, and or with government support." again lumps together different events and times and implies a unified actor acting under differen guises, when there were in fact multiple actors.

One more problem: Gio tries to include the false view that Christians turned from 100% persecuted to 100% persecutors.

Finally, the sentence "Christian governments have suppressed or persecuted groups seen as heretical, later in cooperation with the Inquisition and the Crusades" is nonsense in this form. The Crusades have absolutely nothing to do with persecution. Yes, various acts of persecution happened during the Crusades as well, but as such the Crusades are not an act of persecution but of war.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, on most of these points.

1. Saying that Christians, having assumed a position of power, then persecuted others is quite relevant. What was the difference between being persecuted and being the persecutors? Power. Indeed, it’s the alignment with the class interests of the rulers, who adopted the Christian ideology to rationalize their oppression, that enables the persecution to take effect, esp. in such large scale operations as it did, i.e. murder, rape, pillage, tourture, theft, ect., en-mass all under that Christian flag. The cross getting married to the sword. To leave out this class shift, is to bereft the reader of this very pivotal point. Nothing to do with the persecution? On the contrary—everything to do with it. Giovanni33 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, before Christians had any power they could not persecute anyone. But that's a triviality. And as for your class shift, you can leave your Marxist mumbo jumbo at the door. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2. No where do I say that Christians turned from 100% persecuted to 100% persecutors. Since I don’t take this position, it’s a straw-man. Likewise with who changed their position-- Christians or the Govt. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the Christians persecuted and that this took place after they assumed state power, which enabled them to do so quite effectively and systematically. The state never really changed its fundamental nature as an oppressor, it simply adopted a different official ideology in which to oppress others, and this took on a life of its own in keeping with the kind of intolerance of others beliefs that characterized Christianity in particular. Giovanni33 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What you call a straw man was indeed an exaggeration. But nonetheless you are dividing Christian history into two phases, that of the persecuted Christians and later that of the persecuting Christians. Granted, before Christians had power they could not be persecutors (really a triviality) but neither did suddenly everything turn to persecution. You don't explicitely say that, but you imply it.

You say that who changed its position is not relevant. But you are the one who wants to include information on this, and not only that but false information, by talking about how Christians turned to accept the government (which must be a really evil act in your book). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

3. The wording does not trivialize what happened. Its puts it in plain language. That is the appropriate tone. It lumps things together by necessity given that is just to highlight the kinds of acts that constituted the persecution of others by Christians. For more details distinguishing different actors, we need its own article (which already exits). Also, it doesn’t assume a unified actor, only that it falls under the banner of organized Christianity acting out to persecute others. The “actor,” to an extent that there is one, are the Christians acting under beliefs informed by their professed adherence to the dogma of Christianity. Giovanni33 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to differ. The language is your version is stylistically bad. You can uses this colloquial language with your fellow atheists when you build up your faith by blackening Christianity, but not in any encyclopedic article. And you do lump together different things. Despite these flaws it does not achive the aim of reducing size. You say "The actor, to an extent that there is one" - but that is exactly the point: there is not one actor. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

4. My last disagreement with you is the greatest when you say, “The Crusades have absolutely nothing to do with persecution. …the Crusades are not an act of persecution but of war.” Since when is religious persecution not religious persecution? When it is systematically violent in nature, that involves rape, torture, murder on a mass scale and organized? Under the war of the Crusades, we see only an extreme from of persecution. When the pope sends a bunch of armed mercenaries to go and kill a bunch of people because of their religious beliefs (Pagans, Jews, Muslims), it is not still religious persecution only because you call it war (one that was started by the Crusades by the way)? But what is war but organized killing? And, in many cases it was not so much war as simply a massacre of everyone—including unarmed women and children. Does calling murderous rampage war, excuse it from being persecution of others? Of course not. It only make it stand out all the more. True, not all war is persecution but certainly war does not preclude it as one form out of many that fall under the general umbrella of what constitutes persecution. In fact systematic persecution often involves organized military expeditions at one point or another.

Religious persecution is the use of power by an individual or organization to cause members of a religious group to suffer. The Christian consolidation of power began by the pursuit of heretics and various other forms of religious persecution, reaching its apex with the Inquisition.

Such persecution included unwarranted arrest, war, inquisition, imprisonment, beating, rape, torture, execution or ethnic cleansing. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate non-Christians. It can also mean, as was carried out, the persecution visited upon those who consider themselves Christian, but are regarded as non-Christians by members of the dominant Christian denomination.

In Christian Europe there were a number of persecutions directed against Jews and those called heretics. The Crusades, launched against the Muslim middle-east to "liberate" Jerusalem, is an example of religious persecution no less. The massacres of Muslims and Jews when Jerusalem was taken by Crusaders in 1099 make it hard to say otherwise.

And, look at the example of the Albigensian Crusade. From WP: The attempts to suppress the neo-Manichean Cathar (or "Albigensian") faith took the form of the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229) – a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the ascetic religion practiced by the Cathars of Languedoc, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy considered heretical. It is historically significant for a number of reasons: the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards; the church offered legally sanctioned dominion over conquered lands to northern French nobles and the King of France, acting as essentially Catholic mercenaries, who then nearly doubled the size of France, acquiring regions which at the time had closer cultural and language ties to Catalonia. This led to the creation of the Medieval Inquisition which was charged to suppress heresies.

The Crusaders' atrocities against Jews in the German and Hungarian towns, later also in those of France and England, and in the massacres of Jews in Palestine and Syria have become a significant part of the history of anti-Semitism. These attacks left behind for centuries strong feelings of ill will on both sides. The social position of the Jews in western Europe was distinctly worsened, and legal restrictions increased during and after the Crusades. They prepared the way for the anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III.

There is no way to tell how many Jews died in Europe and the Holy Land at the hands of Christian Crusaders, but most estimates put the numbers at several tens of thousands. Sometimes they were offered the choice of baptism first (conversion or the sword is an image more commonly attributed to Muslim conquests, but Christians did it as well), but more often they were simply killed outright.

But, all of this is can not be considered religious persecution because one labels it war? How convenient. Next time a group wants to persecute another, I guess all they have to do is declare war and its magically no longer persecution? Rubbish. Giovanni33 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it is you who are building up straw men. I didn't say that there never was persecution in the context of a crusade or war. Persecution is persecution even if committed during a war. However, the crusades per se are no acts of persecution. The anti-Jewish massacres in the Rhineland were not part of any official crusade but were the acts of a regional mob. The Albigensian crusade is indeed ambiguous, as it was directed against a certain heretical group that had got control of a certain territory. Whether this crusade is a crusade is very debatable, as it wasn't directed towards the Holy Land, but in any case: it is an exception. And an exceotion does not warrant the inclusion in this context.

Finally, I cannot hinder you from putting quotes around the fact that Jerusalem was liberated. You can safely say what you want to say since you do not in a Sharia-ruled world, thanks in part ot the efforts of the crusaders.

Indeed, rubbish, your additions. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Str, "I did explain my edit in the edit summary. You knew very well that you have no consensus for your edit and still you went ahead. Because of this, you got reverted." You seem to be saying that an editor needs consensus before making an edit. "You didn't get consensus first" is no reason to revert an edit. If there's some reason the edit is a problem, that's the reason, but you gave none. Or do you actually maintain that I need consensus before making an edit? Jonathan Tweet 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

JT, could you at least read what I wrote. I did not say that an editor needs consensus before making an edit. However, our case is not about an editor making an edit without having consensus but about an editor making edits about which he knows that they lack consensus. As for the content reasons, they were discussed previously and you still went ahead. That is the reason. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Overview

In the introductory portion of this entry, it states that Christianity is a religion centered around Jesus as the Son of God and the divinity within Jesus himself. While this is certainly true for some sects of Christianity, quite obviously the majority, this is not a belief shared by all Christians and has been the subject of a number of Church reforms. This issue is addressed in the "Non-Trinitarians" section later in the article, so I suggest that this be expressed in the introduction as well, or simply leave the issue out to be discussed later in the article.

23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)D, 12/20/2006

The intro I see reads different and poses absolutely no problem. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm mainly taking issue with "Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament" as well as "Christianity places Jesus as God incarnate (not Abraham) as central to the faith." The second more than the first, I think. 68.160.183.36 23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Christians (trinitarian or not) are believing by definition that Jesus is the Messiah (hence Christian) and the Son of God. The text does not endorse God incarnate as the only Christian view. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... not to be rude or anything but the Christian religion is what it is. If you change it (for example believing in the divinity of Jesus), you are taking on your own beliefs and shouldn't expect the entire religion to change, especially since religion shouldn't be man made. 24.62.93.176 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion is not only man made, but I don't even know of any other species, besides man, that can make it. Do you? As far we know only humans have a need to invent god, hence it is man made, not, say dog-made. But if dogs did make it, surely, their god would look like a dog and have many dog-like attributes.Giovanni33 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gio, hope you have an Excellent New Year! Most religions are believed to be evolved from interaction with God or the Divine. Your propostion above is also an accurate belief of some, but I think the final say, or the truth, has not yet been determined. The old adage about no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole comes to mind. Also, not all religions on earth worship a "God/man"; Ganesha comes immediately to mind, but there are many others. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish criticism

The C&C section relates criticism by adherents of Judaism.

The problem lies not with "Adherents of Judaism generally believe that followers of Christianity misinterpret passages from the Old Testament, or Tanakh;", as it is clearly factual, even if unreferenced for the moment. Someone else tagged it for the latter reason.

The problematic bit is:

"for example, some Jewish interpreters consider that the reference to the coming Jewish Messiah in Daniel 9:25 was actually a reference to Cyrus the Great (called a messiah in Isa 45:1)"

No doubt that Cyrus was called a Messiah in Isa 45, but I would be interested in Jewish voices identifying the Messiah mentioned in 9,25 with Cyrus - an identification in violation of the most obvious reading of the text that talks about a time from an edict about a return (commonly identified with Cyrus' edict 538) and the coming of a Messiah. It also implies that the Messiah(s) in Daniel 9 are identified with Cyrus in general, which is to my knowledge not the case.

In any case, is this example really the best and most fitting example for exegetical differences between Judaism and Christianity?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For a source, check the Anchor Bible edition of Daniel. However, my guess, and it is purely a guess, is that the traditional Jewish commentators did not make this claim about Cyrus. But the larger point is this: "Adherents of Judaism generally believe that followers of Christianity misinterpret passages from the Old Testament, or Tanakh." It is, without doubt, true - virtually all Jews believe that Christianity gets the Hebrew Bible (OT) completely wrong. But so what? The counterclaim (Christians think Jews misinterpret the Bible) is just as true - and just as trivial a point. This is nothing more than saying that Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Everyone knows this, right? You might as well provide a list of every other religion in the world and say "x does not agree that Christianity is correct". Is this really what a "criticism" section is for? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Slr, for responding.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly but I absolutely agree that the general criticism is absolutely an accurate depiction of the number one Jewish criticism (apart from the Is Jesus teh Messiah or not, which is really the distinguishing factor). My concern is merely with the example. I did not dare to remove the example, as this might reduce the item to triviality.

As a Christian, I am more inclined to include an item of crticism while ensuring that it is depticted accurate and in a NPOV manner.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Who arrested Jesus...

In the "Death and Resurrection" section, I changed the statement that Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers to reflect the statements in the Gospels, that it was the temple guard who arrested Jesus. See Mt 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:52 John 18:3. CBadSurf 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saints

References to Latter-Day Saints should either use the full name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or, if abbreviated, the name should be Church of Jesus Christ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andycandy75 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Latter Day Saints (no hyphen) is used to describe all of the churches that evolved from the chruch founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The largest, by a wide margin is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which has a membership in excess of 12 million. The next largest is the Community of Christ, which has a membership of under 300,000. When the acronym LDS (Latter-day Saint) is used it is used specifically for members of the largest group. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I tried reverting vandalism about 5 times a minute ago on this article, but it isn't showing up. So be it. Just H 13:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some idiot vandalizing the entry...

I'm just writing to say that someone randomly inserted the word "SATAN" into the main article, and I tried to delete it, but I don't know how, it doesn't work for me... Anyway, now you know that I didn't write it, even though my IP is probably the latest one in the log.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention that I posted this entry on 17:11, 10 Jan 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.146.55 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I couldn't find it anywhere.....did someone already delete it?Solon Olrek 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lost Books

Since this is the topic on Christianity, I figured that it would have to do with the books written by the Apostles. On that note, I was looking for a mentioning of the Books that were NOT put in the Bible because they weren't discovered until the last hundred years or so. Does anyone object to making references to those books in the article?Solon Olrek 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by those books, and what you intend. An extra sentence at the end of the section on the scriptures saying something about non-canonical books wouldn't go amiss, I don't think, but a whole section would be out of place in this article. Furthermore, I'd take issue with what you might state about these books - I appreciate that you're not editing the article here, but saying that they weren't put into the bible because they weren't found until this century is completely untrue; they weren't accepted as canonical for a number of reasons. There's a dispute over whether they were rightfully or wrongly excluded from the canon, but no-one disputes that the early church fathers knew most of the non-canonical works and rejected them for whatever reason. TheologyJohn 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John. Furthermore, it should not be claimed t hat these books were written by the Apostles. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing the topic up here before making revision. Thank you. Personally, done right, I have no objections. But provide reliable sources for any works you include, and be prepared for it to be a contentious issue. People have strong feelings, and even if you add solid material, it could get attacked. Just be prepared. Pastordavid 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Bible would be a better place for a full discussion, which I do think it already has. For this article, a brief statement by an noted expert would not be inappropriate. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your opinions. And to as to what John said, I was more or less targeting the scrolls that were lost before the Bible was made and not found untill after. I will make a short reference on the topic, and probably link it to an article more suited for the discussion, perhaps the Bible article like Storm said. The main reason that I brought this up, is that I have always wondered what Yeshua's ("Jesus" in Hebrew which is its original language) teen life was like, and if there is a scroll out there that has what his life was like, then I think that it deserves a spot in the Bible. Anyway, I will stop babling and get to work on my research. Thanks again for your comments.Solon Olrek 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of Ressurection

Str1977, please explain why you are removing the quote. This article is not about Christian view of Christianity. Scholarly view is also important. In that quote an scholar is arguing for the historicity of Ressurection. It does have a place here. --Aminz 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is about Christian beliefs. I don't think beliefs need approval (including by way of random quotes) from scholars to substantiate them. —Aiden 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, it begins with an arguement without being embedded into the article. Furthermore, you are beginning to quotefarming again. Not that I don't agree with the gist of what Sanders says but it is not topical here. (At a more detailed look he is not accurate either: no one said "they didn't see him at all".) But the main point is as stated by Aiden. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be welcomed on Historical Jesus; Lostcaesar 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I recently added again Large be ause the text read parts of Africa. For your information Africa has one the largest christian TOTAL populations.

Could someone please tell me the sequence of events pertaining to christianity as far as rapture, resurrection, second resurrection, tribulation, and the coming of Christ? Thanks, Judy

Clarence Larkin produced charts of these events in about 1918, in several books. These are now in the Public Domain (copyright expired). Here is one chart on the resurrections[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Rough draft of article on creationist organization

Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

attending church

I think if you are supposed to be a christian you should have your rest day and go to mass on sunday .Just like the mormons no tv on sunday. And pray every night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.41.10.86 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Why the mormons? Homestarmy 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a significant difference between the manner in which Mormons observe the Sabbath Day and other Christians. It is observed as the Lord's day, or a day of rest, dedicated to Him. Attend church, reading/studying scriptures, visiting the sick and those going through heavy trials, and being with family. Sports and other recreational activities (such as TV mentioned above) are discouraged, but you will find this to mean different things to different people. There are no specific rules. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of Christians in the world is now very outdated. Estimates by various Christian groups and Jewish groups estimate the Christian population being 2.2 billion as of 2006. I have changed it and provided some links. - Galati

Please avoid discussions on the subject. Focus on what is relevant to the article. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of Current Controversy and Criticism section

I was just wondering what the purpose is of the Current Controversies and Criticism section? In reviewing articles for all the other major religions -- Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism -- I find nothing similar in any of those articles. The closest is Islam, with a debate about how Mohamed was viewed. Why does Christianity get the sole honour of this section? I actually think it would be a good idea to standardize the articles on religions to a single format, that presented relevant information about the religion, without all the attempts at (not so subtle) indoctrination in any direction -- especially when it is so obviously negative as this section. What do others think? CBadSurf 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While most seem to not like having such sections in religion articles, there is a vocal minority that believes they are necessary. I mainly edit around the Baha'i Faith articles, and every couple of months there's somebody claiming there should be a section on some fringe controversy. Zazaban 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question then is why they do not have it for the major religions other than Christianity? Or am I just not seeing them? CBadSurf 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I thinkt they all should, if there are notable controvieries or criticisms, which then point to a larger article itself on the subject.Giovanni33 07:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the optimal solution is to have them integrated within the article, so as to give a seemless portrayal. Slac speak up! 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As a reader I generally prefer articles that focus on the topic and not the topic's critcal assessment by others. Thus, I prefer a section(s) that are dedicated to the criticism. I can see pros and cons for both sides; what I reject most is for there to be controversy and it simply not appear at all. If there is not a section to explain the issues there should at least be a link to an article(s) that address the issues. It does surprise me how some topics seem to be able to exclude all appearance controversy on the main article page, but eventually I would hope that would change; slow but sure and by limiting critiques to scholarly assessment devoid of emotion and personal agenda will work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I really do think the key here, is, as you write "limiting critiques to scholarly assessment devoid of emotion and personal agenda" In my view, this section does not live up to that standard. And, again, I also think some form of standard should develop for articles on religions, so that each religion is treated equally. CBadSurf 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A single book is that important?

Now look folks, I know alot of skeptical type people out there like the sorts of things Dawkins says. But in an article dedicated to a worldwide religion, why should the criticism section choose this one book critical of Christianity to elaborate on, out of every single work critical of Christianity that has ever been written? And why even mention individual books? Out of a religion which has likely claimed several billion adherants over its lifespan, I fail to see how a single man's work is worthy of coverage as criticism of a religion which is nearing 2,000 years of age. If this was an article about a religion started 10 years ago, and Dawkins was the premier critic of it in a field of just a handful of people, I could see Dawkins book mentioned and described in a criticism section. But right now, this is serious undue weight here, just because Dawkins is reasonably famous at the moment doesn't mean he and he alone is the only person on earth worthy of the distinction of having his critical views of Christianity from but one of his books detailed in the criticism section of the religion of Christianity. Anyone else see what i'm trying to get at here? Homestarmy 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So who (or what book) would you prefer? joshbuddy, talk 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Preferably no single book at all, since even if it comes down to having to include some awesomely notable and amazingly important person, just citing a single book by that single person ignores all their other possible books. But even then, even just trying to pick one person doesn't seem to me very fair either, even if their as famous as Volatire or something (or Volatire himself of course), that's still one single solitary person on his own, with nobody else mentioned with him, and doesn't establish much importance for why this person's views and this person's views alone are a very important and weighty part of everything that is criticism of Christianity. Homestarmy 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Achievements section

I note that there is no "achievements" section. Surely this is needed if there is gong to be a "Criticisms" section. Where is the mention of the abolition of slavery in England (Wilborforce); the emancipation of blacks in the USA (Martin Luther King); etc? ^ross ^nixon 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to one, as long as its made clear what it means, and lists things that are properly attributable to the religion. Achievements can be good or bad depending on the perspective, and its thus too wide and encompassing. There is also controversy regarding different claims of positive achievements, esp. when dealing with the whole of Christendom.

For instance, compare the Stoic-Epicurean lawyers and, especially, the great Epicurean Emperor Hadrian, and the many pagan condemnations of slavery, and the many fine speeches against slavery by the friend of the Emperor Dio Chrysostom, with the leading Catholic moralists such as Augustine and Aquinas who defended slavery. And, the whole of those wonderful moralists, the Scholastics, who are still proposed to be moral guides--they all failed to condemn slavery or serfdom (another form of slavery). No pope condemned it until the French philosophers of the 18th century taught them justice. The introduction of slavery into America, the furnishing of castrated slave-boys, castrated by the monks in Catholic France, are all noteworthy. Even with Wilberforce, his very orthodox sons admit in their biography of him that he learned his zeal for abolition from the skeptical writers, and that was himself a skeptic for 10 years afterwards.

In France, torture or execution for "heresy" continued until the days of Voltaire; in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Latin America until the 19th century. This is a socially significant fact. Also an important fact is that the Church of Rome still officially claims in its Canon Law, reaffirmed in this century that not only that it has the right but the duty to put heretics (by which it means all who were once baptized in it, even as infants, and have quit it) to death, and therefore to inflict on them any punishment short of death. So with a certain ideological perspective when Christians had power, they certainly had acheivements, not that I'd say there were by any means overall positive ones to be proud of.Giovanni33 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the admonition at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

But having begun, since you cite the French philosophers of the eighteenth centurary as teachers of justice, may I ask how their star pupils turned out? A.J.A. 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, they implemented execution for here ... no, they called it "vice". Quite apart from the fact that heresy trial were the rare exception in the 18th century (before the revolition, that is). Voltaire was (rightfully) up in arms about the one fly in a huge bowl of soup. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gio, strangely enough Christianity remains the only force in history that managed to abolish slavery and not only once but twice. We know pretty well what you think about Christianity, so there is no need to put on a soft voice and comment on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? I seem to recall a civil war with 600,000 dead, and something called the 13th Amendment (at least in the US), as abolishing it. If we look at the political movement to abolish slavery from a historical world wide perspective, it began during the period of the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason that asserted the rights of man under man-made laws. This was a movement that attacked the Church, and State. Its linked to the Scientific Revolution, which also emphasized empiricism, reason, science, and rationality. They created the intellectual framework for democratic revolutions, and other freedom movements in the Latin America that led to the rise of classical liberalism, and bourgeois democracy. These enlightenment philosophers include such Church favorites as your beloved Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume, etc. :) Far from Christianity, it was its philosophical repudiation that marks the birth of abolishionist movement, which as we know was ultimately successful. Giovanni33 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Concurring with Homes below, I want to remind you that Christians played a huge role in the abolitionist movement that paved the way for the eventual abolition of slavery in the US as well. Two things you seem to miss: I never denied that non-Christians worked to this goal as well. But Christianity played a decisive role. Also, I talked about not once but twice: your oh-so-great Emperor Hadrian might have been morally opposed to slavery (which didn't keep him from owning slaves, one of which later became a god) but he didn't do do anything about. Christianity however erroded the notion of one human literally owning another as property. In the oh-so-evil Middle Ages there were no slaves. Now, you may (and will) shout: there were serfs and bondsmen. Yes, but it was a major step forward and the distinction between slavery and serfdom is not drawn for no reason. Since you bring up Enlightenment thinkers, can you please tell me what the great Voltaire thought about black men? (Or thinking of Enlightenment thinkers, what about him - you will not disqualify him since Adorno includes him). But some Englightenment thinkers, probably even most, opposed slavery but in how far would they have been possible without 1500 years of Christian civilisation shaping their thinking? Ancient Greece had an enlightenment too and did they abolish slavery? Read Aristotle on this. And in our day and age, another of your favourites actually enslaved millions. But no, that wasn't slavery. That was revolution and the party is always right. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes abolishing things requires more than mere words. Besides, not every Enlightenment figure attacked the church, they wern't limited to just critics of Christianity, the Protestant revolution occured in about the same time period, and the enlightenment ideals of not just more or less blindly following the church certainly helped. Homestarmy 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Atlantic slave trade was abolished through the uniquely Christian principle that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...", thereby conferring upon the individual a radical dignity beyond worth. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why those who are "underprivileged" (including those who were slaves), more often than not, become the most devoutly Christian, whereas those who are rich tend to ignore or reject Christianity. The practice of slavery was condemned by Catholic Popes decades before Columbus, whereas it was already in full force throughout the Enlightenment period. The movement to abolish slavery in the U.S. was not initiated by disciples of Hume, Nietzsche, et al. Concerning the Criticisms section, the point that was originally raised, namely that this article contains one, whereas the other religions do not (i.e., criticisms exist for all religions, but somehow it is Christianity that attracts the ire of Wiki-editors), is a point well taken indeed.

When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands... Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth—it stands and falls with faith in God.

— Nietzsche

LotR 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem of the "criticism" section is that it exists as a separate section not integrated into the article in any meaningful way. An "achievements" section created to "balance" it is not the way to get to conformance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The problem here is identifying what an encyclopedic synthesis of what the "mainstream point of view" is about Christianity and writing it, while giving reasonable attention to significant minority viewpoints. Splitting the article up into sections devoted solely into "pro-" and "anti-" viewpoints is both artificial and turns what should be an encyclopedic article into an essay-like debate. Jkelly 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said. It forces an editor to make an artificial choice - "is this fact/perspective about Christianity positive or negative?" Slac speak up! 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't want large essay-like debates, so I'm all for having no Criticism or Achievements section. As noted previously, the other religion's article do not have these. Do we have a consensus to remove it then? ^ross ^nixon 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. We have a consensus not to include an Acheivements section. There is no conenseus to remove the criticism section, which all articles should note.Giovanni33 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And if many of the religions don't have notable criticism.....? Homestarmy 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Then they don't.Giovanni33 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So they'll still have a criticism section because all articles (I presume you meant just ones about religion) should use a criticism section to note criticism, it'll just be invisible or something? :/. Homestarmy 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So having a criticism section just applies to Christianity? Surely there have been criticisms of other religions? SparrowsWing _(talk) 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam's criticism section is a bit off and on, but I meant that Gio seems to be suggesting that all articles should note a criticism section. Since many religions aren't so good at being critisized notably, (Buddhism springs to mind) it seems strange to me that a section should be implemented in an article like that nonetheless, even if there is no text. Homestarmy 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, where there exists notable criticism, the article should make note of it, with a link to the larger article or subject that goes into more detail. Each article stands on its own and one can not expect to make them all uniform in all respects. If there is a notable critism, there is no reason to suppress it. The reader should be made aware of the controversy that exists. Lets keep the topic about the article we are talking about. Issues with other articles can be dealt with on their own respective talk pages.Giovanni33 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to remember that having criticisms is different to having a criticisms section. Many people will approve of the Catholic Church's attitude to social justice, while disapproving of its views on contraception. But to the Church, these aren't two different categories of views. They're an organic whole. Similarly, it's not up to any editor to pick which features of Christianity are praiseworthy and which are not and organise the article accordingly. We should try to describe what Christianity is, what it does, the effect that it has on the world. And that will include within in it different perspectives, both positive and negative. Slac speak up! 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be NO Criticism section and No Achievements section. It just doesn't integrate well into the article. I think Gio is very vocal about this, but I do not see him as representing npov in any way at all. By the way, I have not heard any notable contribution about the achievements of the notable child of the Enlightenment -- Marxism. Let's see, 72 million killed by the "enlightened" communists under Mao (Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism), at least 20 million under Stalin (Britannica, "Stalinism"), and the numbers could go on. CBadSurf 06:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm your making some interesting stretches here. I don't know what this has to do with Mao or Marxism. But to correct you, the source you site gives a range from 40m to 72m deaths; he does not say "killed by the enlightened communists." Deaths from famine (not unique or new to China), has never been argued was intentional. Also, his particular figures are disputed, ofourse, given the lengthy gaps between the censuses and doubts over the reliability of the data. As far as accomlishments, how about the rural education campaigns, and the status of women (allowing females to initiate divorce if they desire) and end foot-binding, child marriage and opium addiction, and a general welfare state, which was created. The study that comparis India and China is also instructive. India was ahead of China in health measures before Mao took over, China surpassed India in virtually every measure of economic and social development, as shown by the study by Indian economist Amartya Sen: To quote Chomsky: "He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen). In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year." [2]

As far as this article is concerned, all articles should note where notable criticisms exist, and this is indeed in keeping with NPOV. NPOV is not an actual POV, its the net result of presenting many points of view to achieve a balanced and neutral account of the range of knowlege and ideas pertainent to the subject matter as reflected among the consensus of the academy.Giovanni33 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gio again defending his favourite mass murder, using the great Chomsky. Gio, if it is really a question of "what has Marxism to do with it" why not simply leave it at that instead of getting on your high horse again, spamming this page (and actually, Curtois say 100 million). This is about Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not noted other articles to have an "Achievements" section. Based upon some of the comments for its inclusion, it seems to be a reaction to having a Criticism section. I think this is misguided and would be a difficult section to include. However, if you (collectively) are determined to include it, please reference your comments from recognized experts. It would be too easy for this section to evolve into a display of opinions and OR.

Additinally, I agree with Gio's statements above. A criticism section is very appropriate to provide balance to controversial subjects. If the section is evolves to the point of overpowering the article, then it should be summarized here and a new article should be created or the section should be merged into an existing article. There is never a reason to whitewash a subject, particularly one that has so much positive information also. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat concur with Storm (which means in the end with, of all people, Gio):

A criticism/controversy section can be fitting for a controversial subject. It is necessarily subjective (i.e. X may criticize Y for something that a) isn't true b) isn't bad. What matters is that X thinks it applicable and negative) and therefore must be kept short, without any circumstantial eloborations (as the Dawkins item was a few days back).
An "achievements" section may be useful too for topics that that a considerable impact. If achievement sounds too positive, Impact or Legacy (but that sounds too orbitary like) may work too. Now, it is not a violation of NPOV to present certain things that something or someone has achieved as long as the presentation is balanced (no cherry-picking either way), as long as the article doesn't endorse some effects as good or bad (Christianity's shaping of ethics is at the same time one of its biggest positive or negative achievements, depending on your own view), and it must be reliable. The crux of the matter is, at the end of the day, the last condition, as too much nonsense is written in that direction by people that either lack historical knowledge (let's say Nietzsche or Freud) or philosophical stringency (Assmann). As long as we cannot hope to master all three conditions, we better leave it at that.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say we remove criticism section because no other encyclopedia has such section in their Christianity articles (please check out Brittanica Encyclopedia or any other encyclopedia). Just find one such encyclopedia for me and I'll be convinced. The legacy section is certainly appropriate. I don't remember Christianity article but the encyclopedia britannica had a section on ethical impacts of some indian religion. It is certainly encyclopedic to have such section. --Aminz 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz, that for the sake of consistency the criticism section be left out. I also think that including a criticism section in an article about religion lends itself more to an "opposing viewpoints" series than to an encyclopedia. To branch out a little, not even the articles about Richard Nixon has a criticism section - though it does have a legacy section. To be fair, I did find that the capitalism article had a criticism section. Could that have been you , Gio? :)

It seems to me that we have opinions spread all over the place. I hate to suggest it, but to just clarify things, maybe we should have a poll? CBadSurf 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, people say polls are evil all the time i've noticed, but i've never seen much real evidence to support that. But really, right now it is a section which doesn't provide any real history or show signfigance behind the criticisms, and doesn't really demonstrate how each critical bullet point is notable enough in its own right to belong in the apparent top four criticisms of Christianity. Homestarmy 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem adding an achievements section, but it would be quite a double standard to chop the criticisms section in its entirety when we have such sections in other religions' articles, such as Islam. —Aiden 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the main reason I support having the criticism section is that the history of Christianity has not been without error; in fact, there have been times where it was extremely ugly. Those facts need to be discussed in this article.

As a Latter-day Saint I assure you that you will not find a single article about the LDS church without a complete, sometimes scathing, criticim section. This is done in the name of maintaining NPOV, Balance, etc. I have come to accept it; it is the nature of Wikipedia. Is this article any different? Did only one group of Christians do bad things?

Heck, even in this article we have had numerous discussions about ensuring that some Christian groups/individuals that are adamant if Mormons are included in the article, then by golly we must say that others think they are a cult, not Christian, etc. To me it is just something I accept. to see the shoe on the proverbial other foot, I find it comical to see some of the reactions. The bottom line for me, Christianity has nothing to fear from historical fact. Did bad things happen? Of course. Did good things happen? Of course. Gio is one of our best sources for keeping things honest. Take advantage of his viewpoint; it will need refining, but as a group we excel in refining language. If we try to push this under the carpet, we do a disservice to readers and we ultimately attempt to delude ourselves. Stick to facts and it will be okay. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To Aiden, Islam's criticism section at least provides history and background to the criticisms of that religion. Homestarmy 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily buy that line of reasoning. While there have certainly been plenty of scumbag people in history who have called themselves Christian, that does not necessarily translate to a criticism of the Christian religion itself, but rather constitutes "criticisms of Christians" or "criticisms of Christendom." The same could be said for any philosophical belief system, each of which has its own share of scumbag practitioners. Do any of these pages have comparable Criticisms sections? LotR 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The section can not be a list of individuals who did terrible things. It should be referenced criticisms about Christianity as a whole. It should also be noted that it is not appropriate to single out a single church/dnomination for special attention. The topic is Christianity, thus the section be leveled at Christianity as a whole. LotR, I don't think we have a conflicting position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

would this be consider christian like?

I had a woman says to me that she like me, and want to be in a committed relationship with me, but as soon as she learns that I was agnostic the next day she said that she can not ever date me, and would not even consider being my friend due to religious differences. Bluntly put and I quote: "I know that you don't understand why I cant be your friend but it's because You don't believe in God and I think that it would just be wrong if I did [Be your friend]. I don't think anyone would disagree with that." I leave this up to the WikiMOB what are your opinions? Paul.Paquette

As much as we would like to help you, I'm afraid that this has no place on this talk page. However, I'll take this opportunity to hope that things will work out for you. =) Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed personal attacks by Giovanni33 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww, but I wanna give the answer, it sounds like the woman Paul is talking about isn't understanding the unequally yoked thing right if what Paul says is what she more or less literally said :(. And since that is related to the topic of the article, (namely, Christianity) I don't see how helping someone understand part of the subject of the article isn't appropriate. Homestarmy 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I did not think it was inappropriate to ask on this page. For I take it that the best and most devote of christians edit this page and are willing to give me thier insight. In case you wonder I told her to forget me, I do not need a fake friend. But I am still left wondering. If you want you can message me instead. I am open to ideas, comments, and suggestions. Paul.Paquette 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The history seems to think you aren't logged on, are you actually Paul.Paquette? I'd be glad to explain on your talk page. Homestarmy 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I forgot to log on, and I was on Western Kentucky University campus when I did post the last comments, and yes I would appreciate an in depth discussion if you do not mind. The more I know, the better off I am, so it would be much welcome.Paul.Paquette 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know of any verse that say Christian can't be friends with non-Christians, but she's right that romantic involvement is out. Possibly she likes you too much to "just be friends". A.J.A. 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! Not every group adopts that attitude, you know. Slac speak up! 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how you define romantic involvement i'd think, there's more than one way to take that. Homestarmy 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! This belongs on a debate forum, and is not relevant to the article. Please move the discussion to an outside forum or a talk page. CBadSurf 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)