Talk:Ten Commandments in Catholic theology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sorry, but article fails at basic theology comprehension

This is in error 'The first three commandments demand respect for God's name...'. No actually. The first commandment does not mean that, it means you should not BLAME god for your ills. Has nothing to do with saying 'god damn it' or what not. This is a misconception this is propagated by those ignorant of theology teachings. My suggestion unless you have formal teaching in theology don't try to write a 'factual' article on the topic (or any topic you have no formal training). - PMW

Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry...

If I corrected every error on wikipedia that I saw on topics I am educated on I'd do nothing else with my life but correct this mess of a site. Just pointing out the most obvious I come across. I leave the editing to the wikipedia fanboys who clearly have the time (and more importantly interest) in editing this site non-stop. -PMW

If I responded to every nutcase pushing a blatant and ill-considered pov then I'd have no life either. ;-) I might have been more inclined to take your position seriously—only might mind—if you'd demonstrated a basic understanding of the use of prepositions in English. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not PoV, fact actually. If you stopped commenting on something you know little about obviously and spent more time learning about said topic you'd know that. And since this isn't a article on English prepositions I do not see your point except to imply because I am not anal about such in my quick edit my point has no merit. Clearly a poorly chosen position and one history has proven to be in error more times then not. But if it makes you happy attack me and leave the gross error in place. -PMW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.136.97 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that consider the wisdom of taking your own advice. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality? Motion to completely remove that section

The section titled 'homosexuality' should be completely removed.

I suggest this on grounds that it is not relevant to the topic of the ten commandments. Not a single of the ten commandments have anything to do with homosexuality. Because the ten commandments have nothing to do with homosexuality, it is not withing the scope of this article. It's inclusion on this page can only be considered off-topic spam.

Imsome (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire thing is just an outdated moral code bred from an irrational fairytale, so the more readers are alienated by this anti-human superstition, the better. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes this article is about the 10 commandments, but they are presented within the context and as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church. That interpretation is expressed in the Catechism. Whether or not you approve or disapprove of their interpretation is irrevelant. Have you read the Catechism? Well, I have. And I can most definitely assure you homosexuality is treated at length. With all due respect, the "outdated" moral code you refer to is in some way or another adhered to by 1.115 billion baptized Catholics, or 1 in 6 persons on the planet, that number increasing 1.5% every year. The section should remain. Lionelt (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Lionelt, and I edit articles primarily about homosexuality including Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk, and Lesbian. The article should reflect the accurate beliefs as promoted by authorities in the Catholic Church. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess that in the POV of User:Zeality, a new, "updated" moral code (allowing all sexual deviations and perversions) ought to be imposed upon the morality inherent to the Ten Commandments, and upon the beliefs of Christendom? If such grotesque position had been voiced in public during most of our civilization's history, its proponent(s) would have been burned --here on Earth. --AVM (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If Homosexuality is discussed in the Catechism, it should be included in the catechism page. As it is not directly mentioned in the ten commandments, it is not within the context of this page. Imsome (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Commandments, so I fail to see how one aspect of the Church's interpretation of the sixth would not be within the article's scope. Steve ^T • C 22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on Abortion

The section on abortion is severely slanted and arguably pro-life in regards to the theological history of the Church's position towards the subject. It dismisses St. Aquinas' and St. Augustine's interpretations by begging the question, and then in the notes section, further rejects factual evidence by referencing an article from Fox News of all sources! How did THIS article get nominated as featured?

It is neither pro- nor anti-life, and nor would it be appropriate if it was. This is an article about the Ten Commandments, not abortion. All the abortion section is attempting to do is to explain Catholic policy concerning abortion in relation to the fifth commandment. Neither approval or disapproval of that policy is being expressed, as it shouldn't be. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it is certainly taking a stance on the issue. You said it yourself, this is an article about the Ten Commandments, not abortion. The slant of this section is inappropriate for the standards of wikipedia, and the statement, "Abortion has been specifically and persistently condemned by the Church since the first century," is contentious at best, completely incorrect at the worst. Following that statement is a hyperlink to a note which states, "^ Some pro-choice advocates assert that, in the past, the Church has distinguished between termination of a pregnancy before and after quickening. They argue that Augustine accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment", writing that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thomas Aquinas asserted that a fetus was not fully alive until quickening.[75] Some scholars disagree with these interpretations of Aquinas and Augustine, saying their statements cannot be used to justify abortion in today's society since both of these scholars condemned the practice.[76]" If this section is neither pro-nor anti-life, then why is it arguing against a pro-life position? And why is its reference for factual accuracy of theological history a fox news blog post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pole to Pole (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Church

The article makes frequent use of the term "The Church", which seems open to misunderstanding by unfamiliar readers. The capital "C" does link it to the Catholic Church of the article's subject, but I wonder if it can be made explicit in some way, perhaps when the term is first used. I have not attempted to do so because I am not sure about the best style. Also, as a separate point, several sentences begin with the word "Church", so in these cases it can't be seen whether the word is capitalised in its own right or simply due to the sentence start. If nothing else, perhaps those sentences can be adjusted to avoid this. Laughing Jean Genome (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It would lead to cumbersome prose to write out "Catholic Church" each time; I think it's implicit that the article is talking about the RCC whenever "Church" is mentioned, the same way as a film article will often say "the film" instead of its title. Where other denominations are mentioned, they are made explicit by use of their name. Steve ^T • C 10:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An article on Catholic moral theology as this basically is will unavoidably fall into Catholic way-of-speaking, or jargon if you want to say so. That's not to be avoided and neither, in my quite personal view, to be wished to be avoided, as long as one can recognize what is meant. We can, after all, be glad that there are no long untranslated Latin citations, not even for Scripture where this practice was once quite popular-:) --77.4.46.189 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity in note 3

"Jewish Christians celebrated the Sabbath on the last day of the week". What's the last day of the week? --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the context and wording of the note, as well as the Hebrew calendar, the last day is Saturday. However, as it looks like much of Europe currently considers Sunday to be the last day of the week (at least for work purposes) perhaps the note could be re-worded to make it clear which day is being spoken of. AlexiusHoratius 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: read a book called Genesis. --AVM (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling the reader to read the Book of Genesis would be one option, I guess. Another (and probably simpler) one would be to put the day being spoken of in parantheses so that it is clear to the reader which is being spoken of. AlexiusHoratius 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When Jewish Christians celebrated is not so clear, I think there are Scriptural accounts that they did celebrate the Sunday and held, until the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish custom (which St. Paul says that it is not obligatory) in addition. Besides: "Jewish Christians celebrated the Sabbath on the last day of the week" is quite an English statement, if you may allow a German say this. I appreciate to call Sunday the Sabbath meaning the day the Third Commandment applies to (besides HDOs), but it should be still clear that basically we have here a Hebrew word, Sabbath, which translates into English as Saturday and into some quite important Catholic languages as Sabbatum, Sabbado, Sabado, Samstag (if I may call the Pope's language an important Catholic one), Samedi, Sobota. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

His ass

""You shall not covet ... anything that is your neighbor's. ... You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

His ass is not actually meant to be in this sentence is it? (C_falco (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

That's the wording used by the source. (An ass is another word for donkey, by the way.) AlexiusHoratius 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, just checking for vandalism (C_falco (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

I guess the commandment forbids the coveting of the neigbour's Rooster as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.72.253 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Commandments 9 and 10.

In the Catholic Church, are commandments 9 and 10 really almost word for word the same? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the cited sources, it Looks like it. Steve ^T • C 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading this cold, both seem to derive from a single commandment (Exodus 20:17/Deuteronomy 5:21). It would be interesting to have some cited background on how they came to be interpreted as two separate commandments. Anyone got the background? 4u1e (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's something in the article on this already, at Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism#Numbering, though it only really touches on the subject by saying, "The division traditionally used by the Catholic and Lutheran churches was first derived by the Latin Church Father Augustine of Hippo (354–430) in his book Questions on Exodus." Ten Commandments#Roman Catholic and Lutheran Christianity gives little more; perhaps only Augustine's book has the answer. Steve ^T • C 23:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. If anyone's got access to it, it really would be interesting to know. I've read around some of the other 10 commandments articles here and it's obviously even more complicated than I thought it was. I never knew for example that there's a whole different set of 10 commandments that may be the ones originally referred to by this phrase. I guess this is why this article (properly) has a deliberately limited scope, to prevent it ballooning to enormous size in explaining all the various interpretations possible. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the Church follows Augustine and Augustine follows Deuteronomy, which has two commandments. Of course, the meaning of the Commandments in Exodus, in general, is the same, but in Exodus it says: Thou shalt not covet Thy neighbor's house nor wife nor etc., and Deuteronomy says: Thou shalt not covet Thy neighbor's wife. Thou shalt not covet Thy neighbor's house nor etc. The whole problem of the issue is that some want to polemize-:) Thus, the First Commandment obviously includes a directive forbidding graven images, which the Church takes as part of the First Commandment, which Augustine took as part of the First Commandment, which Augustine's Jewish contemporaries took as part of the First Commandment. However, reformers and maybe already iconoclasts found out that the Church does venerate holy icons, and thought it'd be nice to accuse them of violating Scripture. To defend the Icons is not the place here, it is most soundly given in the 2nd Nicean Council, and rests on the fact that God himself sent His Icon, but there is one specific accusation that is basically nonsense, and that is that we would have maliciously put out that directive added to the First Commandment. We have not. Though we leave it out in Catechizing, and we might have the feeling that an entire Commandment deprived, though correctly, of all but interpretative meaning would be rather odd.--77.4.46.189 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bathsheba image caption

Some OR in there - "murder" is overcooking the case. And the whole is uncited, which is inappropriate for a FA. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Really?

"Artificial birth control predates Christianity; all Christian denominations have condemned these methods throughout their histories." First half of sentence, no problem. Second half? Re-ee-ee-eeally? All? --Dweller (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The source definitely asserts this claim, but doesn't really back it up. It's written by a Priest for a Catholic web site. He cites evidence that Protestants, Catholics, and early Christians have been against contraception, but then just makes the blanket statement that "In all, the Catholic Church as well as other Christian denominations condemned the use of contraceptive means until the 20th century." I'd question the quality of this source to back up that claim. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's tosh. Particularly when the last three words of the quote are considered. It's also (rightly) massively contradicted by our articles on contraception, Religious views on birth control and Christian views on contraception. (Incidentally, someone should sort out making those article names consistent) --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is diabolically POV and full of agenda - the fact that it has become a featured article is probably Wikipedia's darkest hour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.43.102 (talk • contribs)

Hear, hear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.107.88 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to tell us the ways in which you feel it to be "POV and full of agenda". Please be assured that anything valid won't be dismissed out of hand, but it's useful to know what exactly is the issue—this article is essentially about one organisation's interpretation of the Commandments, so it will naturally focus on their opinion, whether you consider their interpretation objectionable or not. All the best, Steve ^T • C 00:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the current wording is better, I don't see any evidence the old wording was wrong, simply poorly phrased. Neither Christian views on contraception nor Religious views on birth control suggest to me that there is any Christian denomination which historically allowed birth control. While it's not certain all Christian denomination disallowed it (it likely depends a lot on what you count as a denomination, is a group with only 1000 followers considered a denomination?) definitely it appears the vast majority did disallow it. There may be some confusion because if you read the old version [1] by itself "all Christian denominations have condemned these methods throughout their histories" could be taken to imply that all Christian denominations still disallow 'artificial' contraception but if you read the whole paragraph in it's entirety, it's clearly not trying to say that (since it goes on to say it began to change), just that they historically disallowed it. If there's something I'm missing, in other words, if there's some evidence some Christian denominations did in fact historically allow these methods of contraception, I'm all ears Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the Religious Society of Friends has any stance on contraception, neither allowing or forbidding. I am somewhat sure that the Metropolitan Community Church welcomes contraception and condom use specifically, although I do not know if the Catholic Church recognizes MCC as a valid denomination regardless of how many members it has. (The Greek Orthodox Church, last time I read, continued to vote against including MCC into the National Council of Churches). --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Catharism? It may have been heretical, but it was a Christian sect, and iirc allowed sexual activity while discouraging procreation, which is a stance hard to maintain without some form of birth control. 4u1e (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the MCC "http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_Us&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=662" is of great relevance since it was formed long after other churches allowed birth control. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the claim being (I still maintain) inaccurate, let's focus on an unarguable point - it's irrelevant. This isn't an article on Christianity in general - can we just focus on Roman Catholicism here? Remove the claim as off the point. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on that, but I would point out that Religious views on birth control says

"Contraception was also officially disallowed by Non-Catholic Christians until 1930 when the Anglican Communion changed its policy. Soon after, most Protestant groups came to accept the use of modern contraceptives as a matter of Biblically allowable freedom of conscience."

and Christian views on contraception says

"Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity[citation needed], including the major reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin.[1] This unified front no longer exists, however."

and

"Before the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church viewed the purpose of sexual intercourse as almost exclusively for purposes of procreation. As part of the Reformation, Reformers began to more strongly emphasize the unitive pleasures of marriage.[91] Still, all major early Protestant Reformers, and indeed Protestants in general until the twentieth century, condemned birth control as a contravention of God's procreative purpose for marriage."

and

"Protestants such as Pride, Provan, Hess and Hess, and Scott, argue that Protestants should not have moved away from traditional Protestant views of contraception such as given by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Such modern authors contrast the views of early Reformers who rejected contraception with modern Christians who accept it, and point to primarily feminist, secular, or Satanic influences as causative to the change"

and

"Jordan argues also that the views of early Protestant Reformers on contraception are unreliable because they were heavily influenced by not just the Bible but Neo-Platonic mysticism (otherworldliness) and Aristolean teleologism (measuring all things only by their result), philosophies they inherited from their Catholic predecessors such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo".

While I appreciate this is somewhat OT here, since the assertation was made here that these article directly contradict this article even though they in fact seem to be to be largely in line with these other articles, and the assertation is still being made that what this article is saying and therefore I presume what those articles are saying is wrong or inaccurate it seems to me those article need to be fixed and would suggest editors experienced in this matter help correct them rather then arguing here it is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your main point, let's not forget the start of the article "The Ten Commandments are a series of religious and moral imperatives that are recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam". Ultimately this article can't operate in a vacuum. I think that point is of relevence because it reflects the history and modern view of the Catholic church's position. That their position was largely in line with the vast majority of other churches until recently still doesn't seem to be in dispute to me. And it seems clear that Catholic scholars assert this is the case and also argue that the changes in these churches' views is dangerous and just plain wrong (I presume they claim they were misinfluenced by 'dangerous' modern culture). It also help people understand that this was not one of the original areas of dispute Protestants had with the Catholic Church but one that arose later, which again is important in otherstanding how the Catholic Church's position compares to other churchs both historically and to this current day. Anything else seems pure WP:Recentism to me. It's nonsense to mention that the Catholic Church's position is in dispute with many other churches yet ignoring that historically it was not Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Briefly looking at the article, it appears there's little discussion of how the Catholic Church's position on the ten commandments differs from other churches in most other sections. This IMHO is a flaw that should be rectified by briefly expanding were relevant rather then by removing what little discussion exists. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Throughout their histories" implies to this day, which is incorrect. Is it true to say that America has had only white presidents throughout its history? As has been demonstrated above, there are churches for which it has never been true, and some for which it is no longer accurate.

If we're going to insist on including a controvertable RS, please can it be for an important point? No-one would seriously deny the unchanging RC position on contraception, can we please keep to it? This point seems to have been included as a Ya-boo to the christian denominations that have changed position on this point, which is, to be frank, pointless. If Catholicism had a history of bowing to the pressures of changes in dogma in other christian sects, it would be relevant. It doesn't, so it's an irrelevance.

However, I do agree that pointing out the differences would be a good idea, if accurately stated. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain's change on Friday toned down the wording on this; I think that's a fair edit that resolves the issue, at least until the primary editor returns to perhaps offer another perspective. Steve ^T • C 14:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Essentially claiming to be God"

The article contains the sentence "Under Jewish law, a person who pronounced the name of God was essentially claiming to be God." That is attributed to Peter Kreeft pp. 210-211, and the exact quote (from Google Books preview) is "No Jew will ever try to pronounce this divine name, for to utter the first-person pronoun, the name 'I' (JHWH), is to claim to bear it, to be it. This is why, when Jesus uttered it (Jn 8:58), the Jews who did not believe in him tried to stone him to death, for that was the penalty for blasphemy in Mosaic law."

I don't buy this at all. For one thing, according to the Talmud (which began to be recorded pretty soon after Jesus' death), God's full name was pronounced. The High Priest pronounced it multiple times during the Yom Kippur service; see our own article Yahweh#Historical overview. Yoma 3:9 refers to the High Priest pronouncing שם המפורש "the explicit name". The Gemara (Sotah 38a) also says that even ordinary priests used the explicit name in daily blessings of the people.

For another thing, I'm not aware of any justification similar to the claimed one being given anywhere in the Bible. The rationale given both in Exodus and Deuteronomy is identical: simply, "the Lord will not forgive one who takes His name in vain". No further reason is given. The idea of someone claiming to be God is, as far as I know, an entirely alien concept to Judaism (prior to Christianity, of course).

Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher, and is not a historian or scholar of Judaism as far as I can tell. The book quoted is entitled Catholic Christianity and does not deal with Judaism specifically. I therefore don't think that it's a reliable source on this point. Unless a better source can be found, I think the line should be removed from the article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a very odd comment and does seem to be unfounded. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily commented out the text in question pending resolution of this issue.

The difficulty here is what should be done when a source seems to make an erroneous statement. Ideally, we could find reliable sources who assert that he is wrong and demonstrate this to our satisfaction. Failing that, there is a tendency to consider the objection to be original research. It is widely accepted wisdom amongst Christians that Jews had a strong stricture against saying the name YHWH. This perception is not without foundation; however, the Yahweh article suggests that there may be an anachronistic misunderstanding of when that stricture came into being.

The following are excerpts from the Yahweh article...

Several centuries before the Christian era the name of their god YHWH had ceased to be commonly used by the Jews. Some of the later writers in the Old Testament employ the appellative Elohim, God, prevailingly or exclusively.

Josephus, who as a priest knew the pronunciation of the name, declares that religion forbids him to divulge it.

Philo calls it ineffable, and says that it is lawful for those only whose ears and tongues are purified by wisdom to hear and utter it in a holy place (that is, for priests in the Temple). In another passage, commenting on Lev. xxiv. 15 seq.: "If any one, I do not say should blaspheme against the Lord of men and gods, but should even dare to utter his name unseasonably, let him expect the penalty of death." [38]

In the liturgy of the Temple the name was pronounced in the priestly benediction (Num. vi. 27) after the regular daily sacrifice (in the synagogues a substitute— probably Adonai— was employed);[39] on the Day of Atonement the High Priest uttered the name ten times in his prayers and benediction.

In the last generations before the fall of Jerusalem, however, it was pronounced in a low tone so that the sounds were lost in the chant of the priests.

After the destruction of the Temple (70 C.E) the liturgical use of the name ceased, but the tradition was perpetuated in the schools of the rabbis. It was certainly known in Babylonia in the latter part of the 4th century,[42] and not improbably much later. Nor was the knowledge confined to these pious circles; the name continued to be employed by healers, exorcists and magicians, and has been preserved in many places in magical papyri.

The vehemence with which the utterance of the name is denounced in the Mishna—He who pronounces the Name with its own letters has no part in the world to come! —suggests that this misuse of the name was not uncommon among Jews[citation needed]. Modern observant Jews no longer voice the name יהוה aloud. It is believed to be too sacred to be uttered and is often referred to as the 'Ineffable', 'Unutterable' or 'Distinctive Name'.

Thus, and I admit this is synthesis on my part, it appears that Christians may have mistakenly assumed that the attitude of Jews towards the utterance of the name after the destruction of the Second Temple was the same as their attitude before the destruction. In order to deflect the charge of original research, however, it would be good to have this documented via a citation to a reliable source that makes this explicit assertion.

The text regarding Jesus is not crucial to the discussion of this commandment nor to Christian understanding of it. That is why I have felt it reasonable to comment it out for the time being pending resolution of this issue. However, since Kreeft's assertion is not particularly unique among Christian writers (including non-Catholic writers), it really is imperative that we find a reliable source that lays out a clear and cogent refutation of the Christian perspective since Wikipedia articles are not considered a reliable source. This is a pretty good explanation but it is a website and thus its reliablity can be called into question. It would be better if we could find a book or article written by a more reliable source.

--Richard (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no problem with saying that Jews were prohibited from pronouncing God's four-letter name. That was true as a general rule to the best of my knowledge. But it wasn't because someone speaking God's name is claiming to be God. It's because the name is considered extremely holy and therefore not to be used by ordinary people in everyday life ― only by priests, and only in very specific prescribed circumstances. Speaking other names of God was and is certainly okay in prayer and other accepted religious contexts, just not in ordinary conversation.

As far as a source being wrong, I would say that if the source is not reliable on the assertion it's used to support, then it should be removed if there's any good reason brought up to doubt it. Kreeft may be a noted expert on philosophy and/or Catholicism, but his specialty isn't Judaism, and the book isn't about Judaism. So it's not a good source for assertions about Judaism: better than nothing, but not good enough to keep the text if serious doubts are raised, IMO. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the synthesis is. Nothing changed pre and post Temple destruction - use of the name for all but very specific and prescribed occasions was/is prohibited. However, there's nothing there about saying the name makes the person into a god, which sounds like the very antithesis of Judaism's horror of polytheism. --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The "synthesis" arises if we are arguing that Christians have it wrong about if and when it was permissible to pronounce the name of God. After all, many Jews today write "G-d". I am guessing that Christians tend to gloss over the nuance between pre-destruction use of the name by priests and post-destruction prohibition on use of the name by practically anyone, even though (according to Wikipedia) the pronounciation was known to priests, healers, magicians and exorcists. There is a tendency among Christians to project the prohibition of the Mishna backwards in time into the pre-destruction days. The foregoing is speculation on my part and it would be good to find a reliable source who asserts that Christians make this error.

Moreover, as you point out, Kreeft goes even further and asserts that the problem Jews had with Jesus pronouncing the name of God was that this was tantamount to Jesus claiming that he was God. It is common Christian belief that Jews rejected Jesus because he claimed that he was God but Kreeft's assertion that pronouncing the name of God was equivalent to such a claim is new to me. I do not profess to be a theological scholar so I did not feel competent to raise an objection until now.

The difficulty is finding a scholar who cares enough about Kreeft's error to refute it.

--Richard (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of the matter is the assertion about claiming to be God. That Jews have traditionally respected many prohibitions regarding God's names is not in dispute here. I don't think there's any error being made in this respect.

I don't think we have to worry about finding someone to refute Kreeft's error. We can't expect every disputed claim to be resolved. The point is that if there's no sufficiently reliable source (and I maintain Kreeft is not really reliable on this point), it should not go into the article. If experts don't care enough to either support or refute it, then it's clearly not very important anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that omission of Kreeft's analysis is better than not presenting his expert POV on this issue. He is a professor of philosophy at Boston College,[2] not a Catholic theologian. He is qualified to offer his scholarly interpretation. I think that unless his book has a bad review or is refuted by a known Jewish scholar, it meets WP:RS and omitting the sentence clearly makes the article less comprehensive. NancyHeise ^talk 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kreeft is a professor of philosophy, not a professor of Judaism. He is therefore not an expert on the subject matter. He provides no source for his claim. No other source has been found that supports the claim. The publisher of the book, Ignatius Press, is a Catholic publisher, not an academic or (as far as I can tell) peer-reviewed publisher. The book is not about Judaism, it's about Catholicism, so experts on Judaism are unlikely to have read, reviewed, or commented on it.

Basically, on what basis would you consider Kreeft a reliable source for this statement? Academics are not automatically reliable outside their field of expertise, and philosophy is not the same as Jewish theology. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Kreeft is an expert on Judaism or not, I suspect that we have gone down the wrong trail in analyzing the issue. On further research and reflection, it's obvious that there is a fairly common (if not universal) Christian belief that the Jews castigated Jesus for his claim to be God.

The question is whether Kreeft has overstated the case by stating that "to pronounce the name of God is to claim to be God".

First of all, consider our article on I Am that I Am which indicates that Catholic teaching is that, in John 8:58, the Jews are incensed because Jesus claims to be God. This is also a teaching of Christians in general.

The difficulty in our article is that we make it sound as if it is the simple saying of the name of God that constitutes a claim to be God. That assertion would sound strange to a modern Jew and probably to a Jew of Jesus’ time as well. And it's probably inaccurate.

The problem is that it’s probably overreaching to make such an assertion. We need to figure out if we’ve misrepresented Kreeft or if he has described the issue poorly.

There are at least four places in the Gospel of John where Jesus says “I AM”. It’s clear from the following passages, that it is not just the fact that Jesus says “I AM” but the context of the statement which makes it a claim to be God. For example, if a Christian minister says “the great ‘I AM’ created the earth and is father to us all’, there is no intimation that the Christian minister is claiming to be God. It is only because of the way that Jesus uses the name of God that makes it a claim to be God.

John 8:58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 8:24. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will realize that "I AM"."

John 18:5-8 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [he]: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way

For one discussion of this issue, consider the following discourse taken from this [http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:qcBZtCVHAGYJ:www.notasermon.org

/article.aspx%3FarticleId%3D24+%22name+of+God%22+%22claiming+to+be+God%22&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a webpage]

Jesus is never recorded in the Bible as saying the exact words, “I am God.” That does not mean He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, ‘“We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God”’ (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement that He claimed to be God. In the following verses Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” Again in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God?

When Jesus said "I AM" He was claiming the name of God for Himself and thereby claiming to be God.

John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Thomas, the disciple, declared to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. In Revelation, an angel instructed the Apostle John to only worship God (Rev 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. Although Jesus never commands people to worship Him, He never discourages them either. If Jesus was not God, He would have told people not to worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation had. There are many other verses and passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity. The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2) Only God could pay such an infinite penalty.

Jesus said, “Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” When He said, “I AM,” He was quoting from the Old Testament in Exodus 3:14 where Moses was talking to God and asked Him His name. God answered and said, “I AM.” When Jesus said “I AM” He was claiming the name of God for Himself and thereby claiming to be God. Other great men of history point to a philosophy and teach good ideas. Only Jesus pointed to Himself, claimed to be God, and spoke with the kind of authority that matched His claim.

--Richard (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no familiarity with Christian theology, only Jewish, so I can't say whether the disputed statement is something some Christians would agree with (as a matter of faith or otherwise). I can say, however, that it's currently phrased as though it's universally accepted and uncontroversial, which I think is definitely not the case. If it were rephrased so as to make it clear that it reflected a specifically Christian perspective, I would have no opinion on it.

The exact sentence currently in the article is "Under Jewish law, a person who pronounced the name of God was essentially claiming to be God." It makes a claim about Jewish law, and any evidence to support that needs to cite some authority on Jewish law. Good sources would include the Talmud, or a recognized rabbinic authority, or a historian specializing in ancient Judaism. Kreeft has no credentials whatsoever when it comes to Jewish law, ancient or modern.

Ideally, of course, the issue would be thoroughly researched and a clearer and better-supported statement would be provided that satisfies everyone. (Is Kreeft's statement based on some official and more detailed statement of the Church, for instance?) If no one can come up with further sources, and the people here who know about Christian theology think this is a significant point that shouldn't just be omitted, we could probably reword it so it doesn't make claims about Judaism but still conveys the theological point. For instance, perhaps change this:

Many ancient cultures believed that names were sacred; some had prohibitions on when a person's name could be spoken. Under Jewish law, a person who pronounced the name of God was essentially claiming to be God. The Gospel of John relates an incident where a group of Jews attempted to stone Jesus after he spoke the name; because they did not believe in his divinity they considered this blasphemy which, under Mosaic law, carried a death penalty.

to this:

Many ancient cultures believed that names were sacred; some had prohibitions on when a person's name could be spoken. The Gospel of John relates an incident where a group of Jews attempted to stone Jesus after he spoke God's name. They interpreted his statement as a claim of divinity. Since they did not believe that he was God, they considered this blasphemy, which under Mosaic law carries a death penalty.

The wording in the revised version is kind of poor, but I think it preserves the point while not making unsubstantiated claims about Jewish law. It makes it clear that any equivalence of speaking God's name and claiming to be God rests in the New Testament, and doesn't make assertions about either ancient or contemporary Jewish belief. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That a Jew pronouncing God's Name (blessed be It) said he was God is basically nonsense, if I know anything about Judaism (which I can't claim). It is true that something we would call a pious custom, and then a law with penalties, was established forbidding the use of His Name (blessed be It) and reserving It to the High Priest once a year, and stipulating others of God's Names, which as well were not to be used but with reverence. But even so, we would talk about breaking a positive human (though really religious) law, not claiming Godness. However, somebody who says: "Before Abraham was, I am" claims to be God even regardless of how the latter two words may sound in Hebraic or Aramaic. Otherwise, he at least would have said: Before Abraham was, I was (in the planning of God's Providence to wit), but never the present tense. But Christ proves that this is no blasphemy at all, since even men are sometimes called gods in Scripture, and so it isn't illogical that one man is literally God. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Svartalf's proposed reorganization of the article's outline structure

Moved here from my Talk Page

You reverted a change I had made to the structure of the page that put all the commandments in a larger section and listed them in order so that each would be in a section bearing its proper number. I did this because I do find it disturbing to see a "first commandment" in a section numbering other than 1 etc for the others. I do know this complexifies somewhat the structure, but found the idea worthwhile. I'd like to have a more complete argument for you deeming my move reverse worthy so I can either renounce the idea completely, or do it again knowing it won't lead to an edit war. Maybe I should bring the matter to the page's discussion? --Svartalf (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is excellent use of the WP:BRD model. Svartalf's motivation for his proposed restructuring is understandable but, IMO, inferior to the current approach. Among other things, I didn't like the section title; "Discussion of the commandments" seemed awkward. More importantly, there don't seem to be enough other sections to really warrant the creation of a single subsection which would encompass the bulk of the article. Finally, I figured that, if Svartalf's approach was superior, somebody would have thought of it before it went through the FAC process or objected to my revert of his restructuring. --Richard (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at Svartalf's proposal and I agree with Richard, the current approach is still better. The effort to improve the article is still appreciated however! NancyHeise ^talk 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Name Change

WP Naming Conventions do not require Roman for the Catholic Church, unless it is a reference to only the Western Rite of the CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a title such as Catholic teaching on the Ten Commandments or Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments. This could set a pattern for a series of articles titled Catholic doctrine regarding X. --Richard (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. I like Catholic Teaching on X. "Regarding" sounds a bit awkward to me. And, as you say, there is a value in rationalizing titles so they correspond to each other. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... any objections to moving this article to Catholic teaching on the Ten Commandments? --Richard (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the right question. What is the clear and present necessity of moving this article? WP:Naming conventions#Controversial_names says: "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles." Gimmetrow 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the title of this article should be renamed. The only article where name has been an issue is Catholic Church and the only reason it was an issue is because of Gimmetrow and Soidi's persistent gripes. Catholics and non-Catholics couldn't care less but we were forced into a year long battle and mediation just to be able to tell Reader what the official name of the Church really is. The name of this article was discussed and changed once already to the present name (see peer review or archive). Please don't change the article name unless there is sufficient input from those experienced and knowledgeable editors who have already worked on the page, I think it would be unfair to them to do so, thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you, there is another interpretation of that dispute. Gimmetrow 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and move it if no one objects. --Rockstone (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article yet again, to Richard's proposed title above. I have no opinion on whether this should be the permanent title. I object to the title using just the word "Catholocism" as Catholocism in Wikipedia does not refer only to the entity sometimes known as the Roman Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This article's name is too long. Previous one was very good. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism certainly sounds more scholarly. NancyHeise ^talk 20:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to change it back to Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism but I don't know how to do that. NancyHeise ^talk 20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could try moving it back and see if it works. It will work if there is no page history to the redirect. Wikipedia won't let you delete the redirect if there appears to be a page history behind it. See this section of WP:MOVE for the full explanation

If there is a page history to the page, then you will need the assistance of an admin to delete the target page first. I could do it but I think it would be better for you to determine if the move back to the original title has a consensus behind it. (P.S. I oppose the move back so that's at least two !votes for the current title and two !votes for the original title. Sounds like more discussion is called for. Moving it back in the absence of consensus would smack of ownership.)

--Richard (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, thank you for showing me what to do. I will not move it back although I think the former title was more intelligent. You seem to feel otherwise I see. Not a big deal. NancyHeise ^talk 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is first think what I would type if I want to find this article. I believe that most users prefere small headlines. BTW article is great. I will try to translate it on Serbian language.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 07:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! NancyHeise ^talk 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think

I think it is important to say that the statement that says "it's ok to refuse chemotherapy and radiation" I think the article should say as long as there is not a significant chance then can you refuse it, the reason being is that you should take care of your body not just let it die. I need some references to prove that I am right. User:BennyK95 10:51, 4 October 2009

I added wording to that sentence to make it clearer that it is talking about a person who is terminally ill. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Headline

I think that such long headline is the worst solution. Ten Commandments in Catholicism (or Roman Catholicism) is simplier and more elegant. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2