Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 4

5185:

to summarize Christian theology on this point - and there's a lot of theological thinking that's been done on the atonement. What we have does correctly identify the key thought, which is that Christians understand the death of Christ as expressing God's mercy while at the same time satisfying his justice (or, perhaps even better, without compromising his justice). Given the discussion so far, I'd suggest stepping away from the adjectives "divine" and "perfect" and adding two sentences to make the implied concepts (which I do believe are fully supported by the source, and for which other sources can be found) explicit. One would say that Christians understand the mercy as being rooted in God's nature. The second would say that Christians understand the atonement to be necessary for God to be able to express that mercy without compromising his justice. I would suggest that we don't need a source explicitly tying the discussion back to Dawkins by name. Dawkins is being used here as an example of an issue that's been raised many times by many different people (that's why we have theologians discussing the problem of reconciling mercy, justice and the crucifixion of Jesus centuries before Mr. Dawkins was born). He's a good example, because people recognize the name, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that we can't give the Christian response on the issue unless that response was addressed specifically to him.

557:

the possible ambiguity you mention though the point about Christian antipathy in general towards homosexuality in the past is valid as is modern intolerance amongst some Christians who strongly believe in the inerrancy of the bible and what they take as as its explicit hostility towards homosexuality. I would balance this with authoritative Christian refs that denounce unjust discrimination and persecution against homosexuals that are more representative of the modern world. There appears to be undue weight given to the Westboro issue and this needs rectifying. Good refs can be given about the perceived genocidal behaviour shown in the OT. I don't think its wise to ignore these incidents solely because they take place outside the NT and is therefore not uniquely Christian. Mainstream Christianity teaches the trinity and that the God of the NT, Jesus, is one with the God of the OT and to suggest otherwise introduces polytheism. Citations also are generally lacking and this has to be rectified. Will wait for any more comments before embarking on any agreed rewrite.

5146:"Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows." (See Knowledge (XXG)). Now the point of each article in an encyclopaedia is really to inform people of things that they do not yet know. The issue is how do people trust what they read ?. In Knowledge (XXG) we use reliable sources that back up what is said in the article. It's a bit nebulous a definition and in this case I am not saying the reference is unreliable but that it doesn't match what is claimed. You are saying that people must infer the meaning from within themselves. This defeats the whole idea of the encyclopaedia as a vehicle to inform if it is just preaching to the faithful. Heck we have Conservapedia for that nonsense. If this is a widespread concept of what atonement is then it must be trivial for you to find a reliable source that uses such a sentence construction. Right now I cannot make the sentence out of the reference because many of the words are missing. I am under no obligation to infer they exist. 4693:

without sin. He is perfect. Humans, by their very nature are not perfect, and we sin. We are doomed to hell because of our sins. There exists a void between perfect God and imperfect man. Before Christ, everyone went to hell. So basically, what God has done, is taken on human form in Christ, so that he would die, go to hell for three days (in our place), and then rise and open the Gates of Heaven so that anyone who believes in Him and repents of their sins will not go to hell, but have everlasting life in Heaven. The reason he could not just "save us" automatically, is because he would not be a just God if He did that. It was a merciful act to pay the price to spare us from hell, and that's why "divine mercy" is being used. As for "perfect justice", since God is just, and perfect, and paying the price to spare us from hell maintains those qualities, he remains so. --

960:

find that questionable. In fact, you seem to be dead set on ignoring the unsourced POV content that I sought to balance with my edits, even after I pointed that content out to you. That is to say, the unsourced POV content of that "someone who got away with it" (thank you for your acknowledgement of that, by the way) is the content my edits go toward balancing, even if my contributions lack sources. So, I have to ask, if your interest is in NPOV, which I hope it is, why ignore those other edits while attacking mine? Why are you not demanding sources for that content while demanding sources for the content that balances it? Now, please talk to Jerry1964 or stop talking to me. You are wasting my time, and that is time that I should be--and have been--spending looking for sources. Thank you.

209:

of his own version of Christianity (in which Jesus was an Aryan who came to defeat the Jews, which is certainly not a general Christian belief), German paganism, and Hinduism. Stalin's religious beliefs are also debatable, but he is still generally believed to be an atheist. Mao was definitely an Atheist. Also, while New World colonialism was sanctioned by the Catholic Church, specifically the killing of the indigenous people was not, and if you are referring to American Indians, that had little if anything to do with Christianity. Either way, Communism killed far more people in the 20th century than Christianity, or for that matter, any ideology, and since atheism was a major part of nearly all Communist regimes, Atheism has killed more people than Christianity in modern times.

2800:

biased so the experts could do something and after reading up a little many others agreed with me. Explain to me how that is pushing my POV on anyone more than you telling me how annoyed you are with me pushing a POV? I already know the policies regarding neutrality, which is why I wanted to change the article so it mentioned less counter criticism and more information on the criticisms actually are. How can you even try to tell me that's not what I was doing? I'll quote my original comment- " Half of the article was about apologetic christians! This definitely has a bias and a definite POV," "I wouldn't hate a little section on counter criticism," the point I was trying to make was obvious and you, sir, need a definite bit of getting over yourself.

1778:

a hell of a lot easier! The overwhelming images used to support his disputed claims areridiculous. I realize most people see that section and disregard it because they realize a sympathetic person wrote it, they know that person hasn't read many books other htan Christian ones, but it is still quite annoying. Also Logan, it's very obvious you're not the type of person who goes out of his way to learn about things which stimulate your own curioisity. I've noticed you continually put the same material in the article, even after other sources have contradicted it (you even have the oppurtunity to read further and advance your knowledge), yet you delete the new material and stick with past edits because they limit the doubts that rise upon your beliefs.

5229:

uses. It may be what some people infer about atonement but the reference talks about a number of models, specifically, the ransom, Moral Exemplar and satisfaction theory (which has three variants, debt-cancellation theory, the penal substitution theory and the penitential substitution theory). Give that the reference also states that "the penal substitutionary model is perhaps the most widely accepted among laypersons in the church; but it has been widely rejected by philosophers and theologians" the reference thus not only fails to balance Dawkins but it isn't clear that what we have written is representative anyway given laypersons, philosophers and theologians can't agree themselves.

5016:

mercy being far greater and purer than "regular" human mercy, God's divine mercy is to do with saving the souls of those heavily in sin from eternal regret and punishment in hell, as opposed to "human" mercy which is a mercy for various other things that Christians would call "trivial" in comparison. Furthermore, since the belief is that God is doing these things, then the actions will have a divine characteristic to them. It is an essential component of the information presented regarding Christianity. Ilkali, you are not the only non-Christian or even Atheist I have to edit with, but you are certainly the most non-neutral of them -

541:

mainstream Christian group comments on their poor excuse of a church, they are pretty much compleatly denounced. It's not just "extremist", its more like "Not even recognized as Christian by pretty much every halfway notable Christian source from any end of the spectrum". I think the reason nobodies given more specific concerns about many of these sections recently is that, quite frankly, it would be really hard. Not because of some bad-faith effort to just censor criticism or something like that requiring us to wikilawyer like mad, but because there's just so many things wrong it takes quite awhile to examine this stuff in-depth.

4254:. It strikes me as off topic for this article, which is focused on criticisms of Christianity as a whole. Most of the content of the "within" section deals with internal disputes between different Christian denominations, criticism of Christianity as an intellectual belief system rather than a personal relationship with Jesus, or criticism of institutionalizing Christianity. Ultimately, they're all arguments for a particular kind of Christianity or particular understanding of Christianity, rather than arguments against Christianity. Those are all valid topics for wikipedia, but would seem better suited someplace else. 2613:

christians! This definitely has a bias and a definite POV about how every criticism of Christianity is wrong. I wouldn't hate a little section on counter criticism but this is pathetic. And I doubt the truthfulness of the counter criticisms anyways- just because one person nobody has ever heard of before says Christians LOVED science in the middle ages, that makes it true? Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith and his magic mormon stones. And please remove any ideas from Dinesh D'Souza from this article. I have no idea how to properly edit wikipedia but it seems to me this article needs a neutrality update.

1792:

is valid and much of the ignorant masses are unaware of this, the material must stand, whether it causes you to question your beliefs or not. I must admit, I've never crossd two more "contentious" people in my life. I wish you devoted your rigid behaviors into finding out how things are, rather than continually presenting your case without even stopping for a second to ask "Is what I believe true? What is the evidence against my beliefs? Shouldn't I search it out and read everything I can? Wouldn't that make me a smarter and better Christian? Think of all the power I can amass"?.

536:

frankly, I question their reliability period. For instance, "Christian fundamentalists often use passages in the Bible to criticize homosexuality, and because of the influence of such biblical teachings during the Middle Ages, for centuries, homosexual acts were punishable in Europe by death. Even today, Christian groups, particularly in America, are accused of being at the forefront of homophobia, with extremists such as the Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of murdered homosexuals.". First of all, the first sentence appears to be historically impossible,

3004:

need these common folk to come on OUR website. God all I was doing was pointing something out and you have officially made me never want to go on wikipedia ever again. I'll stick with encarta from now on, where they have actual editors and not whiny college libertarians posting things as THEY see it. Besides, sometimes it takes people from extremes to notice where the neutrality is off you little prick, so stick to your stupid community of people who are only qualified because they know computers and I'll enjoy actual information that I can cite on a paper.

2909:

you would hate to see anything that supports criticisms because you have archaic beliefs like anti-gay marriage and *ew* Ron Paul support. Sorry if I offended your Christian views but if you want to keep the article full of how it is with all these debunkings of criticisms instead of actual information on what the article is supposed to be about, go ahead. By the by, Ron Paul is a racist and pro-life is for pansies. Thanks, have a good day, I'm done arguing because like the rest of your fellow believers you have an inability to admit that you were wrong.

5328:). As a result, there's much less direct response to him when he talks about theological issues such as the atonement. If we want to include the direct back and forth on theology, we can report this part straight up - "Dawkins said . . . , they said 'he doesn't know what he's talking about,' he said 'yeah, well, I don't have to . . .'" It doesn't do much to help readers understand the intellectual issues surrounding the atonement, but it really is the Christian response to the man on issues of theology. That would give us something along the lines of: 1608:

scientific study is in the modern world, it is important to note that Knowledge (XXG) does not make any claim to the truthfulness of any particular view; it simply reports the scope of views on the subject. As such, the claims of the "scientific community" are about as valid as the claims of any Pope or Patriarch, or theologian, and so on. The relevance of a source or scholar to the topic must be addressed, but the removal of information because the sources are "sympathetic to Christianity" is a violation of NPOV, as I have explained below.

1986:

of Joshua where God commanded the Earth to stand still. Martin Luther rejected Copernicus' theory of that the Earth revolves around the sun on the very grounds of the book of Joshua. All of the above information highlighted is not true, and coincedentially, all of it is written by philosophers (historians of science are philosophers, i dont know if u know this) who are apologist Christians - the very goal of their works is to reconcile Christian faith with evidence that is uncomforting. None of these beliefs in Bold is true.

1928:

the astronomical systems of Ptolemy (who thought that the sun and planets revolved around the earth) and Copernicus (who thought the earth and planets revolved around the sun). He states in his A personal Voyage that Ptolemy's belief was "supported by the church through the Dark Ages... effectively prevented the advance of astronomy for 1,500 years."Sagan rebukes claims that religion and science did not have an antagonizing relationship in the Medieval era by explaining the axioms of Copernicus' discovery:

1540:"sympathetic to Christianity" is ridiculous and is a violation of NPOV again, unless one is willing to delete those who are opposed to Christianity as well; every one has a particular bias, and NPOV is meant to include opinions from all throughout the studies of the subject, not to eliminate sympathetic opinions. That sort of thinking is very troubling. This article, to adhere to WP:NPOV, should include opinions of those who are against Christianity, for Christianity, and who sit somewhere in the middle.-- 1965:, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.Also, some today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have suggested that Christianity with its particular worldview was actually a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science. 3323:

principles and doctrines of Christianity, nor does any Christian Church support them. You're going to need references before you add in information about fundamentalist units in the US. Finally, KKK is not a Christian based terrorist organization either; they're driven by racial supremacy and like the Lord's resistance army have no Church backing, nor can they cite anything from the Scriptures to support their claim. Let me sum it up; references, so don't delay, go find them today!!!

4419:. It would seem fairly safe to drop the summary we have here. The real question would seem to be whether there's any other, more general material that is relevant to the broader issue of criticizing Christianity as a whole. The most likely candidates would seem to me to be the first and last paragraphs of the section. Peter is suggesting that the last paragraph is more an intramural issue - I'm not familiar enough with it to offer an informed opinion. 31: 2498:. Also where are the sections dealing with extremistist using Christianity as an excuse for their actions like the KKK and various other US based evangelical militancy groups - like with Al Qaeda in Islam? I'm also hoping to start such a section and work on improving this article. I'm not a pro on wiki, and not sure how to go about doing that, so I' really appreciate any help or advice. Please PM me if your free to help. Thanks. :) 4869:

really say anything about our character ("do you want the curry or the kebabs?"; "Why did he knock you over? Because the other guy pushed him."). There are other things we do because we could not do anything else and remain true to ourselves. When a theologian says something flows from the nature of God, he means that it's a direct expression of God's character, and that God could not do otherwise and remain true to Himself.

1369:

proclaiming that critics criticize the "contradictions in the Bible", with the presumption that contradictions definently exist, I really don't see how it isn't blatantly obvious that such content isn't neutral and never will be. Plus, a whole bunch of content was changed at once, is it too much to assume that someone should, I don't know, discuss with editors what they want to radically re-write before they radically re-write?

1851:

views on the topic (assuming the sources comply with policy). I have the nagging fear that you're displaying article ownership and disregard for policy by removing or discounting views with which you disagree. Your last paragraph above is of an unacceptable tone. Please exhibit neutrality and a concern to work with others on the issue, and most importantly, to listen to users who are more experienced with Knowledge (XXG).--

1576:

are sympathetic in nature. See here: "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Logan, I know your familiar with Knowledge (XXG) rules but it seems as if you're stretching them so you can add and erase material in order to present a favorable page for your Christian beliefs. This again, is in violation of Knowledge (XXG) rules. - Biblical1

1567:. Also, the debate centering around the antagonistic relationship between Science and Christianity is a fact not up for dispute. Galileo, Copernicus, and Giordano Bruno are three pertinent examples of the Pope's reluctance to accept evidence from the discoveries of the scientific community because they didn't accord with literal translations of the Bible. This area needs to be altered to to take into account these facts. 3791:"Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in the Pauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status. Professor Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Augustine, Tertullian and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition." 2471:, the article should provide rebuttals, but now entire paragraphs are devoted to apologetics without even attempting to rebut a specific criticism. I suggest that in order to conform to NPOV, apologetics which do not attach to a specific criticism should be removed. Furthermore, criticisms also need to be precise and sourced. I will hopefully post more details here in the next few days. 3307:, such as the KKK and various other groups like other fundamentalist militants in the Us and "The Lord's army" militia in Africa. I'm still a rookie here, and don't know exactly how to go around starting a new section/using the Sandbox feature, so please ny help is very appreciated. Please contact me on my userpage or just reply here, thanks. And please excuse anything I do wrong. 978:, "Although everything in Knowledge (XXG) must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I challenged the Joan of Arc paragraph, it should be attributed, especially the "political" remark. You can challenge things too. -- 518:

and political writer Noam Chomsky has argued that the Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history.". First of all, where's the quote coming from? Second of all, it's more or less just a single claim repeated a bunch. The Old Testament is also definently a humungous stretch to use, as Christianity did not exist at all in the Old Testament, at best, that would belong in

3826:

context. The section on women is a good example here as well. Christianity has been criticized for its treatment of women. To put that into proper context, it's important to understand that Christian views of the role of women vary widely from very traditionalist to actively feminist. Noting the three prevailing views is neither pro nor con - it simply sets the context.

1632:

makes the reversion/lookup of bad revisions essentially impossible. Additionally, one would ideally give an edit summary with each change, so as to provide reasoning behind each action. I ask again that you make changes in this manner, because it's the proper way to do things, and makes it easier for all of us to share our opinions concerning the direction of the article.--

772:). This is a very well studied topic and there are aggregations of criticisms, there is no need for the article to consist of OR with claims like "Most X do this" "Many Y do that" when there are sources which make those claims and can be cited. Any meta-criticism, that is aggregation of criticism, criticism of criticism should be cited to avoid OR in this article. -- 1932:

strives to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun or the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

442:

make any sense to hope to go to Heaven, but because the reader is not yet there, he or she is encouraged to maintain his/her hope in eternal life. I don't what the neutral point of view would be here, but I'm just trying to point out that there are certainly multiple interpretations of this verse, just as their are of most if not all Bible verses.

2874:

a lot like Joseph Smith and his magic mormon stones. And please remove any ideas from Dinesh D'Souza from this article." This indicates that you are out to push your POV, not build an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if the article is biased right now, based on that comment you'd like to replace it with another bias. That's not neutral at all. --

2067: 1924:

science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas. A popular example was the supposition that people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was round.

5618:

Churches, interpret the word "Son of God" as in "from God" - in the same way that a British person would be a "Son of Britannia". Thus, perhaps this distinction could be made to answer against the accusation of being similar to Greco-Roman mythology, since the two are not as similar in nature as the words "Son of" suggest.

3714:, which appears to draw from a lack of suitable sources. (I have more sources I could add to the article, but little time with which to do it.) The subsection on the Afterlife, while interesting and well-sourced, has nothing to do with the subject of the article and should be moved elsewhere. Do we have an article 1220:

and myths, and subsequently that those religions and myths are largely borrowed from those before them. Let me get you started: Read about the birth of King Sargon in Babylonian myth, and then read about the birth of Moses. Once you've done that, check out Oedipous and Judas. And so on. Rinse, repeat.

5184:

Let's not forget that this particular sentence is sourced. We can discuss whether the sentence accurately summarizes the source, and we can discuss whether better sources are available, but no one's making this up out of whole cloth. It's tricky here because someone has tried, in a single sentence,

5060:

I agree it sounds like original research. The wording is "greatest expression of divine mercy God could give while still maintaining perfect justice" and we have 1 ref. Is this wording supported by the reference ? The reference doesn't contain the words "greatest", "expression", "mercy" (and thus not

5015:

It is not a matter of neutrality; and yet it is not redundant to say divine either. It is, what it is. God shows divine mercy, and it is different from human mercy. This is a Christian understanding and belief. Its different from human mercy for a number of reasons some of which include; God's divine

4799:

Well, it's not my sentence, so I don't have any pride of authorship here. I suspect the motivation for saying "divine mercy" is to indicate that the mercy flows from the nature of God, just as the motivation for saying "human mercy" would be to indicate that the mercy flowed from human nature or was

4676:

Sarcasm aside, I do not believe that the quote from the article actually makes sense, for example, what are, "divine mercy," and, "perfect justice," supposed to mean? It sounds like the sort of quote designed to silence the critic by actually saying nothing. colostomy explosion is a rock band in the

4368:

There's nothing wrong with including criticisms from Christians, though I'd rather see them included in topic (e.g. criticisms by Christians of the church's treatment of women) than a separate section. BUT the existing "Within Christianity" section is all about inter-denominational disputes. Even the

4167:

Yes. It was once both a popular and academic argument that Christianity is an European or Western export, and Islamic extremists calling Middle Eastern Christians "Crusaders" doesn't help. Nowadays, it remains a popular criticism, although I doubt you will find any such decent sources for an academic

3815:

Are there more and better sources that could be used? Probably - that's not my area of expertise. But there is a real criticism expressed. Are there other sections that are too short? Absolutely - the Christianity and Politics section is really nothing more than a place holder right now. I added

3488:

Then adjust for it. You have cited one case. If that is the case for the rest of the sections, then correct it. But, this is for Useer:Aunt Entropy - don't remove stuff I am adding in, its not commentary, its Christian opinion. Christians do stress female equality, Catholics do stress the failures of

3322:

What you mean to say is, you would like to start a new section here and are looking forward to a consensus agreeing so. Needless to say, you will find some opposition to what you wish to insert, from me at least, and not least of all because the Lords Militia army has very little, if any, link to the

3272:{{cite web | title =Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible? | first =Richard N. | last=Ostling | authorlink=Richard Ostling | work= Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News | url =http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050917/ai_n15352881 |date=2005-09-17 | accessdate =2007-01-03 }} 3003:

Just because I hate Christianity, does that make a difference? I started to do this ONLY to try and fix the neutrality. No matter who says it, it is still true. Get over yourself. You are so pretentious about the fact that you are a wikipedia editor, how correct you are, how PERFECT you are, we don't

1791:

Peter, I will add incrementally. If anything is disputed, do so in the discussion. Also delusions about "not being neutral" is insulting. My only concern above all else is the truth, if it so happens that all criticism of christianity is rubbish, so be it, but if it happens that much of the criticism

1718:

Of course, we don't have to, because your reading of policy is incorrect. You confuse a statement in policy which refers to the written text put together by editors with the actual statements of the views and sources themselves. If you'd like to re-write WP:NPOV to suit your interpretation, I welcome

1631:

Finally, the deletion of the added material is in accordance with Peter's request that you add information incrementally. Make individual changes, because overhauling the entire article in a single edit is bad manners; it makes it extremely difficult for observing editors to note your changes, and it

1171:

Are you familiar with policy? You most definitely need citations for those sorts of statements, or else it may be 'original research'- which is not allowed on Knowledge (XXG). All these critical assertions should cite verifiable secondary sources, or they are possibly nothing more than the musings of

959:

My defense, which I have, is this: Most of your criticism directed toward me has nothing to do with the edits I made, so you can kindly stow that criticism or apologise for addressing it to me. My second defense is that some of your criticism directed toward me is in no way limited to my edits, and I

903:

I didn't put in ANY Bible quotations with original research commentary AT ALL. NONE. That would be Jerry1964. All the quotations in there were put in by Jerry1964 with his own personal commentary. I think they should be removed altogether unless feminist anti-Christian sources can be found mentioning

835:

The assumption with Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 is that those standing there must have died before they could see Christ's coming kingdom. As a reading of the book of Revelation shows, John in his "Revelation" saw Christ's coming, perhaps physically, because God gave him a revelation of

410:

An attempt was made to accommodate the points you have raised above but you appear to be still unhappy since you have reinstated the "weasel" words header. If you could be so kind as to point out exactly the specific sentence and words then we can change or discuss the reasons why they should remain.

385:

The first block of text under this section seems to have a similar problem as the analysis section did, it says a few things, but never actually criticizes Christianity. It says that "Semetic religions" create the notion of the afterlife and whatnot as an explanation for what happens after death, but

208:

Hitler's acts were done in the name of Christianity Not true. Hitler's persecution of Jews was not based on religion, but on ethnicity. Non practicing Jews were persecuted as much as practicing Jews, and Hitler persecuted the clergy in Poland. Hitler was not an atheist, but he practiced a strange mix

5279:

I would strongly object to leaving Dawkins in and dropping everything else. There are extensive Christian responses to what Dawkins has to say regarding science, but they don't take him seriously when he talks about theology because Dawkins himself admits that he doesn't take theology seriously and

4034:

It is a popular argument that the Bible, being so old and for a time seemingly so unlike ours is not only irrelevant but corrupted or manipulated - 2000 years contributing to no small part. Muslims criticize Christianity believing that the Bible is a corruption of the text, and this is easy to cite.

3598:

Please go away, yes. I am after all, a Christofacist. I believe in a 2000 year old book with numerous apparent inconsistencies and I would be very well if all individuals - agnostic, Christian, Muslim or anyone who used reason to leave me alone so I can mercilessly edit these articles. When you have

2908:

If my bias is not wanting a Christian bias, then yes, I guess that would be a bias. My god, I wasn't saying I was going to edit it to remove counter criticisms you still fail to understand I was just trying to have someone add more information on the actual criticisms. Judging by your profile though

2873:

You're the one that took it personally, not me. Allow me to quote you in case it went over your head : "And I doubt the truthfulness of the counter criticisms anyways- just because one person nobody has ever heard of before says Christians LOVED science in the middle ages, that makes it true? Sounds

2042:

Agreed. It could well be that some of the material should be removed, or edited for balance, or refuted with counter arguments - that would require a more thorough examination than I have the time for. But you can't just go deleting material because its authors are sympathetic to Christianity. There

1918:

Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and

1777:

It's best I suppose to add information as I go along. However, the stipulation to this "discussion" agreement is the Science section devoted to the disputed claims of "one Ted Peters" be condensed. I will let you present his views, though they aren't true, though I wish they were, it would make life

1621:

in respect to editors such as Peter and myself. It's easy to blame any dispute on the involvement of perceived bias, when in reality we're going out of our way to explain the actual, valid problems we have with your edits. Additionally, try not to call the kettle black, as I am aware of your own POV

1446:

because that was already discussed before, and there hasn't been a new consensus yet to support inclusion. I'd support reverting the major edit, and I'd support discussing the merits of each issue here on talk. (but personally, I think I agree with Peter that much of it was deleted for good reason).-

1355:

The page should be changed back to what it was containing the material about the inquisition and the bible passages. Two editors continually deleted this material with the contention it was against wikipedia rules, but they didnt' demonstrate this so the changes could be made, they just reverted it.

1219:

This article seems riddled with mad theories and criticisms that suppose the events of the bible are true. Where are the real arguments against christianity? Is this page being run by angsty teens? Any philologist worth his salt can show you that the Bible is largely borrowed from previous religions

1181:

I fully appreciate what you are saying, but I can't help feeling that the inclusion of so many 'citation needed' is a deliberate attempt to discredit this article - I have rarely if ever seen a page with so many, so frequently. If these were included through a genuine want for factual accuracy, then

1160:

Some christian-loving maniac has seriously set about trying to destroy this article by adding 'citation needed' to every damn sentence in it. A lot of the ideas presented here are about beliefs and logical concepts, not things that have to be proved by research. For example, there are various points

1069:

I have no especial comment to make regarding the use of citations (beyond that Knowledge (XXG) policy quite clearly bans original research and requires attribution) -- my main concern is with the use of the word "gender" in the context in which the article uses it. "Gender" refers to sociological or

826:

It should also be noted, however, that Jesus showed in John 8:7 that for people to execute such death penalties they must be without sin themselves. And Jesus chose to forgive her, having the prerogative to do so, being without sin Himself. Since Romans ch. 3 states all have sinned before God (Jesus

441:

Therefore, I think it may be possible that St. Paul is not condemning hope as being a sign of a weak faith, but rather he is encouraging hope as something that is the logical option when the promise of Heaven has not yet been fulfilled. In other words, if someone were already in Heaven, it wouldn't

5617:

There is one major flaw in this. The vast majority of Christian denominations do not believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God in the same way that Hercules is the son of Zeus or what have you. Rather, these Christian denominations, which include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Mainline Protestant

5236:

and it's been two years since the documentary. We could compromise if the reference was worded as a rebuttal to critics of atonement but it isn't. It only refers to critics in the section on the trinity. I think it is fair to cull what we've got for the moment rather than tagging it as I think this

5082:

Where is this going? We have one editor suggesting that it is not neutral; in which case infinite reliable references will not do. Now we have a complaint that its OR? A reference is not suppose to back up word for word everything written in an article; rather it is hoped people are smart enough to

4645:

The quote from the article "Christians often respond to this objection by claiming that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was the greatest expression of divine mercy God could give while still maintaining perfect justice" contains no citation, which coupled with the fact that it doesn't make any

4146:

I tend to agree. So much has been said about eurocentrism and multiculturalism that I can't believe that someone hasn't criticized Christianity for being too eurocentric. I don't personally have any sources ready to hand, though. I'm sure it was criticized during Europe's colonial expansion, but

3112:

His comment was in bad faith. That was obvious. I assume good faith of newcomers who have demonstrated that they will make good faith contributions, and welcome them accordingly. But when your first edit is trolling a talk page, that is not indicative of someone who will be an asset to the project.

3106:

Well said! Pwnage8's behavior is unacceptable, and our anonymous friend is owed an apology. Being personally attacked, at great length, for pointing out the strong need for improvement, is an abomination. Knowledge (XXG) is trying to grow and become a better / more valuable service. The hostile

2688:

Please ignore Pwnage8's discouraging remark. Knowledge (XXG) is set up so anyone can edit it. In fact, one of the best ways to get things fixed is to do them yourself. If you need help learning the ropes, feel free to contact me. In the mean time, I have left you a welcome message on your talk page

1985:

Everything I highlighted in Bold is missing credible evidence. I'm a neuroscientist. My domain is science. The reason people believe Science and Religion did not mix was because up until 400 years ago, the Earth was viewed as the Center of the Universe because of the literal translation of the book

1959:

Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.Historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,and Ted Davis also have been revising the common notion — the product of

1946:

The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture, but the same is not true among today's academics on the topic.Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by

1927:

This notion of a war between science and religion (especially Christianity) remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Similar views have also been supported by many scientists. The astronomer Carl Sagan, for example, mentions the dispute between

1622:

from your posts on my talk page; as it is, I am not accusing you of making edits based on your POV, though the changes coincide enough that I could. The policy of assuming good faith means that I'll assume that you are misreading policy rather than deliberately violating it to push a particular POV.

1575:

Also the language must be changed. "Ted Peters points out" is what was currently in there. It must be changed to "Ted Peters claims", the words "points out" is in violation of the fact that the claim is up for dispute. Also your Christian works violate the neutral point of view policy because they

1474:

Peter - The material needs to be reassessed. I've worked hard on lots of it, please realize that all of it is accurate according to the rules required by Knowledge (XXG) according to content. This page is dedicated to all criticism of Christianity, whether it's good or bad criticism doesn't matter.

1288:

and administrator. I have pointed out that the anon's presentation of the events were rather unfair, and I've explained the reasons behind the reversions, which were all in line with policy and therefore were justified. As far as I was told, the editor whose advice had been requested agrees with my

969:

Your edits appeared in the block of edits after my edits. Your edits were not really any better than Jzyehoshua's edits. Both were generally unsourced or poorly sourced. I'm demanding all content be sourced, and sourced well. There is no excuse in an article such as this one, there are huge bodies

921:

Why not "no quality links in attack and original research"? The entire section is original research because neither attack nor defense have any sources at all. I'm just on NPOV damage control trying to present both sides in a neutral way until I have some time to find sources for either side. Until

767:

This article (like many other Criticism Articles) suffers from poor sourcing. The first issue with poor sourcing is the lack of sources. Some of you might argue that a lot of this is commonly held knowledge, well it isn't for me or others, I want to see the sources where these criticisms come from.

517:

The intolerance section starts off pretty terrible, "Claims that Christianity is the one true religion have led Christians to fight wars to enforce their belief in an "unwilling, heathen world". Critics have also noted the prevalence of warfare in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Linguist

181:

You're right. Stalin didn't touch upon true communism. However, they took certain principles. Karl Marx said that religion was basically a plague on mankind. The fake communists then started practicing Atheism in China and USSR and prosecuting religious people. But chances are, if Karl Marx said he

164:

Stalin didn't even begin to touch upon Communism. The USSR was not a classless society, it was haves and have nots (ruling and working class) and the state/ruling class owned everything while the working class owned nothing and was forced to work. That is the opposite of Communism. Don't even begin

5149:

If I dig deeper I see that the claim is that "Christians often respond...." and this is in reply to criticism by Dawkins. Given the huge amount of media comment in reply to Dawkins it must be trivial to find someone moderately notable that addresses the issue of atonement in reply to Dawkins. I am

5107:

No, people are not compelled to have to "read between the lines" and interpret what is being said, what is said should be obvious and supported by references. What is being said in this sentence is meaningless drivel because it isn't supported by the references. If the reference supported what was

4960:

Non-neutrality is rarely trivial. The problem here is that this adjective is completely redundant, giving it the pulpit-esque quality I mentioned earlier. We all know that everything God does is divine by definition, so the only reason to describe it that way is to reinforce a particular religious

4453:

I'm looking to get this whole thing remodelled. If the last paragraph stays, fine, but the rest is interdenominational squabbling. We need to find Christians who criticize aspects of Christianity in terms of its organized religion , perhaps. The thing is, because Christianity itself is so diverse,

3958:

In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its statement of faith, opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention. In recent years, there has

3131:

He/she had concerns about the neutrality of the article. Yes, they could have been a bit more polite about it, but biting their head off from the outset is hardly giving them a role model to follow in the future. Since you were actually aware of various policies on Knowledge (XXG), you handled the

2408:

I largely agree with your points. Like many articles on issues with sharply divided opinions, it has suffered from bits-and-pieces editing, often by overzealous editors - e.g. editors who apparently chopped out the entire argument one way before putting in their rebuttal. Other sections, and their

2178:

I was expecting something far more critical, after reading the first sections, I've "learned" that Christianity loves and nurtured Science and is in fact great for women! some sections are in fact counter-criticisms directed toward skeptics and the anti-christian viewpoint! this article is lacking

1962:

These historians believe that not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the

1923:

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 14th century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).During the nineteenth century developed what scholars today call the conflict thesis (or the warfare model, or the Draper-White thesis). According to it, any interaction between religion and

1912:

According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggests this view but these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex, according to

556:

I agree the opening is not very good, especially with lack of source ref. However the assertion that wars have been fought with strong religious undertones, not just the crusades, can be backed with good authoritative refs. The sentence you mention about homophobia will need rewritten to eliminate

503:

Since an article already exists dealing with "Criticism(s) of Religion" in general, I think everything that does not deal specifically with Christianity should be taken out. The intro to the section can mention that Christianity is also subject to criticisms that are common to other religions and

436:

This may just be because I'm used to reading the NIV translation of Romans 8:24 and not the KJV, but instead of the idea that "mere hope to Paul is an unacceptable sign of uncertainty," I think this verse may actually be saying that it doesn't make sense to hope for something that one already has.

149:

Plus, one big reason why Stalin was persecuting the religious people was because the theory of communism didn't really like religion. Hell, if the theory of communism said how everybody should be Christian, I guess Stalin would say that everybody had to be Christian and persecute those who weren't

5228:

for some apologetics on atonement. We're not discussing atonement but criticism of atonement. Our "Christians often respond...." sentence is nonsensical in that it doesn't address Dawkins' criticism in any way and uses word sequences not in the reference and it doesn't make it clear what model it

4907:

I don't see why we are bickering over something so trivial. Ilkali, with all due respect, you seem to be questioning the plausibility of the content, not the relevance of it in the article. The plausibility of the content is a matter of faith, and I suggest we abandon this discussion and move on.

4868:

that?" the answer is "because she didn't think she had any other choice," or "because he made her," or "because she didn't know what else to do," or "because she was afraid" - but sometimes the answer is "because that's just the kind of person she is." Some things we choose to do, and they don't

3825:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "Response" subheadings. I think people are smart enough to tell when the discussion has shifted from "con" to "pro" - and not everything that belongs in a well-written article is necessarily black or white. Sometimes there's information that simply provides more

2712:

Thanks Andrew c. Obviously you didn't read my edit Pwnage, I didn't say I didn't want the response to criticisms but when an article about specific criticisms barely discusses the criticisms the article and instead seems to be about Christians getting upset because they are being criticized, that

2357:

is a bit of a loaded heading. The idea that Christianity is inherintly incompatible with science is only one of many criticisms relating the two things. More commonly people argue that the church has persecuted scientists, hindered the growth of science, or the scientific worldview. Presumably

1931:

This Copernican model worked at least as well as Ptolemy's crystal spheres, but it annoyed an awful lot of people. The Catholic Church later put Copernicus' work on its list of forbidden books, and Martin Luther described Copernicus in these words... People give ear to an upstart astrologer who

1562:

Hi Logan. The Science and Christiantiy section with information included by a book from Ted Peters violates the Verifiability rule, because it does not qualify as a "reliable source". To be a reliable source it must either have been approved by the scientific community or scientific journals. Ted

1539:

Yes, I agree- incremental changes are preferable. Also, I assume you mean "no" original research. And by the way, there seems to be some confusion over what "NPOV" means. Deleting non-critical books from the Further reading section is not NPOV, and it hurts the article. Deleting opinions to those

1465:

Andrew C - There doesn't need to be a consensus over the material posted, it only has to be neutral, original research, and be attributed to some authors views. The Bible scripture passages are all referenced with 100s of manhours behind them. Just because some Christians find it controversial to

1199:

Even if this is a deliberate attempt, it's opened the door to something that should be undertaken. I'm not here to comment about the state of the article, I was just responding to a comment which didn't display knowledge of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. Whether the act was intended to discredit the

1110:

I mean no particular trouble, but you're referring to an artificial construct in the word "gender." Its semiotic value overlaps with "sex" on physiological grounds also. The distinction made here is a late adaptation of the English language that is only accepted in closed academic circles for the

839:

The assumption needed for Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:29-34 is that "this generation" means what we think in terms of, a time period measuring roughly that of a human's life span. However, the Greek word genea which we have translated generation can mean simply "age, generation, nation, or time"

786:

I saw this page didn't do a very good job of being neutral or presenting Christian defenses, so I tried to maintain a neutral voice while presenting the alternative side. However, the Afterlife section now clearly contradicts itself unfortunately. I don't however, believe this my fault, since I

535:

The thing is, a whole bunch of these sections have these sort of problems, and alot of them just don't seem worth saving here very much. Looking into the rest of this section, there doesn't seem to be any attempt at all to present any point of view beyond the matter-of-fact accusations, and quite

5223:

After thinking about it a bit, the criticism is from Dawkins and Dawkins is providing valid Criticism of Christianity (in that it comes from a well cited documentary) so our reply, if any, really must address what he says as that would be encyclopaedic rather than what it appears now, which is a

4309:

article does include internal critics. They strike me as broader in scope and better integrated into the article than what we have here. How would you feel about dropping the stuff about "intramural" debates between churches and denominations (such as the East/West Schism and the Reformation),

3223:

One would expect that if each of these sub-topics is more fully discussed in a separate article, then the sections in "Criticism of Christianity" would be concise summaries of the actual criticisms and that the large linked article would perhaps be more elaborate with responses to the criticism.

3219:

Speaking as a reader, I tend to agree with these statements. This entry is a sprawling monstrosity - every other section has a link to a larger article. It's so cobbled together and illogically complex it would be best to implode it and start from scratch, but with a rational outline as a guide.

1955:

In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science as we know it who

1942:

Regarding Copernicus' thought, he is said to "have quipped that this would be comparable to somebody riding on a cart or in a ship and imagining that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving." Peters concludes that "spoken in jest, such items ought not to be interpreted as

1850:

What troubles me, though, is your blatant lack of concern for NPOV. Please read your above comment to yourself, and imagine how clear it is to everyone else that you feel that your own beliefs take center stage. Knowledge (XXG) does not make any claims for truth; it intends to report all notable

1832:

Please, don't make any assumptions about me, because you have a habit of making assumptions about me which are insulting. I haven't "added" anything, by the way, but I've only reverted your changes which I would say are misguided and unsupported by policy. Your removal of "Christian sympathetic"

1745:

Actually my main criticism is not the POV material (that is easy enough to fix, at least in pricicple), but the wholesale dumping of material. Some of it duplicated existing sections. If Biblical1 retreived this from an earlier version of this article (which appears to be the case), then this is

1445:

I agree. Since these changes have been proven time and again to be controversial, why not instead of making one big change, instead make individual proposals here on talk. This way, we can see if there is a consensus to include any of this. I've already removed the biblical contradiction quotes,

1335:

Christianity often claims credit for the abolition of slavery but very little is said of how it underpinned slavery. Africans & others were enslaved largely not on grounds of race but religion. This is why slave-trading was abolished first - because it could lead to Christians being owned by

1008:

Perhaps I was showing you how to combat direct bible quotations as an excuse for sourcing. I also enjoy your Western-centric attitude it is refreshing. I'm just asking that editors support their edits with actual evidence. There is really no excuse given the huge body of literature on the topic.

895:

The Joan of Arc content is just common historical knowledge cited in her article. We need an image for that section, and it's about gender, so Joan of Arc is relevant. The current caption should be agreeable to everyone. It's factually accurate and doesn't imply any POVs. As for the rest of your

347:

BE BOLD! You should always feel comfortable about archiving discussion pages. When very active keep the last two weeks; when less active keep the past month. We can't lose anything and it is easily returned should an editor feel like a specific point was not satisfactorily brought to conclusion.

3457:

The Responses section does not house all the responses. Almost every point in the article (and some others beside) are addressed in their relevant sections. See, for example, the slavery section. As it stands, the first sentence is: "The practice of slavery in the West predates the emergence of

3360:

There is barely a paragraph for the Response section and until I edited it, it was only a minor subsection under "Origin". Needless to say, having several times more bytes worth of criticism of Christianity than responses to the criticism suggest missing information and a POV is generated. Many

2835:

Also, apparently you REALLY misunderstand me by telling me I'm in a "situation," I would dislike the article on christianity for every section to be filled with reasons why it's bad as much as I dislike an article on criticisms to be filled with people saying why the criticisms are bad. I'm not

2799:

Now it seems you are taking this way too personally. I wasn't out to attack any christians, just the article that clearly is biased against criticisms of Christianity. What is wrong with you? I never claimed I was even going to attempt to edit the article, I was just pointing out that it seemed

1304:

This line seems incorrect to me: "A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization in 1873, and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. " Slavery was ended in England far earlier (America too). How could the first abolition group form after

1258:

The majority of the criticism of Christianity that I read about is from Atheists, who dislike it on rational grounds. Why is there nothing in the article about this? Previously the section about Alistair McGrath etc. was longer than the part about Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins' criticisms (which

831:

The verses above depend upon several assumptions for an interpretation of the Second Coming occurring within 100 years. The assumption needed for Matthew 10:22-23 is that the cities of Israel could have been gone over within a century, even with ideal conditions where Israel's leaders would not

4692:

Hobby.. lol. To understand why that wording is being used, one must understand the Christian perspective. The Christian God is a loving God, but he is also a just God. God is always right, and he is all-knowing. He cannot do a wrong thing and violate the order of the Universe He created. He is

4018:

The first sentence reads "Skeptics reject Christianity because of its reliance on the Bible, the most recent parts of which were written during the Roman period, almost 2000 years ago, with older parts dating back many centuries before that.". That's a huge oversimplification of any reasonable

5579:

You seem to be closing your ears to valid counter-criticism, which makes you what you accuse us of - biased. Faith and Reason are on two different dimensions my friend, and if you want to criticize something validly, your going to need understand it first - that means looking at the Christian

2314:

doesn't seem to contain criticisms of Christianity. What is the criticism being made? It seems to be surrounding the question of whether Jesus is a real historical figure. This is pertinent to some degree if we can identify people who have criticized Christianity on the basis of historical

935:

Well no, the Joan of Arc content is not "common knowledge". It should have a reference. It should be sourced! You have no defense, it is up to you the editor to provide backup to your edits! Just because someone who gets away with it doesn't mean you should do it too. If you posted well cited

682:

I think that there should be a section on Docetism and Arianism since they are very much alive today. Some people believe that Jesus Christ is only God, which is Docetism, and some believe that He is only man, which is Arianism. Also, in the "Example set by Christians" section, it says that

540:

arose in the late 19th century or so, so its quite impossible for Christian fundamentalist teachings to of influenced anything at all in the Middle ages. "Are accused of being at the forefront...." has no attribution, and the Westboro Baptist reference fails to mention that whenever some more

2612:

I would expect an article on the criticism of christianity to not be so anti-criticisms of christianity. This seems like a christian got a hold of everything and made every criticism piece into a whiny kid trying to weasel his way out of a punishment. Half of the article was about apologetic

1607:

As I've already noted, point 1 is a misunderstanding of policy. As for 2, Knowledge (XXG) is not a scientific journal. It includes disputed views as well as generally-accepted ones. The point of WP:NPOV is so that all such notable views are included when discussing a subject. As important as

4747:

Mercy extended by a divinity is typically described as "divine mercy," just as mercy extended by humans can be described as "human mercy." Reconciling mercy and justice is a classic theological issue. Critics argue that if God shows mercy, it must of necessity compromise his justice. The

3386:

I'd like to suggest integrating the responses into the specific sections on each topic, rather than having a long list of criticisms and then a long list of responses. So, for instance, responses to the criticisms of Christian views of women would be in the same section as the criticisms.

1368:

Actually, I only restored the original content once. I don't normally patrol this page actively, but when I see blatant OR coupled with massive, undiscussed alterations suddenly happen to an article on my watchlist, I'll most likely do something. Considering that the alterations started by

1805:

I don't have time to deal with you two now, but rest assured, the truth will be thrown in your faces. I can't make you accept it, but ignorance will always be your own ill doing. Have a nice sunday night. I wish you both emotional well-being even though I despise your beliefs and ways of

1589:

is a good place to start. I welcome you to add your disputed claims about science and christianity under the Christianity webpage - please refrain from violating wikipedia rules and seeing it as your mission to delete content against your Christian Beliefs. This is unacceptable and quite

104:

I removed the information and reference from a Dinesh D'Souza article about his belief that Hitler and Stalin were atheists and they caused more deaths than religion. Has anyone ever read any of this guy's stuff? He's a complete joke, and has even been ridiculed for his ability to use

1141:

There are numerous editors who are repeatedly removing sources and adding unsourced content to this article. Please provide references related to your edits. If it is criticism it means someone has written about it. Otherwise it would be OR and doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). See

1070:

psychological traits, whereas "sex" refers to the simple delineation between the state of being male and the state of being female. Since the article is referring to the latter topic in its Gender subsection, the uses of the word "gender" ought really to be substituted with "sex". --

821:

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (I Cor.

5480:

says that Dawkins criticism "only makes sense if you assume Christians made the whole thing up." He goes on to say that Christians view it as a beautiful sacrifice, and that "through the extremity of Golgotha, Christ reconciles divine justice and divine mercy." (Dinesh D'Souza,

5433:), and "es, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject." (Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. " 3082:

That behaviour was disgusting Pwnage8. By turning away editors that would rather discuss issues they have with an article on the article talk page, you've done the encyclopaedia a disservice. Please allow me to return your 'kindness' of pointing out policies by referring you to

3107:

antagonism Pwnage8 displayed works against that, while suggestions on what needs improvement ( whether they're polite or not ) in fact help Knowledge (XXG), at least when they're implemented. I dearly hope this behavior ends, immediately, so the public's encyclopedia can grow.

1089:

I thought the title "Christianity and women" was the best title so far. Both "sex" and "gender" are too vague and have subtly different meanings that may or may not be applicable here. "Gender roles" might be a more fitting title, although the content of that focuses more on

3339:

You may find many muslims feeling the same about the Al Qaeda section. I think that the introduction of ID and creationism into science classes in the US could be classed as a form of christian extremism. It only seems fair to either have the extremism in both of in none.

480:

concerns relating to these sections could they please raise them here with a view to resolving the issues, cleaning up the article in the process, and removing the warning headers. If no objections raised within two weeks then the headers, with agreement, will be removed.

1939:

Ted Peters, however, points out that the above remark didn't come from Luther's authored writings but rather from students who were taking notes. Ted states that Luther had only heard tales of Copernicus' new idea and didn't really have any serious engagements on this

1273:

So... two different editors revert an anon editor, removing obvious OR. The anon editor then complains to an administrator. IMHO the administrator was wrong to protect the page. S/he should have just ignored the complaint (or explained why the reverts were justified).

736:

I remember hearing that the acts of Paul & Thecla were excluded from the bible by a priest because Thecla was not acting "womanly" (i.e. refusing to marry, baptizing herself, and teaching christianity) but I have no source for this other than the History Channel.

1172:

a random Knowledge (XXG) editor. Additionally, I'm not sure who this editor is, but what makes you assume he is a Christian loving maniac? If it is because of the addition of these fact tags, than maybe you should stop and take a look at Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. --

2119:

I think the article should be unblocked, and if Biblical1 removes the sourced material again (instead of balancing them out with other sources if he thinks they are biased), he should be reported to wiki admins and in case he continues I'd say he should be blocked.

3275:{{cite web | title =Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible? | first =Richard N. | last=Ostling | work= Salt Lake City Desert News | url =http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050917/ai_n15352881 |date=2005-09-17 | accessdate =2007-01-03 }} 1704:

Please do not embarrass yourself by misreading policy further. That is in regard to article presentation, and not the individual views or sources expressed therein. By your broken logic, almost every single bit of information in this article must be deleted- note

134:

Hitler's acts were done in the name of Christianity. If you're going to bring up every atheist who ever caused a death, why not bring up all the deaths caused by Christianity? Like witch hunts? And the Inquisition? And the Crusades? And the murder of Indians? And

5524:

I think the atonement section should remain as it is because it is factual, and a valid criticism even if Christians like it or not. Using Christian theology as a source is biased and circular, it is the equivalent of answering criticisms about the existence of

2772:

We don't need people coming here to push their POVs. There's already enough of them. I only said that it's better for the article if he doesn't edit at this point, given his situation, and was even kind enough to point him to our policies reguarding neutrality.

3695:. Instead it just goes on and on about how women are treated well in Christianity and documents feminist movements within the church, and how most Christians think men and women are equal, and so on and on and on. This is all very good information, but it 1833:

viewpoints is a violation of WP:NPOV, as is your removal of books under further reading for similar reasons. As far as everything else is concerned, I support Peter's request for incremental edits, and I'm glad that you're willing to accomodate this request.

1336:

non-Christians. Slaves were branded with the initials of the Methodist Missionary Society and the Bishop of Exeter received thousands of punds in compensation when slavery was abolished in the british Empire. I will work on sources to add to the article.--

845:

The assumptions required for Matthew 26:62-64 and Mark 16:60-62 are several, namely that Jesus was speaking to those specific leaders rather then the nation as a whole, and that if so the leaders could not see His coming after they had already physically

1915:

the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the

4257:

If the point is that Christianity incorporates internal self-criticism, and is part of a defense against other criticisms, then this needs to be made much more explicit. It also needs to be connected to the criticisms against which it is a defense.

3779:

Let's not go overboard here. There's a lot of sourced content in the article - on both sides. Balance is hard to achieve, because people feel strongly on both sides. But, to pick up one example mentioned above, the section on women is not entirely

3528:

is the discussion of the POV inherent in the article. It was and still is considered biased toward Christianity by several editors. The POV has not been corrected, in fact, it has been made worse. I see no legitimate reason for the tag to be removed.

787:

think the original author had some faulty information. I don't know of many scholars, let alone most, who believe the Old Testament fails to teach a Resurrection. As the section now shows, there are plenty of verses that show directly otherwise. --

2543:

I assume sexual abuse would be mentioned if it was specified as being a Christian thing. But it is not. It belongs in individual denominations articles - Catholicism, Mormonism or wherever it occurs more frequently than in the general population.

2962:

See, Andrew, I told you this guy was here to push his POV. He did a good job of hiding it initally, though. But I can spot these losers from a mile away. You made your point, now please don't come back. We already have enough of your kind here.

640:

I object to the usage of "Christianity". Some Christians had of course. But what is Christianity? Any Christian upholds a possible interpretation of Christianity. There are a lot of interpretations and none of which are "equal" to Christianity.

3959:

been a small revival in the role of deaconesses in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.

4748:

traditional Christian position is that through Christ, God was able to extend mercy without compromising justice, and that his justice is perfect. As Pwnage8 suggests, this is rooted in the Christian understanding of God's essential nature.

1584:

We can include your Christian views without you deleting critical information. You have to be careful that it is not 1) Sympathetic towards Christianity and Biased 2) That it's published research and not disputed by the Scientific community.

386:

then never says why either skeptics, critics, or really anybody else see this as a bad thing. I haven't been very involved with this article, so perhaps this is supposed to relate to the sections below somehow? I don't understand its point.

2958:

wikipedia article, you will find that he is the opposite of what you say he is. And now I know why you're getting all pissed. The vandalism on my userpage that you oh-so kindly left gives me an insight into your personal beliefs. You hate

3725:: "some critics claim that..." This pattern is endemic to the entire article: give a one or two sentence weasel-worded and barely fleshed-out "criticism", and then in several paragraphs present the rebuttal out of Christian apologetics. 5150:

unable to infer who these people are. Help us please at least get a reference that closely matches the sentence and I could compromise on not asking for a reference that both matches the sentence and is specifically in reply to Dawkins.

3489:

individuals not the Structure of the Church. This is the official teaching of the Church with regards to the corrupt Popes - akin to having a bad crew but a good ship etc. Its difficult to add in sources, I will see if I can find them.

1411:

Hey everyone, its Biblical1. The page just incorporated material that existed prior but was cluttered. We need to reduce the clutter in some of the other sections and make the layout look nice. All comments are welcome. Help us out.

2836:

trying to integrate myself into the wikipedia editors community, don't worry. I'm just trying to point out what I see that could be improved. And also, if you see no problem I don't think you are fit to edit this article either.

683:

behavior of Christians contradicts the belief that it is impossible to worship God and mammon at the same time. According to my beliefs, if you worship anything or anyone other than God, you cannot worship God at the same time.

1111:

purposes of particularizing jargon. It's definite value remains the same, and citation for the etymological and current static value of the words are noted in primary dictionaries throughout both the United States and Britain.

3804:"King claims that every sect within early Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed." 4510:

in the past. While they both criticise aspects of Christianity, and even the use of the term, they are not criticising Christianity per se. Their views might be suitable to another article, but not this one. Delete the lot.

2409:

organisation, seems rather ad hoc. To get it into shape, the only solution I see is lots of hard work. I think the first step is organising the article properly, and your suggestion under "random point" might be useful.

2326:

as a subsection of an article on criticisms of Christianity. Of course people are going to disagree about whether or not the Spanish Inquisition or the clerical sexual abuse scandals, or what have you, are the fault of

5237:

is a hopeless case. I've tried to google for a rebuttal to Dawkins (e.g. dawkins atonement "root of all evil" penal substitution) but it's like googling for Paris Hilton - there is too much noise from the blogville.

2100:

This user appears to have a habit of POV pushing, and either he is unaware or does not care that he is running against policy with his stated reasons. Most importantly, one of the most essential statements of WP:V,

3891:

Why was the section on female deacons removed - its relevant in addressing how the Church uses women in mass, and there was a very reliable source showing a photo of Eastern Catholic deacons at a prayer gathering.

1504:

We're trying to make a good quality article here. You dumped material in (from I don't know where), making the article a mess, with repetitive sections. A better way to go is incremental editing, a bit at a time.

1989:

On another note, Issac Newton rejected Christianity outright, he did not believe in Jesus and thought people who did were ignorant. He thought Jesus was just another man. It's laughable that someone added him in

998:

Well, could just leave the information that agrees with my POV unsourced and then only challenge the material that disagrees with my POV as unsourced, but that would make me a flaming hypocrite, now wouldn't it?

491:

Well, to start with, everything above "This committed belief is sometimes called "faith based on zeal"." in the irrationality section isn't addressing Christianity directly, just theism and religion in general.

3816:

the "main" and "see also" links to that section to at least point people in the right direction, but I haven't been able to figure out how to shape a good summary section yet (I may simply not be smart enough).

3258:{{cite book | last =Hopfe | first =Lewis M. | coauthors =Mark R. Woodward | title =Religions of the World | publisher =Pearson | date =2005 | location =Saddle River, New Jersey | pages=291-2 | id =0131195158 }} 3264:{{cite book | last =Hopfe | first =Lewis M. | coauthors =Mark R. Woodward | title =Religions of the World | publisher =Pearson | date =2005 | location =Saddle River, New Jersey | pages=299 | id =0131195158 }} 3261:{{cite book | last =Hopfe | first =Lewis M. | coauthors =Mark R. Woodward | title =Religions of the World | publisher =Pearson | date =2005 | location =Saddle River, New Jersey | pages=280 | id =0131195158 }} 914:

the attacks (put in completely unsourced by Jerry1964) and the defenses (I put in for the sake of balancing the POVs) lack sources. Why not address Jerry1964's content with this criticism? Isn't it just as

1182:

I think the level of thoroughness here is great and would like to see it applied to many more articles. However, I still have my reservations as to the motives, especially regarding this article's content.

994:

The Joan of Arc material will be sourced in a few minutes. Could I please use a grade eight public high school history textbook as a citation for this arcane jem of obscure knowledge? Or would that be too

812:

In Acts 17:11 it should be noted that the Bible specifically calls "noble" those that question what the scriptures say, so long as they do so "with all readiness of mind" to see "whether those things were

526:. Then, of course, it doesn't mention that the most notable of wars being fought were more or less limited to the crusades, and doesn't mention any other possible reasons for any of the particular wars. 2292:

and then go on to summarize this line of argument and its most notable proponents for most of the section. Finally, it should provide a concise summary of the major responses to this line of criticism.

1427:

Err, what prior material? Where exactly did you get it from? Much of it was deleted for good reason. I propose undoing your change, because for the last 4 days people have been trying to fix the mess.

2272:. The most significant social (as opposed to theologically-oriented) criticisms are missing or are relegated to sub-articles. Some sections don't feature any criticism at all. (Just compare this to 400:

It appears to be mostly OR, with so many weasel words with "many" and unspoken "who's" attached to "people consider" type things. I mean come on, "Most Skeptics"? Who's doing the criticism exactly?

253:

You can never do anything in the name of Atheism, because atheism in the words of atheists is a negation; its a refutation, not an assertion, so how can one do anything in the name of a negation?

2150:

Biblical1 has expressed a willingness to do changes incrementally, and is using this discussion page rather than trying to override consensus. So I see no need to block him/her at this stage.

5492:(2007)) Andrew Wilson argues that Dawkins misses the point of the atonement, which has nothing to do with masochism, but is based on the concepts of holiness, sin and grace. (Andrew Wilson, 4646:

sense suggests it should be deleted, or possibly replaced with "Christians often respond to this objection by putting fingers in both ears and saying, "La la la, I can't hear you, la la la."

5400: 5295: 2376:

criticisms of Christianity. It's a little confusing to have them all mixed together. Maybe these should be top-level headings? Just a thought. I have other comments but I'll stop there.

1953:

Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design, yet his religious views are generally considered heretical.

4553:

O.k., I deleted the entire section for now. If I misread the consensus and you disagree, feel free to revert it. Otherwise, I figure we can put better material back in as we find it.

5061:"divine mercy"). It does contain "divine", "maintaining", "perfect" and "justice" but not in any form that would allow those words to be combined. Therefore this is original research. 948:

I've heard of her, but those not from Christian dominated countries such as Asia have not, I even asked a student of mine and she did not know (perhaps they have a different name). --

3087:. If you're still around 72.228.216.74, don't be discouraged by Pwnage8, he/she is hardly the norm around here, but you do come across people like this once in a while. Feel free to 3835:

If we can all stay patient with people we strongly disagree with, we can work towards a better article. None of us are truly neutral, so we have to work together to get to a NPOV.

4168:

argument because any academic scholar worth his salt will know that Christianity was almost exclusively an Eastern religion for the first 500 years. In the Council of Nicaea in

124:

Hitler became extremely anti-Christian, but he wasn't an atheist. Stalin & Mao may have been though, and their regimes certainly caused 100-150 million deaths between them.

3251:, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 660:"Some Christians" really isn't sufficient. If "Christianity" is too sweeping, what about "the Christian church"? "Christian religious authorities"? Just a random suggestion. 3113:

Really, this wasn't a big deal until Andrew c jumped in, and it escalated. But that's also when the anon's true colours showed, despite him trying to cover his tracks. --

3649:

Given that enough time has passed that the POV tag has been removed, I propose that any section which fails to cite an actual criticism of Christianity, attributed to a

1728:

Note to Peter: unfortunately, his confusion is not only concerning POV forks, which would be a reasonable one. It seems that he misunderstands the core policy as well.--

424:

Well, although it could of course be better, I suppose now that some skeptics have been named, the party of "skeptics" has now been defined, so i've removed the banner.

3599:

accepted the fact that I am a Christian savage and an asshole as well, then you can come back and introduce to me a civilized conversation discussing my many problems.

1910:

David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature".

651:

I have made some edits to this section but it seriously needs to be reviewed (due weight etc etc issues). Please feel free to move stuff around and summerize quotes. --

3928:

It's still there - it was just merged with the sentence on the Southern Baptist's recent statement to start a paragraph on recent actions by notable religious groups.

827:

being the obvious sole exception since He is God), none have the right to render such judgements in the sense of condemning or punishing as a judge would do, save God.

1881:

Biblical1: stop making assumptions about me. How do you know I am rigid or never read views opposing my beliefs? My concern is for a balanced and readable article.

1650:

Here's the NPOV to save you from looking it up. "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its

797:

Sorry but many of your edits are just interpretations of scripture or quotation of scripture with no analysis whatsoever. These criticisms I lay forth are to both

238:

atheism, but by somebody who happened to be an atheist. Hitler also happened to be a vegetarian, but nobody suggests that it is in any way related to the Holocaust.

2288:

and then continues to debunk these charges of eurocentrism for the entire section. The actual criticism is never even articulated! It should read something like

3732:

sections adopted later in the article strike me as particularly laughable, since so little in the way of actual criticism is presented to be rebutted. Also the

4729:

So therefore, aside from the fact that said acts are being attributed to said deity, "Divine mercy," equals, "Mercy," and "Perfect justice," equals, "Justice?"

852:

Christians believe these select few prophecies are yet left to be fulfilled in the future upon Jesus' return, as evidenced by this list of Messianic Prophecies

805:

Multiple problems: primary sourcing of the bible, lack of sourcing of defenses, poor quality links in defense and original research. Here are the texts of the

5122:

Its not going anywhere without a consensus. And yes, have you ever heard of something called "inference"? Its another word for "reading between the lines".

1161:

in the article that start 'according to critics...', and ask for a reference of those critics - this article IS the critic-it doesn't need any citation!!!

970:

of work both for and against Christianity. Instead of wielding POV as your weapon why not wield proper sourcing. Require the editors to source their work.

5614:

One of the criticisms levelled against Christianity is its similarity with some religions who speak of a son of God, like Hercules being the son of Zeus.

1746:

definitely against the spirit of WP, if not the actual rules. It is in effect overwriting many months or years of collaborative improving of the article.

710:

Added new section to the article. Was only able to mention a couple of issues though there are many more. Any addition information would be appreciated.

3682:

Feminists have consistently accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centred stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.

1263: 1223: 713: 686: 4147:

it may be that so much of the center of gravity for Christianity has moved south of the equator these days that it's simply not argued much any more.

1080:

The section is about criticism of the social gender roles proscribed by Christianity, not Christianity's views of sex. The title should remain Gender.

2494:

I can't agree more, this article is a joke - with more representation of the appologetics BS than the actual criticism. It is way less developed tham

4081:

The article is already too long, so I suggest farming off portions of it to other articles. Since no criticism of Christianity is discussed in the

86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3228:, that only implicitly acknowledge a criticism and instead spend paragraphs attempting to refute a criticism that has never even been articulated. 5020:- why the need to point fingers and accuse us of being so self-righteous? Present your case; I have answered it for now and await your response. 2298:

does just the same thing. Roughly all of it is a rebuttal to arguments about Christianity and slavery - arguments which are never even specified.

855:

labeling them as "Future Unfulfilled." Many Jews today have rejected Jesus as their Messiah because of those specific yet-unfulfilled prophecies.

4310:

keeping the broader stuff like the Federal Vision criticism of Christianity as a belief system, and then trying to find a better place for it?

3361:

criticisms remain unanswered, and so we need more sources, perhaps from Christian apologetics or Churches themselves in the Response section.

4773:. Unless God is capable of extending any other type of mercy, the adjective is redundant. And it makes the sentence sound somewhat pulpit-y. 752: 4771:"Mercy extended by a divinity is typically described as "divine mercy," just as mercy extended by humans can be described as "human mercy."" 4094: 2916: 2720: 2620: 2437:. Of the very few criticisms listed, all were poorly represented. The rebuttals to them occupy 90 % of the argument, and rely heavily on 1807: 1122: 690: 4713:

the response given by many Christians to that particular criticism. That being the case, we should include it and let the reader decide.

1563:

Peters is a Christian Apologist and a philosopher who is publishing from a disputable publisher. Here are the rules for reliable sources:

818:

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (I Timothy 2:11-15)

437:

The NIV phrases it thus: (and I know the NIV is copywritten but it explicitly makes exceptions for brief quotations on the copyright page)

4172:

320 AD, only two of the Bishops present were from the Western Roman Empire, the rest were from Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor etc.

3204: 3011: 2843: 2807: 2452: 1654:" The page must be devoted to the subject - criticism of christianity - , not information sympathetic to christianity and defending it. 239: 216: 5232:

People are expecting a reference that specifically addresses what Dawkins says. This can't be that hard. Criticising Dawkins is a huge

4969:

would suffice). It's useful if you're a preacher and your job is to keep everyone faithful, but not so appropriate in an encyclopedia.

3425:

I don't think so - look at the Response section and then look at the rest. In fact, the response section was only for the myth so far.

1243:

Feel free to contribute, snuggles. Just make sure you cite some reliable sources, as your personal theories have little value here. --

1227: 166: 136: 108:

Besides that - Hitler was Christian. Stalin was a Roman Catholic. If you want sources, wikipedia their pages and follow the links.

5555:

policy. Knowledge (XXG) does not decide what is to be included or not based on your opinion of what is or isn't a "waste of time". --

5529:

using Scientology studies. It's an act of faith, period, and trying to find any justifications behind it is a complete waste of time.

2636: 2199: 1673: 5500: 5489: 5378: 4225: 4203: 4086: 1391: 945:

You're actually telling me there's someone out there who hasn't heard about Joan of Arc? Is that a joke? What country are you from?

615: 109: 3544:

Sign your name Aunt entropy. Like I said, neutrality has not been worsened, I have merely added in responses which are verifiable.

2746:

We both aren't that stupid. Don't try covering your tracks just because someone was nice to you. Your comment speaks for itself. --

4332:

Good idea. We can keep the interdenominational strife as you put it to their respective articles dealing with those denominations.

2573: 2216:

fair enough, but the article title suggests otherwise, "Debunking Criticisms of Christianity" would be a more appropriate title.

1031:. I had to fix your citation, not only because it was a random link but because it also left random ]] characters on the page. -- 2343:. It's an impossible situation. The criticisms in this section should be moved to other sections based on their topic. E.g. 1493: 725: 3665:

of Christianity, not Christian apologetics. Reading the article with this in mind, there are very few sections that actually

3182:

No wonder so many people hate wikipedia. This sums up everything wrong with Knowledge (XXG) itself and makes me want to puke.

1763:

I was speaking of his removal of material which ran counter to his own point of view, while citing WP:NPOV as his reasoning.--

1521:

p.s. If you've worked 100s of hours on it, create your own web page and put it there. This article is a collaborative effort.

3525: 2665: 2521: 1390:(i.e., who says they are an appropriate list of passages to include). Besides that, it was in the wrong place, it belongs in 47: 17: 3088: 2238:

I agree. There's far more text dedicated to countering the criticisms than to describing them. Look at the Slavery section (

1387: 3706:

section begins to introduce real criticisms of Christianity, but it is far too short and needs rebuttals for balance. The

2528:

but I am currently involved with other projects right now... just thought I'd mention it. Seems like a glaring omission. --

1284:

As far as I'm aware, the anon did not complain to an administrator (at least, his page emphasizes several times that he is

3721:

Another problem with the article is that even where criticisms are presented, they are almost always introduced in a very

3407:

Christianity? Are we reading the same article? There is far more apologetics than actual criticism in the text right now.

1951:

Moreover, many scientists through out history held strong Christian beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion.

1719:

you to try, but it should be clear to any experienced editor that you are not aware of what the policy is actually saying.

3715: 2358:

this section would include historical stuff as contemporary stuff like creatonism vs. evolution, stem-cell research, etc.

4734: 4682: 4651: 3345: 1678:

The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article

5064:

We need a reliable reference that should ideally use a few more of the words and should use them in a similar pattern.

4085:

section, I suggest moving it to another article, although I can't think of one offhand. There should be an article on

2640: 317:

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources.

1960:

black legends say some — that medieval Christianity has had a negative influence in the development of civilization.

1028: 5439: 38: 4454:

any attack on it is usually interpretted as being pro or anti Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox etc and so dismissed.

4251: 2558:

page... I assume this page covers criticisms of every denomination of christianity. Therefore it belongs here. --

1018:

Perhaps you need to work on your sarcasm skills ("Western-centric" is the weakest "zing" I've ever laughed off).

748: 4369:"Federal Vision" paragraph is really a doctrinal issue, not a criticism of Christianity. Delete the lot, I say. 1709:. If this is how you read the policy, then it seems that we should say bye-bye to Bertrand Russell and the like. 3687:

However, the rest of the section has no relation at all to this introductory sentence, and more details on the

3312: 3187: 2920: 2724: 2690: 2624: 2555: 2503: 2017: 1811: 537: 280: 3629:

Agreed. There have been numerous comments made to this effect and no significant changes made in the interim.

2586:

Touché! I looked for that page, couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Suggestion withdrawn! --

1126: 694: 4730: 4678: 4647: 3341: 2635:

I agree that you have no idea how to edit. Best you stay out of this one. Even criticism articles have to be

439:"For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?" 4516: 4408: 4400: 4374: 4090: 3458:

Christianity by thousands of years". Where was the criticism? We've jumped straight to denying a point that

3208: 3015: 2847: 2811: 2456: 2414: 2304:

is a bit better in that it actually contains a few of the criticisms in question, but it is still largely a

2207: 2202:. If you want to read an article which argues only in one direction, then Knowledge (XXG) is not the place. 2155: 2048: 1886: 1751: 1689: 1526: 1510: 1432: 1325: 1231: 243: 220: 170: 140: 3661:

should be removed. As I indicated when placing the POV tag, this is supposed to be an article documenting

3200: 3007: 2912: 2839: 2803: 2716: 2616: 2448: 1481: 1118: 740: 443: 212: 113: 4599:

Yes. And at the moment, my dear friend, you appear to be the only one bothered to edit it! So lol thank u.

4416: 4412: 4104: 4066: 4024: 3747: 3581: 3534: 3299:

I'm thinking of starting a ew section here on extremist Christian ideologies - much like with the section

2478: 1972: 576: 523: 2467:

I am also having trouble seeing where the criticisms are in the article. I realize that to conform with

1260: 814: 3141: 3096: 1162: 352: 5225: 3737: 1289:

presentation of things. I believe the block was placed so that any edit-warring spirit can cool down.--

4061:

Maybe we should say some of that stuff. I think we need to be explicit about what the criticisms are.

3137: 3092: 2241:), for example. It doesn't even bother with the criticism! It just jumps straight to the apologetics. 1305:

slavery was over. See the "Slavery Abolition Act" entry to see that slavery ended in Britian in 1833.

841: 2125: 2105:, seems to be unknown to him, as his accusation that none of the bolded text is "true" makes clear.-- 2029: 1310: 1306: 744: 519: 456:

The article carries a "Clean Up" header along with warning headers tagged to the following sections:

4399:

The major church splits that are mentioned are already pretty thoroughly covered in the articles on

1998: 1655: 1591: 1485: 1413: 1359: 1112: 717: 5637: 5599: 5564: 5538: 5246: 5194: 5159: 5141: 5117: 5102: 5073: 5039: 4978: 4927: 4878: 4839: 4809: 4782: 4757: 4738: 4722: 4702: 4686: 4670: 4655: 4618: 4562: 4520: 4473: 4428: 4378: 4351: 4319: 4296: 4267: 4237: 4215: 4196: 4156: 4137: 4112: 4070: 4054: 4028: 3999: 3937: 3911: 3876: 3844: 3770: 3755: 3638: 3618: 3585: 3563: 3538: 3508: 3471: 3444: 3416: 3396: 3380: 3349: 3332: 3316: 3308: 3289: 3237: 3212: 3191: 3183: 3167: 3145: 3122: 3100: 3062: 3019: 2972: 2924: 2883: 2851: 2815: 2782: 2755: 2728: 2699: 2677: 2652: 2628: 2595: 2591: 2581: 2579: 2567: 2563: 2549: 2547: 2537: 2533: 2507: 2499: 2486: 2460: 2418: 2385: 2250: 2225: 2211: 2192: 2159: 2129: 2114: 2085: 2081: 2052: 2033: 2006: 2002: 1890: 1860: 1815: 1772: 1755: 1737: 1693: 1663: 1659: 1641: 1599: 1595: 1549: 1530: 1514: 1497: 1489: 1452: 1436: 1421: 1417: 1398: 1373: 1362: 1345: 1329: 1314: 1293: 1278: 1247: 1235: 1204: 1186: 1176: 1165: 1150: 1103: 1094: 1084: 1074: 1044: 1035: 1022: 1013: 1003: 982: 964: 952: 940: 926: 889: 791: 776: 756: 729: 721: 698: 669: 655: 645: 629: 561: 545: 508: 496: 485: 446: 428: 415: 404: 390: 372: 354: 341: 292: 272: 247: 224: 191: 187: 174: 159: 155: 144: 129: 127: 117: 5280:

hasn't taken the time to study it ("do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in

4502:

On that last paragraph, it sounds like I'm more familiar than you others: I've just had a look at

4118:

Alternatively we could add in the relevant criticism of being eurocentric. Or we could remove it.

3761:

Agreed on all counts. As it stands, there is very little in the article that seems worth keeping.

3658: 3229: 5628: 5534: 5362: 4609: 4512: 4464: 4370: 4342: 4306: 4287: 4274: 4187: 4128: 4045: 3990: 3902: 3867: 3609: 3554: 3499: 3435: 3371: 3328: 3300: 3285: 2954:

You don't even know what my religion is, because I haven't even said what it is. If you read the

2697: 2495: 2410: 2273: 2221: 2203: 2188: 2151: 2044: 1882: 1747: 1685: 1522: 1506: 1450: 1428: 1395: 1321: 1275: 853: 625: 558: 505: 482: 412: 2121: 2025: 652: 642: 1100: 1081: 1041: 1019: 1000: 961: 923: 802: 5590: 5560: 5497: 5486: 5415: 5375: 5310: 5242: 5155: 5132: 5113: 5093: 5069: 5030: 4918: 4698: 4666: 4098: 4062: 4020: 3741: 3577: 3530: 3233: 3163: 3118: 3058: 2968: 2879: 2778: 2751: 2648: 2472: 2381: 2110: 2043:

is significant writing and study on both sides, so both sides of the argument need to be put.

1856: 1768: 1733: 1637: 1545: 1341: 665: 595: 368: 337: 288: 263: 5552: 3692: 3133: 3084: 2468: 1383: 867: 332:

what's not necessary so we can concentrate on legitimate outstanding issues. Any objections?

5233: 5190: 4974: 4874: 4835: 4805: 4778: 4753: 4718: 4558: 4424: 4404: 4315: 4263: 4233: 4211: 4152: 3933: 3840: 3766: 3634: 3467: 3412: 3392: 2673: 2246: 1183: 360: 349: 5551:

The article must show how Christians respond to these criticisms in order to adhere to the

3722: 3711: 1618: 5477: 5428: 5367: 5323: 4277:

article has its own internal critics from Muslims, so I think we should include that too.

1370: 798: 788: 608: 542: 493: 425: 401: 387: 3650: 2525: 2021: 2012:

Biblical1, as far as I can see you are removing scholarly sources from the article (e.g.

1320:

I've removed the year altogether. If I was less lazy I'd find what the correct year was.

882: 874: 769: 5385:) In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in 768:

Second, much of the sourcing is primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources (

4503: 2587: 2577: 2559: 2545: 2529: 2077: 989:

I HAVE NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE IN THIS SECTION INTRODUCED A QUOTATION FROM THE BIBLE

183: 151: 125: 4206:

is fine by me. I can't personally add much more than what's in this section, though.

2661:

While I'm not sure the anonymous editor raised the issue in quite the best way, there

1143: 975: 878: 5619: 5530: 4600: 4455: 4333: 4278: 4178: 4119: 4036: 3981: 3893: 3858: 3673:

section, the first actual criticism I find, with a footnote backing it up, is in the

3600: 3545: 3490: 3426: 3362: 3324: 3281: 2694: 2265: 2217: 2184: 1447: 1091: 936:

positions it would do more for improving NPOV for the article than anything else. --

621: 2335:. So you can't decide from the outset that you're going to divide the article into 836:

the future and things to come, thus making this seeming contradiction null and void.

5581: 5556: 5392: 5287: 5238: 5151: 5123: 5109: 5084: 5065: 5021: 4909: 4694: 4662: 4507: 4224:

O.k., I've gone ahead and done it. All the material is still available in the new

3573: 3197:

Amen to that! If Knowledge (XXG) wants respect ... this doesn't help to earn it!

3159: 3114: 3054: 3053:

This isn't your kind of place. Your first comment made that very clear. Tootles. --

2964: 2875: 2774: 2747: 2644: 2377: 2106: 1956:

adhered to Christian beliefs included Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.

1852: 1764: 1729: 1633: 1586: 1541: 1337: 1290: 1244: 1201: 1173: 661: 364: 333: 284: 254: 639:"Christianity has sometimes had an antagonistic relationship with science" --: --> 5186: 4970: 4870: 4864:

Expediency? Outside coercion? Sometimes when we ask the question "why did she

4831: 4801: 4774: 4749: 4714: 4554: 4420: 4311: 4259: 4229: 4207: 4148: 3929: 3836: 3762: 3630: 3463: 3408: 3388: 2669: 2242: 1564: 1147: 1032: 1010: 979: 949: 937: 886: 773: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4019:

skeptic's criticism, amounting to essentially "we reject it because it's old".

2239: 566:

Regarding Chomsky's quote (too bad it has been removed), here is the reference:

5386: 5281: 3572:

OMG, I forgot to sign my name. How dare I. Take the article, along with your

2103:"The threshhold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth" 1382:

The Bible passages had no secondary sources, so were as good as uncited (see

2269: 1071: 1040:

Oh heavens, not a typo! P.S. Full citations aren't mandatory so get off it.

306: 182:

loved religion, the fake communists would start prosecuting atheist people.

5361:"Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of 4228:

page, so we can put it back here if we decide it's needed in this article.

3132:

situation worse than they did, so maybe you should spend 5 minutes reading

5108:

said then it can stay. It doesn't so it goes. That is where it is going.

5018:

It's useful if you're a preacher and your job is to keep everyone faithful

3158:

I wasn't out to bite, I just said that they shouldn't edit the article. --

3304: 2955: 866:

Also if you are going to cite something try using the {\{}} templates in

319:

They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

2198:

To be NPOV, the article needs to present all sides of the argument. See

5526: 3462:. The entire section is like this, and so is the rest of the article. 991:. I can write that again in case you didn't catch it that time either. 922:

then, please get off my back, or at least get on somebody else's too.

5434: 5401:"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?" 5296:"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?" 4202:

I'm happy moving the text to a new article. What would we call it?

230:

The difference is that the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. were done

363:. :) I guess I'll go ahead and if anyone has issues we can discuss. 5365:, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently.( 3736:

is completely unnecessary, unreferenced, and feels somehow like a

2290:"Some critics of Christianity argue it is eurocentric in that ..." 1253: 2554:

Last time I checked, catholics were christian. Also, there is no

5396: 5291: 4661:

That comment was.. ah, nevermind. Just look at your username. --

2180: 5476:

There are also a couple of more direct responses we can add.

4273:

I would rather there be some editting than some removal - the

2693:) with some helpful links that you can take the time to read.- 2308:

of the criticisms, instead of an encyclopedic summary of them.

1200:

article or not, citations should be added wherever possible.--

25: 4677:

fictional Red Dwarf universe, rather than some kind of hobby

2268:'s point about the title is dead on target here. It's rather 2286:"Christians have answered the charge of Eurocentrism by ..." 1254:

Why isn't there anything about rational or atheist criticism

313:

about the subject matter, rather than the article itself.

2315:

innacuracy. The subsection could then perhaps be renamed

635:

Christianity and an antagonistic relationship with science

5435:

Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath

3576:

article. You may have both. I'm out. Off the watchlist.

2364:

It seems like there's a large-scale distinction between

3657:

section, and present the rebuttal in proportion to its

3248: 2960: 2713:

seems to be the opposite of the purpose of wikipedia.

2076:

There is currently no consensus for this edit request.

806: 4089:(or somesuch) since there are substantial articles on 1466:

their faith doesn't mean it's against Knowledge (XXG).

2576:

and link near bottom to Catholic Sexual Abuse Cases.

5580:

theology, the position attacked in the first place.

1587:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset

919:

Poor quality links in defense and original research.

5372:

Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life

971: 4246:Suggest Deleting the "Within Christianity" section 1935:– Martin Luther, Tischreden, ed Walsch XXII, 2260 1565:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources 3710:section has some stylistic issues, mostly due to 3697:has nothing to do with the subject of the article 1806:understanding the world. Your Friend, Biblical1. 5374:. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. p. 81. 4800:motivated by considerations of common humanity. 95:Atheists are not the cause of 100 million deaths 2200:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view#POV forks 1943:indicating any general opposition to science." 1674:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks 315: 279:Not in the name of atheism, but in the name of 987:I challenge your ability to read. Once again: 832:persecute Christians (which was not the case). 234:, whereas the abuses of Stalin were not done 8: 4709:And whether it makes sense to you or me, it 972:An example of how the bible can't be used. 910:Maybe you should read that section again. 860:Claims of what skeptics believe - cite it! 4250:I'd like to suggest deleting the section 3243:Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 3178:Pickle Me Grandmother! This Article Sucks 2337:bad things that some Christians have done 2020:). Please review wikipedia policies like 470:Criticism of Christianity as derivative. 324:In any event, some of these comments are 4095:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Christianity 2276:, for example!) Some specific comments: 1617:Additionally, I will ask again that you 873:Related policies to these edits include 1099:I think gender roles would be perfect. 840:according to Strong's Greek dictionary. 465:Criticism of Christianity as intolerant 460:Criticism of Christianity as irrational 5424: 5413: 5319: 5308: 1919:dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority." 604: 593: 309:is unworkably large and contains many 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4961:mindset (just like repeatedly saying 4097:can be troubled to start an article? 3980:Oh right. Good job with the merging. 3734:Response to Criticism of Christianity 2322:I don't think it makes sense to have 7: 3691:would also be needed to comply with 2341:bad things intrinsic to Christianity 896:criticisms directed toward me: Huh? 3716:Christian views on life after death 1156:Citation of sources in this article 5483:What's So Great About Christianity 1137:Please cite sources when you edit! 24: 4830:Where else would it "flow from"? 4226:Christianity and multiculturalism 4204:Christianity and multiculturalism 4087:Christianity and multiculturalism 2643:, which seems to be your goal. -- 1684:present both sides of arguments. 1392:Internal consistency of the Bible 1065:"Sex" more accurate than "Gender" 504:lead the reader to that article. 3091:it, now or if it happens again. 2574:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church 2349:Persecution of gays and lesbians 2329:just a few particular Christians 2065: 1913:Lindberg.Lindberg reports that " 165:to bring Communism into this. -- 29: 4506:, and I've read (and even met) 3740:for the Roman Catholic church. 2666:some definite neutrality issues 2520:Why is there no mention of the 1269:Protection was an over-reaction 575:Shawn, Wallace (Autumn, 2004), 381:Criticism of Salvation theology 301:Time to clean up this talk page 5638:20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 5247:23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5195:14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5160:05:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5142:05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5118:05:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5103:03:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5074:02:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5040:01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 4979:00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 4928:22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4879:19:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4840:17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4810:16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4783:14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4758:13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4739:13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4723:19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4703:17:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4687:17:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4671:13:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4656:13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 4619:18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 4563:13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 4521:00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 4474:21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4429:13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4379:00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 4352:21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4320:19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4297:18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4268:15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 4238:14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 3350:13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 2522:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases 2445:. This "article" is a joke. 1947:subsequent historical research 1394:. The reverts were justified. 1259:covers one line or so). NPOV! 1029:Knowledge (XXG):Citing_sources 901:Primary sourcing of the bible. 18:Talk:Criticism of Christianity 1: 4216:14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 4197:22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 4157:21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 4138:21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 4113:21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 4071:13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 4055:22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 4029:20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 4000:22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3938:21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3912:21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3877:16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3845:14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3771:13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3756:11:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3639:10:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3619:04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3586:04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3564:04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3539:04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3509:00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC) 3472:22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3445:21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3417:21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3397:20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3381:03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 2345:Persecution of non-Christians 2160:00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2130:00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 2115:23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2086:21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2053:12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2034:05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2007:05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1891:00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 1861:22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1816:04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1773:22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1756:01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1738:00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1694:00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1664:00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1642:00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1600:00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 1453:03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 1437:23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1422:08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1399:23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1374:17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1363:15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1346:13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 1330:03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1315:01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1294:01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 1279:12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1027:Ecto, perhaps you could read 908:Lack of sourcing of defenses. 656:03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 646:03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 577:"Interview with Noam Chomsky" 359:Thanks for the encouragement 293:00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 273:00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 5600:05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 5565:18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 5539:16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 3224:There are sections, such as 1550:22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1531:10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1515:10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 1498:07:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 863:Joan of Arc edits - cite it! 562:19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 546:03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 509:22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 497:18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 486:16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 447:07:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 429:13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 416:12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 391:01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 248:23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC) 192:18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 175:03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 5440:Science & Theology News 3669:a criticism. Omitting the 3333:01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3317:19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3290:22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 2508:19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2251:17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2226:16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2212:10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2193:02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 630:18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 405:21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 232:in the name of Christianity 225:21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 5653: 3249:the last revision I edited 3238:16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3226:Compatibility with science 2596:02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2582:02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2568:02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2550:02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2538:01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2355:Compatibility with science 1905:Compatability with Science 1205:23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1187:22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1177:22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1166:21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1151:19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1115:10:50, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC) 1104:22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1095:22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1085:21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1075:21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1045:21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1036:21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1023:21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1014:21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1004:20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 983:14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 965:03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 953:14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 941:01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 927:23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 890:21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 792:20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 777:17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 757:06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 614:CS1 maint: date and year ( 5496:, Kingsway Publications, 3704:Christianity and politics 3213:06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 3192:06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 3146:21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 3123:20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 3101:22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 3063:23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 3020:23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2973:21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2925:21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2884:20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2852:05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2816:05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2783:02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2756:02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2729:02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2700:01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2678:21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2653:21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2629:12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 2461:06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 2419:12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2386:20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1386:. It also appeared to be 1264:10:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 730:05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 699:02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 670:01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 396:Criticism of Hell section 373:21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 355:20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 342:20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 5083:read between the lines. 3356:POV against Christianity 3168:06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 2691:User talk:72.228.222.160 2556:Criticism of Catholicism 2018:Encyclopedia of Religion 849:Everything in psychology 538:Christian Fundamentalism 160:03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 145:02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 130:03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 118:22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 4409:First Council of Nicaea 4401:History of Christianity 4091:Christianity by country 3645:Thoughts on the article 2487:16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1963:11th and 12th centuries 1680:". Therefore this page 1248:05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 1236:05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 452:Article Clean Up Header 5485:, Regnery Publishing, 5423:Check date values in: 5318:Check date values in: 4417:Protestant Reformation 4413:The Ninety-Five Theses 3961: 3806: 3793: 3675:Christianity and women 2302:Christianity and women 1707:"nor in opposition to" 706:Christianity and Women 603:Check date values in: 524:Criticism of the Bible 322: 5553:neutral point of view 3956: 3802: 3789: 2516:Sexual abuse scandals 2433:This article needs a 1226:comment was added by 716:comment was added by 689:comment was added by 100:Forum-like discussion 42:of past discussions. 5403:. RichardDawkins.net 5298:. RichardDawkins.net 4093:. Maybe someone at 4077:Eurocentrism section 2014:Science and Religion 1388:WP:Original Research 520:Criticism of Judaism 5494:Deluded by Dawkins? 4252:Within Christianity 3857:I agree with that. 2639:, otherwise it's a 2351:, or what have you. 2333:Christianity itself 2317:Historical accuracy 2284:The section begins 5391:Dawkins, Richard ( 5363:Christian theology 5286:Dawkins, Richard ( 4731:Colostomyexplosion 4679:Colostomyexplosion 4648:Colostomyexplosion 4307:Criticism of Islam 4305:You're right, the 4275:Criticism of Islam 3521:Removal of POV tag 3342:Colostomyexplosion 3301:Criticism of Islam 2668:with the article. 2496:Criticism of Islam 2274:Criticism of Islam 3215: 3203:comment added by 3022: 3010:comment added by 2927: 2915:comment added by 2854: 2842:comment added by 2818: 2806:comment added by 2731: 2719:comment added by 2631: 2619:comment added by 2463: 2451:comment added by 2443:logical fallacies 2174:Misleading title? 1619:assume good faith 1580:C Logan and Peter 1500: 1484:comment added by 1239: 1215:Moses and Sargon? 1121:comment added by 759: 743:comment added by 733: 702: 311:personal comments 281:anti-Christianity 227: 215:comment added by 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5644: 5633: 5624: 5595: 5586: 5432: 5426: 5421: 5419: 5411: 5409: 5408: 5384: 5368:McGrath, Alister 5327: 5321: 5316: 5314: 5306: 5304: 5303: 5234:cottage industry 5137: 5128: 5098: 5089: 5035: 5026: 4923: 4914: 4614: 4605: 4469: 4460: 4405:East-West Schism 4347: 4338: 4292: 4283: 4192: 4183: 4133: 4124: 4109: 4108: 4101: 4050: 4041: 3995: 3986: 3907: 3898: 3872: 3863: 3752: 3751: 3744: 3614: 3605: 3559: 3550: 3504: 3495: 3440: 3431: 3376: 3367: 3198: 3005: 2910: 2837: 2801: 2714: 2614: 2483: 2482: 2475: 2446: 2072: 2069: 2068: 1977: 1971: 1479: 1221: 1130: 738: 711: 684: 619: 612: 606: 601: 599: 591: 581: 444:WilliamJenkins09 268: 259: 210: 105:misinformation. 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5652: 5651: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5643: 5642: 5641: 5631: 5622: 5612: 5593: 5584: 5443:, 2005-04-25.)" 5422: 5412: 5406: 5404: 5390: 5381: 5366: 5317: 5307: 5301: 5299: 5285: 5135: 5126: 5096: 5087: 5033: 5024: 4921: 4912: 4643: 4612: 4603: 4467: 4458: 4345: 4336: 4290: 4281: 4248: 4190: 4181: 4131: 4122: 4106: 4105: 4099: 4079: 4048: 4039: 4016: 3993: 3984: 3905: 3896: 3870: 3861: 3749: 3748: 3742: 3651:reliable source 3647: 3612: 3603: 3557: 3548: 3523: 3502: 3493: 3438: 3429: 3374: 3365: 3358: 3297: 3245: 3180: 2610: 2518: 2480: 2479: 2473: 2176: 2070: 2066: 1975: 1969: 1966: 1907: 1590:frusterating. 1582: 1409: 1353: 1302: 1271: 1256: 1222:—The preceding 1217: 1158: 1139: 1116: 1067: 784: 765: 745:Hannah Angelove 712:—The preceding 708: 685:—The preceding 680: 637: 613: 602: 592: 579: 574: 454: 398: 383: 328:. I propose we 303: 298: 297: 266: 257: 101: 97: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5650: 5648: 5611: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5602: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5478:Dinesh D'Souza 5459: 5458: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5379: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5249: 5230: 5208: 5207: 5206: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5197: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5147: 5077: 5076: 5062: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4742: 4741: 4726: 4725: 4706: 4705: 4674: 4673: 4642: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4504:Peter Leithart 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4300: 4299: 4247: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4219: 4218: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4141: 4140: 4078: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4058: 4057: 4015: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780:pro-christian. 3774: 3773: 3712:weasel wording 3685: 3684: 3653:, such as the 3646: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3567: 3566: 3522: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3460:was never made 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3420: 3419: 3400: 3399: 3357: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3336: 3335: 3296: 3293: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3273: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3244: 3241: 3217: 3216: 3184:Retro Agnostic 3179: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3126: 3125: 3109: 3108: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2917:72.228.222.160 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2721:72.228.222.160 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2656: 2655: 2621:72.228.222.160 2609: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2517: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2465: 2464: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2374:sociopolitical 2359: 2352: 2320: 2309: 2299: 2293: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2175: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2037: 2036: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1987: 1967: 1958: 1906: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1808:74.128.175.136 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1667: 1666: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1581: 1578: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1534: 1533: 1518: 1517: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1440: 1439: 1408: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1377: 1376: 1352: 1349: 1333: 1332: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1270: 1267: 1261:59.167.135.148 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1216: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1157: 1154: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1123:150.252.114.77 1108: 1107: 1106: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1025: 996: 992: 957: 956: 955: 930: 929: 916: 905: 893: 892: 871: 864: 861: 858: 857: 856: 850: 847: 843: 837: 833: 829: 823: 819: 816: 783: 780: 764: 761: 707: 704: 691:24.196.247.167 679: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 636: 633: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 551: 550: 549: 548: 530: 529: 528: 527: 512: 511: 500: 499: 476:If anyone has 453: 450: 434: 433: 432: 431: 419: 418: 397: 394: 382: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 302: 299: 296: 295: 276: 275: 236:in the name of 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 102: 99: 98: 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5649: 5640: 5639: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5615: 5609: 5601: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5554: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5520: 5502: 5501:9781842913550 5499: 5495: 5491: 5490:1-596-98517-8 5488: 5484: 5479: 5475: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5442: 5441: 5436: 5430: 5417: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5388: 5382: 5380:1-405-12538-1 5377: 5373: 5369: 5364: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5325: 5312: 5297: 5293: 5289: 5283: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5248: 5244: 5240: 5235: 5231: 5227: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5148: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5115: 5111: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5041: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5019: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4929: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4867: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4727: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4640: 4620: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4513:Peter Ballard 4509: 4505: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4475: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4371:Peter Ballard 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4308: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4276: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4255: 4253: 4245: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4171: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4139: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4110: 4102: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4059: 4056: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4013: 4001: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3960: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3913: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3878: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3805: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3792: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3753: 3745: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3726: 3724: 3719: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3683: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3627: 3620: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3565: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3527: 3520: 3510: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3446: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3401: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3309:Pink Princess 3306: 3302: 3294: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3274: 3271: 3270: 3268: 3263: 3260: 3257: 3256: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3250: 3242: 3240: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3221: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3205:71.231.142.60 3202: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3177: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3012:72.228.216.74 3009: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2844:72.228.216.74 2841: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2808:72.228.216.74 2805: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2698: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2607: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2578: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2526:fix it myself 2523: 2515: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500:Pink Princess 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2476: 2470: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2453:71.231.142.60 2450: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411:Peter Ballard 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362:Random point: 2360: 2356: 2353: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2321: 2319:or something. 2318: 2313: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204:Peter Ballard 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2173: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2152:Peter Ballard 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2045:Peter Ballard 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2016:article from 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1988: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1973:editprotected 1964: 1957: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1941: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1911: 1904: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1883:Peter Ballard 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748:Peter Ballard 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1708: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686:Peter Ballard 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1620: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1579: 1577: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523:Peter Ballard 1520: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1507:Peter Ballard 1503: 1502: 1501: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1476: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1454: 1451: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429:Peter Ballard 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1406: 1400: 1397: 1396:Peter Ballard 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1350: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322:Peter Ballard 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1277: 1276:Peter Ballard 1268: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1214: 1206: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1163:80.229.151.52 1155: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1136: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1114: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1064: 1046: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 997: 993: 990: 986: 985: 984: 981: 977: 973: 968: 967: 966: 963: 958: 954: 951: 947: 946: 944: 943: 942: 939: 934: 933: 932: 931: 928: 925: 920: 917: 913: 909: 906: 902: 899: 898: 897: 891: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 869: 865: 862: 859: 854: 851: 848: 844: 842: 838: 834: 830: 828: 824: 820: 817: 815: 811: 810: 808: 804: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 790: 782:New Additions 781: 779: 778: 775: 771: 763:Poor Sourcing 762: 760: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 734: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 705: 703: 700: 696: 692: 688: 677: 671: 667: 663: 659: 658: 657: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 644: 634: 632: 631: 627: 623: 617: 610: 597: 589: 585: 584:Final Edition 578: 565: 564: 563: 560: 559:GoldenMeadows 555: 554: 553: 552: 547: 544: 539: 534: 533: 532: 531: 525: 521: 516: 515: 514: 513: 510: 507: 506:GoldenMeadows 502: 501: 498: 495: 490: 489: 488: 487: 484: 483:GoldenMeadows 479: 474: 473: 471: 467: 466: 462: 461: 457: 451: 449: 448: 445: 440: 430: 427: 423: 422: 421: 420: 417: 414: 413:GoldenMeadows 409: 408: 407: 406: 403: 395: 393: 392: 389: 380: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 357: 356: 353: 351: 346: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 321: 320: 314: 312: 308: 300: 294: 290: 286: 282: 278: 277: 274: 271: 270: 269: 262: 261: 260: 252: 251: 250: 249: 245: 241: 240:80.235.56.123 237: 233: 228: 226: 222: 218: 217:96.228.57.137 214: 193: 189: 185: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 172: 168: 163: 162: 161: 157: 153: 148: 147: 146: 142: 138: 133: 132: 131: 128: 126: 123: 122: 121: 119: 115: 111: 106: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5630: 5629: 5621: 5620: 5616: 5613: 5592: 5591: 5583: 5582: 5493: 5482: 5438: 5405:. Retrieved 5393:September 17 5371: 5300:. Retrieved 5288:September 17 5134: 5133: 5125: 5124: 5095: 5094: 5086: 5085: 5032: 5031: 5023: 5022: 5017: 4966: 4963:almighty God 4962: 4920: 4919: 4911: 4910: 4865: 4770: 4710: 4675: 4644: 4611: 4610: 4602: 4601: 4508:Dave Andrews 4466: 4465: 4457: 4456: 4344: 4343: 4335: 4334: 4289: 4288: 4280: 4279: 4256: 4249: 4189: 4188: 4180: 4179: 4177: 4169: 4130: 4129: 4121: 4120: 4100:siℓℓy rabbit 4083:Eurocentrism 4082: 4080: 4063:DJ Clayworth 4047: 4046: 4038: 4037: 4021:DJ Clayworth 4017: 3992: 3991: 3983: 3982: 3957: 3904: 3903: 3895: 3894: 3869: 3868: 3860: 3859: 3803: 3790: 3743:siℓℓy rabbit 3733: 3729: 3727: 3723:weaselly way 3720: 3707: 3703: 3701: 3696: 3688: 3686: 3681: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3654: 3648: 3611: 3610: 3602: 3601: 3578:Aunt Entropy 3574:Christianity 3556: 3555: 3547: 3546: 3531:Aunt Entropy 3524: 3501: 3500: 3492: 3491: 3459: 3437: 3436: 3428: 3427: 3404: 3373: 3372: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3298: 3280: 3269:"Ostling" : 3246: 3225: 3222: 3218: 3181: 3081: 2662: 2611: 2519: 2474:silly rabbit 2466: 2442: 2439:weasel words 2438: 2434: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2354: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2316: 2311: 2305: 2301: 2295: 2289: 2285: 2282:Eurocentrism 2281: 2177: 2102: 2073: 2013: 1997: 1968: 1961: 1952: 1950: 1945: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1917: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1744: 1706: 1681: 1677: 1651: 1583: 1574: 1478:-Biblical1 1477: 1473: 1410: 1358: 1354: 1334: 1303: 1285: 1272: 1257: 1228:24.63.39.220 1218: 1159: 1140: 1068: 988: 918: 911: 907: 900: 894: 825: 785: 766: 735: 709: 681: 638: 587: 583: 573: 477: 475: 472: 469: 468: 464: 463: 459: 458: 455: 438: 435: 399: 384: 329: 325: 323: 318: 316: 310: 304: 265: 264: 256: 255: 235: 231: 229: 206: 167:76.20.28.156 137:76.20.28.156 107: 103: 75: 43: 37: 5387:leprechauns 5282:leprechauns 5226:WP:COATRACK 3738:WP:COATRACK 3199:—Preceding 3006:—Preceding 2959:christians. 2911:—Preceding 2838:—Preceding 2802:—Preceding 2715:—Preceding 2615:—Preceding 2447:—Preceding 2366:theological 1480:—Preceding 1184:Sidthesloth 1117:—Preceding 739:—Preceding 361:Storm Rider 350:Storm Rider 211:—Preceding 150:Christian. 110:69.29.8.127 36:This is an 5610:Son of God 5407:2007-11-14 5302:2007-11-14 3663:criticisms 3255:"hopfe" : 2524:? I would 2370:historical 2324:Christians 1676:. Quote: " 1371:Homestarmy 1307:Bryandford 915:unsourced? 799:Jzyehoshua 789:Jzyehoshua 543:Homestarmy 494:Homestarmy 426:Homestarmy 402:Homestarmy 388:Homestarmy 135:more...?-- 4641:Atonement 4014:Scripture 3689:criticism 3677:section: 3295:Extremism 2588:ErgoSum88 2560:ErgoSum88 2530:ErgoSum88 2270:Orwellian 2078:Sandstein 2074:Declined. 1999:Biblical1 1656:Biblical1 1592:Biblical1 1486:Biblical1 1414:Biblical1 1360:Biblical1 1113:Flashfire 813:so."(KJV) 807:revisions 718:Jerry1964 326:years old 307:talk page 184:Deavenger 152:Deavenger 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5531:Sfoucher 5416:cite web 5370:(2004). 5311:cite web 3730:Rebuttal 3708:Doctrine 3325:Tourskin 3305:Al Qaeda 3282:DumZiBoT 3201:unsigned 3008:unsigned 2956:Ron Paul 2913:unsigned 2840:unsigned 2804:unsigned 2717:unsigned 2695:Andrew c 2641:POV-fork 2617:unsigned 2608:Problems 2449:unsigned 2306:rebuttal 2266:Sfoucher 2218:Sfoucher 2185:Sfoucher 2024:, etc -- 1916:church." 1494:contribs 1482:unsigned 1448:Andrew c 1224:unsigned 1119:unsigned 1092:Andrew c 822:11:8-12) 753:contribs 741:unsigned 726:contribs 714:unsigned 687:unsigned 678:Heresies 622:Sfoucher 596:citation 478:specific 213:unsigned 5557:Pwnage8 5527:Thetans 5503:(2007)) 5239:Ttiotsw 5152:Ttiotsw 5110:Ttiotsw 5066:Ttiotsw 4695:Pwnage8 4663:Pwnage8 3693:WP:NPOV 3671:Science 3667:present 3655:Slavery 3405:against 3303:, with 3230:Cvislay 3160:Pwnage8 3136:again. 3134:WP:BITE 3115:Pwnage8 3085:WP:BITE 3055:Pwnage8 2965:Pwnage8 2876:Pwnage8 2775:Pwnage8 2748:Pwnage8 2645:Pwnage8 2637:neutral 2469:WP:NPOV 2441:and on 2378:Nonplus 2312:Origins 2296:Slavery 2107:C.Logan 1853:C.Logan 1765:C.Logan 1730:C.Logan 1652:subject 1634:C.Logan 1542:C.Logan 1407:lay out 1384:WP:PSTS 1351:reverts 1338:Streona 1300:slavery 1291:C.Logan 1245:C.Logan 1202:C.Logan 1174:C.Logan 1090:women.- 868:WP:CITE 662:Nonplus 590:: 10–25 365:Nonplus 334:Nonplus 330:archive 285:Pwnage8 120:Nathan 39:archive 5425:|date= 5320:|date= 5187:EastTN 4971:Ilkali 4871:EastTN 4832:Ilkali 4802:EastTN 4775:Ilkali 4750:EastTN 4715:EastTN 4555:EastTN 4421:EastTN 4312:EastTN 4260:EastTN 4230:EastTN 4208:EastTN 4149:EastTN 3930:EastTN 3837:EastTN 3763:Ilkali 3659:weight 3631:Ilkali 3464:Ilkali 3409:Ilkali 3389:EastTN 3089:report 2670:Ilkali 2372:, and 2243:Ilkali 1940:issue. 1148:Quirex 1033:Quirex 1011:Quirex 980:Quirex 950:Quirex 938:Quirex 887:Quirex 881:, and 774:Quirex 605:|date= 5623:Gabr- 5585:Gabr- 5284:?" - 5127:Gabr- 5088:Gabr- 5025:Gabr- 4965:when 4913:Gabr- 4604:Gabr- 4459:Gabr- 4337:Gabr- 4282:Gabr- 4182:Gabr- 4123:Gabr- 4040:Gabr- 3985:Gabr- 3897:Gabr- 3862:Gabr- 3604:Gabr- 3549:Gabr- 3494:Gabr- 3430:Gabr- 3366:Gabr- 2122:Aminz 2026:Aminz 2022:WP:RS 1990:here! 995:much? 974:From 904:them. 883:WP:RS 875:WP:OR 846:died. 770:WP:RS 653:Aminz 643:Aminz 580:(PDF) 305:This 258:Gabr- 207:: --> 16:< 5561:talk 5535:talk 5498:ISBN 5487:ISBN 5429:help 5397:2007 5376:ISBN 5324:help 5292:2007 5243:talk 5191:talk 5156:talk 5114:talk 5070:talk 4975:talk 4875:talk 4836:talk 4806:talk 4779:talk 4754:talk 4735:talk 4719:talk 4699:talk 4683:talk 4667:talk 4652:talk 4559:talk 4517:talk 4425:talk 4415:and 4375:talk 4316:talk 4264:talk 4234:talk 4212:talk 4153:talk 4107:talk 4067:talk 4025:talk 3934:talk 3841:talk 3767:talk 3750:talk 3728:The 3702:The 3635:talk 3582:talk 3535:talk 3526:Here 3468:talk 3413:talk 3403:POV 3393:talk 3346:talk 3329:talk 3313:talk 3286:talk 3234:talk 3209:talk 3188:talk 3164:talk 3142:talk 3119:talk 3097:talk 3059:talk 3016:talk 2969:talk 2921:talk 2880:talk 2848:talk 2812:talk 2779:talk 2752:talk 2725:talk 2674:talk 2649:talk 2625:talk 2592:talk 2572:Try 2564:talk 2534:talk 2504:talk 2481:talk 2457:talk 2435:NPOV 2415:talk 2382:talk 2339:and 2247:talk 2222:talk 2208:talk 2189:talk 2181:NPOV 2156:talk 2126:talk 2111:talk 2082:talk 2049:talk 2030:talk 2003:talk 1887:talk 1857:talk 1812:talk 1769:talk 1752:talk 1734:talk 1690:talk 1682:must 1672:See 1660:talk 1638:talk 1596:talk 1546:talk 1527:talk 1511:talk 1490:talk 1433:talk 1418:talk 1342:talk 1326:talk 1311:talk 1232:talk 1146:. -- 1144:WP:A 1127:talk 1101:Ecto 1082:Ecto 1072:Jacj 1042:Ecto 1020:Ecto 1001:Ecto 976:WP:V 962:Ecto 924:Ecto 912:Both 879:WP:V 803:Ecto 801:and 749:talk 722:talk 695:talk 666:talk 626:talk 616:link 609:help 369:talk 338:talk 289:talk 283:. -- 244:talk 221:talk 188:talk 171:talk 156:talk 141:talk 114:talk 5437:." 5399:). 5389:?"( 5294:). 4967:God 3247:In 3138:Ben 3093:Ben 2663:are 2331:or 1286:not 522:or 5632:el 5594:el 5563:) 5537:) 5420:: 5418:}} 5414:{{ 5395:, 5315:: 5313:}} 5309:{{ 5290:, 5245:) 5193:) 5158:) 5136:el 5116:) 5097:el 5072:) 5034:el 4977:) 4922:el 4877:) 4866:do 4838:) 4808:) 4781:) 4756:) 4737:) 4721:) 4711:is 4701:) 4685:) 4669:) 4654:) 4613:el 4561:) 4519:) 4468:el 4427:) 4411:, 4407:, 4403:, 4377:) 4346:el 4318:) 4291:el 4266:) 4236:) 4214:) 4191:el 4155:) 4132:el 4111:) 4069:) 4049:el 4027:) 3994:el 3936:) 3906:el 3871:el 3843:) 3769:) 3754:) 3718:? 3699:. 3637:) 3613:el 3584:) 3558:el 3537:) 3503:el 3470:) 3439:el 3415:) 3395:) 3375:el 3348:) 3331:) 3315:) 3288:) 3236:) 3211:) 3190:) 3166:) 3144:) 3121:) 3099:) 3061:) 3018:) 2971:) 2963:-- 2923:) 2882:) 2850:) 2814:) 2781:) 2773:-- 2754:) 2727:) 2676:) 2651:) 2627:) 2594:) 2566:) 2536:) 2506:) 2485:) 2459:) 2417:) 2384:) 2368:, 2347:, 2249:) 2224:) 2210:) 2191:) 2183:. 2158:) 2128:) 2120:-- 2113:) 2084:) 2051:) 2032:) 2005:) 1976:}} 1970:{{ 1889:) 1859:) 1814:) 1771:) 1754:) 1736:) 1692:) 1662:) 1640:) 1598:) 1548:) 1529:) 1513:) 1496:) 1492:• 1435:) 1420:) 1344:) 1328:) 1313:) 1234:) 1129:) 1009:-- 885:-- 877:, 809:: 755:) 751:• 728:) 724:• 697:) 668:) 641:-- 628:) 620:. 600:: 598:}} 594:{{ 586:, 582:, 371:) 348:-- 340:) 291:) 267:el 246:) 223:) 190:) 173:) 158:) 143:) 116:) 5559:( 5533:( 5431:) 5427:( 5410:. 5383:. 5326:) 5322:( 5305:. 5241:( 5189:( 5154:( 5112:( 5068:( 4973:( 4873:( 4834:( 4804:( 4777:( 4752:( 4733:( 4717:( 4697:( 4681:( 4665:( 4650:( 4557:( 4515:( 4423:( 4373:( 4314:( 4262:( 4232:( 4210:( 4170:c 4151:( 4103:( 4065:( 4023:( 3932:( 3839:( 3765:( 3746:( 3633:( 3580:( 3533:( 3466:( 3411:( 3391:( 3344:( 3327:( 3311:( 3284:( 3232:( 3207:( 3186:( 3162:( 3140:( 3117:( 3095:( 3057:( 3014:( 2967:( 2919:( 2878:( 2846:( 2810:( 2777:( 2750:( 2723:( 2689:( 2672:( 2647:( 2623:( 2590:( 2562:( 2532:( 2502:( 2477:( 2455:( 2413:( 2380:( 2245:( 2220:( 2206:( 2187:( 2154:( 2124:( 2109:( 2080:( 2071:N 2047:( 2028:( 2001:( 1885:( 1855:( 1810:( 1767:( 1750:( 1732:( 1688:( 1658:( 1636:( 1594:( 1544:( 1525:( 1509:( 1488:( 1431:( 1416:( 1340:( 1324:( 1309:( 1238:. 1230:( 1125:( 870:. 747:( 732:. 720:( 701:. 693:( 664:( 624:( 618:) 611:) 607:( 588:I 367:( 336:( 287:( 242:( 219:( 186:( 169:( 154:( 139:( 112:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index