Talk:Christianity and Judaism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Christian views and Catholic views - What constitutes a majority view?

There is a contraction in the article. One part says:

• Only belief in Jesus, as a savior and son of God, could rescue a person from this fate. This is the majority Christian view.

and another part says:

• In response to these criticisms, Pope John Paul II on October 2 of that year emphasized that this document did not say that non-Christians were denied salvation: "this confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united". (emphasis added)

Any statement claiming to be a "majority Christian view" but at odds with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be correct. Stephen C. Carlson

In theory you would be right, but the problem is that Christians have teachings which contradict each other. (So do Jews and Muslims.) The Catholic Church definately does not view this as a contradiction, even if you and I do. They seem to hold that since all salvation comes from Jesus (even for Jews who don't believe in him) then there can be no contradiction. Traditional Protestant Christians would claim that it is a contradiction, since no one is saved by Jesus unless said person actually believes in Jesus as God/messiah/trinity. RK

I think the difference may be that the Catholic Church makes some allowance for a person to be saved after they have died, at least through their doctrine of Purgatory, while Protestants for the most part do not. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Orthodox Church makes a strong dogmatic stand on this point, and so the opinions of different Orthodox theologians will vary. On a minor tangent, the Roman Catholic Church is I think the single largest denomination, but is it so large as to comprise more than half of Christendom by itself? Wesley 18:58 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Not totally relevent to this discussion, but this comment belies a gross misunderstanding of purgatory. Catholicism holds that it is impossible to be saved after death. PStrait 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that there is a contradiction in Christian views (and there may well be), but that there is a contradiction in the article itself, first by claiming one position to be the majority view and then quoting the RCC for a different view. The RCC is the largest Christian denomination and according to http://www.adherents.com has a bare majority (51%) of Christians world-wide. (They are about 25% in the U.S. but an overwhelming majority of third-world Christians are Catholic.) We can also throw more liberal Protestants into the mix who would disagree with the claim, so the numbers do not add up to a majority. Stephen C. Carlson 23:09 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

If Protestant and Catholic dogma are so different, than why not split the article? It might solve some of the problems with specificity if "Judaism and Catholocism"(sic, probably) and "Judaism and Protestantism" were different articles, skipping the arguments over whether a greater number of Catholics worldwide is the same as a majority view and so forth.

Man gaining free will?

(i.e. man gained free will)

I can't think of anyone who says that the meaning of sin is that through it man "gained free will". It doesn't make much sense in any framework familiar to me. All that I can think of, would say the opposite: that it's through sin that man lost the free inclination to choose good, and became enslaved. So, I took it out, awaiting clarification Mkmcconn 05:25 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the Unification Church led by Rev. Moon might say that, IIRC. You might check with Ed Poor for confirmation. Personally, I have no objections to that being removed. ;-) Wesley 19:09 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Faith versus works section

Editted the faith vs good works section to make beliefs a prequisite for salvation in Christianity. Certainly, once can not be a Christian without the belief that Jesus, the Son of God, made flesh on earth, died for our Sins and rose on the third day, that mankind be saved.

Proposed additions:

1. That the only way of approaching God is through the Son (Jesus).
2. That faith is more important than good works.
3. That a lack of faith (disbelief) bars one from salvation
4. That a lack of good works can be forgiven by Jesus/God.

Can someone provide one or two examples of this: "Both views are based on texts in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) that are quoted in the New Testament."?

Someone may also with to state the status re salvation/comdemnation of those who lived before Jesus's death and those who have not had the opportunity of hearing the Gospel. OneVoice 13:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Judaism requires one to do good deeds

Saying that Judaism requires good deeds is not entirely accurate. You have a number of occasions where people have repented at the end of their lives without doing any additional good deeds, and that repentance has been accepted. For example somebody who is well known to be a transgressor of the laws of the Torah, and marries a woman on the condition that he is righteous has perhaps married her, because his words are an indication that he might have repented of all his unjust deeds. We also find the story where somebody had done every sort of sexual misdeed and spent one hour in total regret after which he died, and was accepted as a righteous person.

In the other direction, you find that there those who say that any good deed that is not done because it is the will of God, is not counted as a good deed. Ezra Wax

Ezra, I think you are saying we need a more nuanced discussion and I think this is a good point. My only caution is that we don't replace one generalization with another. Perhaps different movements or Rabbis have taken different positions; or different texts say different things; or Jews' views have changed over time. It would certainly be an improvement if we could be clearer about this. But if we present different views, we also need to be clear about who or where these different views come from (I am not saying we need to quote specific rabbis, but we need to specify time and place, perhaps, or be clear whether a few, some, many or all Jews took this position). Slrubenstein

I would argue that Judaism does require good deeds; in Hebrew, "good deeds" are "mitzvot," meaning, "commandments." Jews are "commanded" to do them. EzraH 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Judaism and Christianity"

Such a long title for this article. "Comparing and Contrasting" is implied by the shorter title: "Judaism and Christianity". B 03:36, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Removed messianic Jewish text

This article is for a general comparison of Judaism and Christianity on a number of topics. It is not the appropriate place for very detailed discussions on one sub-group's reasoning. Thus, details on the positions of Reform or Orthodox Judaism, or on Christian groups like Catholicism or messianic Judaism, should go in the articles on those respetive specific groups. RK

Messianic Renewed Judaism, on the other hand, maintains that if one reads both the Tanach and the Renewed Covenant/Brit Ha Chadashah in a dialectical, non-linear manner, one arrives at the conclusion that salvation comes from two consecutives steps:(1) One has to get to know the Jewish G-d, the Elohim of Israel, (which comes automatically to ethnic Jews who are religious/datiim and fulfill the Commandments/Mitzvot He gave to His wife, Israel (Yrmiahuh/"Jer." 3:14); and, (2) for those who were not born ethnic Jews,i.e., former Gentiles (1st Cor. 12:2 and 1st Thess. 1:9) they can graft themselves onto the Jewish tree mentioned in Romans 11:17, becoming "Jews by faith," by believing in Yeshua as both the true Messiah and Part/Dimension of Elohim, after which they still have to comply with step one, i.e., fulfill the commandments, albeit in a different manner, as per Rom. 8:1,4, and 14, by being directed by the Holy Spirit/Ruach ha Kodesh in them in an everyday, continuous manner.

This entire paragraph basicall boils down to this "We follow Christian dogma and are Christians, but we are rewriting every Christian belief using quasi-Jewish terminology. The above (now deleted paragraph) is an attempt to rewrite traditional Chrisitan beliefs using Jewish phrases to make them more palatable to Jews, and to convert jews to Christianity. The writing is meant to hide the author's beliefs (Christianity), not to clearly explain them. RK

---

Removed snip: "and as long as the nation of Israel lives, individual death is relatively meaningless." It doesnt match any Jewish belief Ive ever heard of, which teaches individual life is very important ("whoever saves one life it is as if he saved the world"), not even at an abstract level. Anyway its a bit duplicated. FT2 20:51, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

It didn't say that individual life is unimportant, it says that individual death is relatively unimportant. This is very clear in the Bible (the text makes it clear that views changed after the Biblical period. Slrubenstein

Announcing a policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"while not denying the possibility that those not visibly members of the Church may attain salvation as well."

Is there any pre-Vatican II document that posits this as a possibility? Or is this merely a post Vatican II anachronism/apologetic? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I posted at the same time as you. See below. --Xiaopo ℑ 23:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism and EENS

The doctrine that non-Catholics are not necessarily denied salvation is certainly not a Vatican II development -- not from a secular point of view, and certainly not from a modern Catholic point of view. (I'm not Catholic, incidentally) F'rinstance, here's the actual text from the two pre-Vatican 2 encyclicals mentioned in the article:

“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” (Singulari Quidem (1856))

“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.” (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863))

It's certainly debatable how early this teaching is, but two things, at least, are clear: (1) That it predates Vatican 2 and (2) that asserting that the doctrine is a novel one is POV. --Xiaopo ℑ 23:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Obliged to kill

I reverted Ft2´s recent change fromöbliged to permitted. FT2 may be correct -- but this can be determined only on the basis of the source. I would ask whoever wrote the section in question to provide the actual source before decided whetehr she is accurately representing the source. FT2 if you are familiar with the text in question, could you provide the actual source? SR

Something to talk about

I personally dislike the way people call Jesus "God". He is not an Independent God like some parts of this article states. He is in union with the father in heaven. I believe that he was part of God and not an individual god. Instead of saying like "He is God" should say "He was part of God". I am sure that other people have different views about this, but I believe that Jesus did not work individually but worked from his father that created everything. Ask yourself, why did he say that he had to descend to his father in heaven when he rose from the dead.

Draig goch20 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not a theology chat-page. If that is what you are looking for, you really need to go outside of Wikipedia. However, if you feel that there is a well-established Christian position that is excluded or misrepresented from, but relevant to, this article, by all means explain it to us and maybe you can help us improve this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

the devil

I'm a little surprised that the devil is not mentioned in this article. Jews do not believe in his existance. Christians seem to have a viewpoint that good comes from God, and evil from the Devil. Jews reject the possibility of anything not coming from God. Evil is simply a lack of God.

The Satan is similar - Christians hold him to have an independent existance, but Jews believe he is merely an angel with no special powers, who was given the job of a prosecutor. The satan does his job properly, but takes no pleasure in it.

The reason I'm not writing this section myself is that I am not very familiar with the details of Christian belief, and I'm hoping Christians can expand on it. 67.165.96.26 23:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

For Christians, Satan and the devil are just two names for the same being, a fallen angel. Christian theology regarding the "problem of evil" and Satan's role in it is very diverse. For some I suppose, the devil is the "personification" of Evil, but I think for most he is just a created being who chose a path of evil, and not the sole personification or incarnation of it. As for the causes of evil, I've been taught in Orthodox Christianity that we have three enemies: Sin, Death, and the Devil. Sin would represent our own bad choices and their consequences, Death would refer to all the consequences of the fall and the "natural" bad things that happen, from having to work for a living, to dying, to "natural" disasters such as floods and hurricanes and droughts, etc. But there is so much diversity among Christian denominations on this topic, aside from Satan being a fallen angel (on which point they mostly agree), that I'm not sure it's possible to effectively compare Christian belief with Jewish belief in this area. Wesley 02:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian claim of universality?

I am removing the following sentence "Christianity, on the other hand, is characterized by its claim to universality, which marks a significant break from Jewish identity and thought. As a religion claiming universality"

This isn't true, unless one redefine "universality" to mean "All must abandon their religion and join ours." The traditional Christian view was that all people were doomed to burn in hell unless they became Christians, and thus Christianity targeted the entire world for conversion. Well, that's not what "universality" means. RK 23:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RK, I am reverting your change. You are making a factual claim about Christianity (that it is not universal). You may or may not be correct (I am sure you know what I think) but that is not the point, what we think shouldn't go into the article. In any event, the sentence does not say that Christianity is characterized by its universality." It says it is characterized by its claim to universality. Surely you can see the difference between these two propositions. They are actually making very different statements. Moreover, it is true that Christians claim theirs is a universal religion. For what it is worth, I added a section that non-Christians do not see it this way. Isn't that the way to achieve NPOV? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I do see the difference between the two statements, but it seems to me that the way that the whole paragraph is phrased doesn't make this clear. RK

It is also a matter of debate as to whether Christianity's claim to universality was a significant break from Jewish identity and thought at the time. Christians identify many passages in the Tanakh that suggest the Hebrews' religion was always intended for the whole world, and not just for the Hebrew race. Wesley 02:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That is valid point, but it is a different point. In fact, Jews even today agree that the ethical monotheistic teachings of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) are for everyone. The only hesitation is that the Jews claim that gentiles are not obligated to follow all of the mitzvot (commandments) in the Torah. In this sense, Judaism agrees with Christianity. In fact, this is one of the similarities which convinced the majority of Jewish rabbinic authorities that Christianity was not Avodah Zarah, i.e. "idolatry". Although Jews (obviously) feel that Christianity is incorrect, they believed that it was "correct enough" for non-Jews to follow. Even harsh critics of Christianity such as Maimonides held that Christianity ended up serving God's purpose by spreading the Tanakh throughout the world.

Jewish views of religious pluralism

The point I that I took issue with was using the word "universality" as a euphemism for saying "Everyone must convert to my faith." It seems to me that Jews and Christians are using the same word in significantly different ways. RK 23:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would feel happier if I knew that RK and Wesley agree that the section in question is now accurate and NPOV. It is clear to me, but judging from RK and Wesley's reactions, it is not clear to everyone. Can either of you see a way to make it clearer? I think it is an important enough point to deserve some more work, if either of you see how, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the sentence "From this point of view, Christianity, despite its claims, is not universal.". Clearly the author is confusing the notions of universalism and inclusiveness. The God of the Christians is a universal God as opposed to a national God -the God of Israël-. The Christian claim to universality is therefore fully justified. (John D.)

I agree and think you make an important distinction. Christianity claims to be universal, but this claim itself is not universally shared. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

further work

This article is crying out for a section on "the body." I am not in a position to even begin it now, but sooner or later I will. I am hoping that in the meantime there are well-informed contributors who can start working on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

call for help

Would editors knowledgable about the Judeo-Christian ethic or tradition see my comment here: [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

This is minor, but I cut the reference to the direction of circles. Christians as such generally do not ascribe any importance to either direction. In fact, when Orthodox Christains circle around anything in their services (such as liturgical Entrances, or cross-processions on holy days) they always travel widdershins. So to the extent any one direction is important, this isn't a difference.

Since the Jewish custom mentioned here of asking for the prayers of the deceased is essentially identical to that in Christianity, I wonder why it's listed here. I suppose that to the extent it is different, it's that in some Christian churches certain particularly holy persons are formally recognized and their lives celebrated in the services, but any miracle is recognized as coming from God whether it's mediated by a saint or not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Good move... it seems to be true on the outside, but it's only applicable at 8 Atzereth and Simchath Torah when there's a single (or double, I guess as well) "layer" of ppl dancing. If there are 3 "layers", I've seen the "middle" one go clockwise on occasion. Tomer^talk 05:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would echo the comment about Christians praying to the Saints. My understanding of Catholic and Orthodox theology on this would make it identical to what is attributed to Jewish belief. People may ask the departed (including and perhaps especially Saints and particularly the Virgin Mary) to intercede to God for them, but whatever is given comes from God. On a similar note, the reference to Orthodox Jews believing in resurrection of the body does not seem to be in conflict with Christian belief. Both the Apostle's and Nicene Creed declare belief in the "resurrection of the body."

more on love

I have finished, to my satisfaction, the Jewish part of the section on love. I have relied heavily on Franz Rosenzweig because he is to my knowledge the Jewish theologian who has not only written themost about love but who has made it pivotal to his theology. I have also quoted Rosenzweig because his language is poetic, and I think for that reason more appropriate to an account of love than any paraphrase. I acknowledge that in this I have departed from the usual Wikipedia style. I just think it is warranted in this case.

I also acknowledge that there may be other Jewish sources and views that belong here and hope that other knowledgable people will fill in any gaps in what I added.

Moreover, the Jewish material now so outweighs the Christian material it seems disproportionate. Given that this is not a paper encyclopedia and that the topic is important, rather than cut material from the account of Jewish views of love, I urge knowledgable editors to expand the account of Christian views of love. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow SJ, I don't quite know what to say. That's a really excellent passage you've added. I'd like to read it a lot more carefully over the next few days, and maybe add some more from the Christian point of view. I can say right now that the Christian passages are definitely in the right ballpark. One question - "Love your neighbour as yourself" is usually presented in Christian circles as "Jesus' summary of the law". Are there Jewish sources that predate Jesus saying the same thing? DJ Clayworth 04:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Leviticus 19:18. Tomer^talk 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hillel the Elder: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation. Go and study it." (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a) See also Pharisees#.22Pharisees.22_and_Christianity

While I think, in general, this is a good idea, and it is well written, my concerns about this section are:

• it is disproportionately long compared to the rest of the article;
• it relies on only two sources;
• neither of the sources are particularly traditional.

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I finally got to expanding the Love section regarding Christianity. I may add more, but I think that covers the bones. What do you think? DJ Clayworth 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion discussion

The discussion of the Catholic view appears to be literally correct but, as worded and placed in the main text, could be misinterpreted. Catholic teaching does not condone abortion in any case, even if one is medically necessary to save the mother's life. Catholic teaching does not condemn, however, a medical procedure (other than abortion) performed on a mother to save the mother's life, even if the procedure presents a risk to the fetus. It is a fine distinction, but an important one. Since the section topic is "abortion," it should be made clear that Catholic teaching in no circumstance allows abortion. --Rehnquist 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reminder to change many things on this page

So many things said on this page concerning Jewish views do not reflect Jewish views but the Xian POV/outlook on Jewish views. Just a reminder that some big order needs to be done here. hasofer 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Article size

As of Jan. 25, 2006, this article's size is 81KB. Not only is that over the recommended 32KB, it's WAY over. I recommend spinning several sub-topics off into separate articles. My initial proposals are splitting it up as follows:

• Judaism and Christianity#Love→Love in Judaism and Christianity
• Judaism and Christianity#The Messiah→Messiah concept in Judaism and Christianity

Thoughts? Tomer^talk 00:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is long, yes, but it's comprehensive, so it would make the article incomplete to merely spin off intregal sections, as you seem to suggest. If it must be shorter for great justice, I'd suggest deleting the general title "Judaism and Christianity" altogether and breaking up the entire article into several mini-articles, such as the ones you suggested. Also, instead of placing all of the new articles in the too-general Jewish Christian Topics category, they should be placed under a new sub-category titled "Comparison of Jewish and Christian Philosophies", for easy access and minimal confusion. But that's if the article is to be cut up. Would that be acceptable? --Meamcat 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That newest "reference"...

Uhh, how is that being used in the article? the editor who added it made it as their first contrib, didn't seem to add any content, it's written in french which is annoying, and from what I can tell in the title has something to do with the creation of the world rather than either Christianity or Judaism. Anybody know what that says? Homestarmy 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Breif Reflections on the Creation of the World".--Meamcat 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)--72.64.98.135 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

informal request for comment

Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at [2] (Primitive Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I am porably at the end of the long and detailed discussion but it seems to me that the description of Christiansity is superficial and right at the top the article announces that it is making a case. I did not think that this is what an encycopaedia is for. Roger Arguile 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think any discussion has occured recently about it, (either that or I really haven't been paying attention to my watchlist enough.) but you do seem correct. There's probably a way to re-word that to make the point of the article anyway, rather than make self-references, make the Judeo-Christian mention be a disambiguation link thing, and rather than say what the article will say, just note that Judaism and Christianity share things in common, such as God and the Bible. Homestarmy 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger makes two points: first, that this article is POV, second, that it is under-sourced. As to POV, let me first reply to Homestarmy. Many Jews would say that Jews and Christians do not share the Bible; some would even say they do not worship the same God. I am not saying this to offend or even to argue these points, but just to remind people that there is a legitimate topic here. The purpose of the article is no more to "argue" that judaism and Christianity are different, as the article on Judeo-Christian is meant to "argue" that they are the same. This article spun off from that article, because it had become too long in trying to cover all the similarities and differences. The notion of a Judeo-Christian ethic or culture or value explicitly does argue that there is a commonality. Yet there are many profound differences, and this article is meant to review them. There is nothing NPOV about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As to under-cited for the parts on Christianity, that can only be the responsibility of people who know a lot about Christianity (I am not one of them), but I certainly agree that there should be more on how Christianity differes from Judaism with appropriate citations. As a final note, I urge Roger Arguile to assume good faith. For example, when I made a sizable contribution to the section on the Jewish view of love, I left messages on various pages I assume on the watchlists of Christians (e.g. Christianity) announcing that I added a good deal of Jewish material and requesting that Christians balance it with Christian material. I can't do more than that. I do not think you will find one example of someone reverting an account of a Christian (as opposed to Jewish) belief, let alone one that was sourced. This article does not violate POV, it is just incomplete. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I guess I should of been more clear, I was just talking about the intro because of the self-reference primarily. Homestarmy 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems more incomplete than POV, and definitely undersourced. Also, I'm wondering whether the title should be changed to something else that better reflects that this article is about the differences between the two religions, not just a comparison in general, since the Judeo-Christian article already covers where the two converge. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Rubinstein makes my point. It is not appropriate for an editor to offer incomplete copy. One reason why WP fails in its purpose is that editors often fail to take responsibility for the whole section they are editing. If you don't know enough about the two ends of a comparative article, then it is better to refrain from editing it at all. I would not dream of contributing to this article because I do not know whether the alleged points of contact or difference are referring to the same thing.I do not see how anyone can compare the two faiths without knowing a lot about both. Otherwise the article becomes a parallel but shortened description of two faiths. It is no good asking other people to do your work for you. The trouble is that the article becomes worthless as a source of its subject matter. Roger Arguile 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger is 100%wrong. No editor is responsible for providing both (or all three, or four, or five) points of view. This is not what our NPOV policy asks for, and the very idea goes against the nature of Wikipedia as a a collaborative project. If he wants to collaborate by adding valuable and relevant content, by all means he is welcome to join us. Roger, do not ask me to do your work for you. It is for all wikipedians to add what they can, and encourage others to add what they can. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that the use of percentages does not add to the cogency of the argument. My understanding is that WP is an encyclopaedia. As such it needs to be of as high a standard as can be obtained. Its purpose is not, I would have thought, primarily to benefit the editors but to provide good well balanced pieces upon which people can rely. This article is all about a comparison, not about a single subject. His argument would make some sense if the latter were the case, but it is not. That, alone, is why I make my point. If Mr. Rubenstein is right about the process in the case of an article making a comparison, then WP is not what I had thought it was and it does not qualify in the scholarly terms that the books on my shelf require. It may serve some other purpose, of course. I fear, however, that being unqualified in my own terms, I must respectfully decline Mr. Rubenstein's invitation. Roger Arguile 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has long bothered me. I do not question the editors' good intentions, but as it stands the article reads more like a disputation. I wish I had a solution to propose. However, I can't see any methodical way to write this article. For any particular topic, X, it is in many cases easy to find a Jewish source and a Christian source that take diametrically opposite views of X. But it is often just as easy to find two Jewish sources on opposite sides of X or two Christian sources that don't agree on X. Which do we include? Who decides? At what point does the selection of sources become original research? Absent some agreement on a methodology for writing about this topic on Wikipedia, I don't see how this article can pass muster.--agr 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the above is a good point. There can be so much variation within Judaism and within Christianity -- for example, between traditional and liberal sources but even within each of these -- that variation between Judaism and Christianity can be left obscured, and we can be left wondering whether the variation presented represents a real difference between the two or just an artifact of the particular sample of sources the editor has selected -- and since the selection isn't random, the selection may reflect the editor's own bias and POV. How can we tell? --Shirahadasha 21:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am much helped by both of the previous contributions. They raise a question which may well have been debated somewhere on WP: that editorial function which consists in the use of the eraser. Becasue WP doews not use up trees, it can include articles about minor figures and events which would not feature in a conventional encyclopedia. This may not matter. If they are not consulted because they are unimportant to all but their contributors no harm is done. The present case is otherwise. The twin subject matters are very important. The article is interesting, but I would contend that WP is the wrong place for it. It reads like a an article in a semi-serious periodical (I mean no insult by saying this - its coverage is wide, its sources however are not always scholarly - and both agr and Shirahadasha both make the point that they do not see what can be done.) It may help to say that the article 'Judaeo-Christian' ( apart from lacking a noun to go with this adjective) is likewise of dubious value. Apart from noting a usage which is highly disputable for the reasons set out in 'J & C' it, its contents might better be covered under the separate religions. Finally, I have to say that I regard the sections in J & C on common views of one religion from the point of view of the other as utterly worthless. But I shall not make any edits; any that I made might properly be considered to be vandalism, such as withdrawing both articles. Roger Arguile 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All the preceding comments are reasonable and constructive. I have two points. First, it should be clear that this article is no substitute of the independent articles on Judaism and Christianity including all their sub-articles. Second point is historical: originally there was na rticle on the Judeo-Christian ethic (or culture or something like that). The very nmae of the article implied that such a thing exists. In fact, "Judeo-Christian" anything is an idea and while it certainly does exist it does not exist in the same way that say rocks exist. It because clear that "Judeo-Christian" was a term coined by a particular person, popularized by a set of people, and used in certain contexts and it makes certain claims ... in short, it is a POV or set of POVs. Another POV, or set of POVs (that Judaism and Christianity hold contrasting points of view over many of the elements of the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic), because of our NPOV policy, had to be included in the article. So it was. And the article got longer, and longer, and then too long for most servers. So it was split into two articles. Now, i am not saying that this article is flawless, nor am I opposing significant revisions. People just need to know that there are reasons why it came to be the way it is. As long as there is an article on Judeo-Christian, which provides information about people who emphasize convergences between the two, there needs to be some article providing information about people who emphasize differences between the two. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is very helpful. I would offer to do a complete rewrite, which is what both articles need but knowledge is lacking. People whom I respect argue that the notion of Judaeo-Christian anything is of limited use implying as it does a congruence of thought which needs unpicking in every individual case. What would be lost if both articles were withdrawn? Roger Arguile 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As a rule, we try very hard not to remove verifiable content, so I would advise against withdrawing both articles. I see no problem with a renewed discussion about how they could be reorganized. If you have not yet, please review our core policies carefully: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia: Verifiability. Any material that complies with all three policies should not be removed - someone is bound to raise a stink and you would probably lose the fight (rewriting it or reorganizing it to make it clearer is of course a compeltely other matter, feel free). And be sure you are complying with all three policies before adding anything, or someone will soon revert you. I apologize if you have already been told this stuff. But to give an example: it is a fact that some people believe that there is a strong Judeo-Christian ethic in the West. To add this statement to an article does not violate NPOV because you are not claiming that this point of view is true, only that it exists. Also, you are not claiming it is the only point of view, just one point of view. So adding this statement is compliant with NPOV and deleting it would be wrong. However, as you or other editors developed this statement to explain what "those people" mean by "Judeo-Christian" people will expect you to provide verifiable sources. The fact that you personally do not agree with this view (or that I do not personally agree with this view) is irrelevant, because editors should not put their own views into Wikipedia. However, when another editor comes in and say, "Wait, this is their point of view, but I know ten verifiable sources who say this view is crap, then that editor can start writing, "However, x has argued that the belief in a Judeo Christian culture was a political ploy .... and y and z have written extensively on radical differences between Judaism and Christianity" and so on. This is how, bit by bit, collaborators put together Wikipedia. You will see a good deal of material in the two articles that complies with NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability which is why you cannot withdraw it. HOWEVER, if you want to argue that there is a better way to organize and frame this material, by all means, go ahead - just give others time to respond before making any changes. An alternative: create a sub-page on your user-page where you go ahead and craft your proposed substitute and when it is ready give people time to consider it (this has been done several times with other articles). If you do this - i.e. your complete reqrite, just work on it BEFORE deleting these pages - I do beg one thing of you: strive to include all material that comes from a verifiable source, and strive to provide multiple points of view including those not your own. I hope this too is helpful. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Just so you know (and for you to mull over): cultural terms have different meanings and levels of importance in different parts of the world. I suspect this is especially true with "Judeo-Christian." It is a very popular and widely-used term in the United States which has a relatively large and prominent Jewish minority as well as an explicitly hybrid/multinational identity (see "melting pot.") There is no official language, or official church, or official religion. Many people claim it is a Christian country and when they are booed down for lying (at least technically) many respond by saying "Judeo-Christian" which a much larger number of people find acceptable. I am not trying to change your mind about anything except this: a set of ideas and debates about them that may be non-existent or trivial in the UK may be very important in the US and while Wikipedia should not suggest that the whole world is just like the US, it has to include articles on topics that are of importance to a heterogeneous group of people. Not everyone is into dungeons and dragons but we have lots of articles on that topic. We will also have articles of interest only to (respectively) Trinidadians, New Zealanders, and yes, even Yanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

May I offer my heartfelt sorrow to those Jews who have had to read the occasional foul language used by vandalising editors. Roger Arguile 17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish criticism in Christianity article

Dear fellow editors, the Christianity article contains a section title "Controversy and criticism" which includes one item about Jewish criticism of Christian exegesis. (This item also links here, which is why I am posting here.) As an example it currently gives the supposed identification of the Messiah in Daniel 9 with Cyrus. I have raised the issue of whether Jews actually make that identification. But more importantly, I don't think that this issue is really a good and representative example of Jewish-Christian differences in exegesis. So my request is to those editors knowledgable in Jewish exegesis to review this situation and comment at Talk:Christianity#Jewish_criticism. Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)