Dominion
I don't like to get involved with topics like this, but I am suprised there is no section in this article regarding so called mans dominion over the earth. It seems to be one of the more controvertial parts of christianity. Anomity 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur - generally I think this would come under the title of criciticsm from anthropocentrism.Richard holt 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Richard Holt
Encyclopedia
This artical does not seem to be written formally enough to me. Someone needs to fix it,
Agreed - also it is incoherent, rambling and poorly organised, with topic headings that don't really create a logical structure.
Personally, the bulk of this article seems to be poor. It seems to be a criticism of the actions and beliefs of sects in Christianity and does not present the view as a whole. It generalises on many issues and as a Christian I don't believe in the majority of views put forward in the argument as 'christian beliefs'.
The case for Christian's and science seems to suggest that Martin Luther's comments epitomise the beliefs of Christians. In reality, the bible says nothing about the earth being flat so using that as a criticism of the religion is completely unfounded.
The majority of Christian sects have no issue with contraception and are more intent on fighting the AIDs epidemic.
The within christianity section is not a criticism of the religion but of those who get the wrong idea or continue to sin, something Christianity itself does not in any way encourage, obviously.
The racial or cultural dominance section is completely based on individuals, and although there is a place for some it it in this article, it is poorly presented and much of it is completely irrelevant to this article in particular.
While parts of the persecution section could do with some neutral rewording, I dont think there's too much cause for concern but there must be caution that christians arnt generalised over this issue.
The section on Atonement is completely ignorant and uninformed but unfortunatly that is the nature of some criticisms of christianity, however maybe it should be revised to outline the doctrinal ignorance and assumptions of the arguments presented because the arguments are not in effect criticisms of christianity but instead criticisms of an incorrect portrayal of biblical teachings which overlook the fundemental beliefs of Christianity.
The part on the second coming starts off well but falls into irrelevance about atheist observations. Realistically, the article only needs the first paragraph.
I haven't read the rest of the article but will add any other observations soon.
Can someone explain to me how this sentence belongs in this article?
"Theologian Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, And The Meaning Of Life, is critical of Dawkins' arguments for atheism."
I'm new to this side of Wikipedia, usually opting to stay on the more rational and objective side of wikipedia (science, mathematics, history). So maybe I should stay away from reading articles like these where agendas are sometimes questionable. Anyways, I really don't see how this sentence, describing a theologian's criticism on a scientist's case for atheism belongs in an article called "Criticism of Christianity". Wikipedia brown 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages criticism of the point of view from within an article, as long as it is NPOV (by wikipedian definitions) and balanced in accordance with the current state of the appropriate published literature. Therefore, that sentence as it currently is (which has clearly morphed in the couple of months since then) seems absolutely appropriate for that section, since it's criticising that particular criticism.
BTW, I think agendas are 'questionable' in all areas of human knowledge - you always have people disagreeing, and if they've studied in any great depth they care a lot, so they're always biased. In religion, both believers and interested non-believers are generally especially passionate about their own POV, but I don't see that as proving anything.TheologyJohn 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Reducing the chaos
- This article has become extremely disorganized and I have made some attempt to put it in order, by putting things in more suitable places, and shortening some of the sections where people have off-loaded large quotations from various authors. There is still a large undigested chunk of discussion relating to Professor Louis Pojman, which is far too long and too specific to be left thus, but I've run out of energy and time for now. Ming the Merciless 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Had another go. The section on Obayashi's views is, like that on Pojman, far too specific and not integrated into the article (it reads like a student precis which has simply been bolted into the text).Ming the Merciless 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unless someone has strong arguments against, I propose (a) that the entire two sections relating to Obayashi's socio-psychological theory of the afterlife be moved to the article on Afterlife; (b) that the detailed list of examples of Biblical conflict be moved to the article on Internal consistency and the Bible. I think this would help focus this article. Ming the Merciless 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
billwilliams.org and External links
The latest addition is adding personal commentary to a link (a disclaimer if you will). If the link is problematic and doesn't meet our guidelines WP:EL, then we should discuss how it is problematic and then remove the link. Adding commentary like this is the solution to a controversial link. We either include it or don't include it. How many other links listed have commentary? I'm not against removing the link. What I am against is the 'disclaimer' added by the anonymous IP user.--Andrew c 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Biblical Contradictions?
Haha. I love this section of the article! It is a poor attempt by the uneducated to display apparent "contradictions" within the Scripture! Unfortunately for the creators of that section, there are no contradictions. The authors of the section insist on basing the contradictions on passages found in the Old and New Testaments. Yet an understanding of the New Covenant by any of those creators would result in the removal of that section! The New Covenant was all about the abolishment of the Old, as God fulfilled the promise of the Messiah. Of course any person with no understanding of the motifs and promises in Scripture would assume there are contradictions. On the surface, there appear to be contradictions. But if the educated delve a little bit deeper, to the historical context, the problems melt away!
There is no place on this article for Christians to point out the historical, contextual, etc, circumstances that void these "contradictions" (after all, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum)... But please, if you are going to post "contradictions" ==> actually have some.
These simply need to be removed, not just because I'm against them, but because if any Joe Uneducated saw this section, he would assume the Bible actually has contradictions without knowing that it doesn't.
Aren't Encyclopedias supposed to educate the general public? --FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)The Bible lists two complete different ancestaries of Jesus Step Dad if I remember correctly. That is a blatant contradiction, mentioned in Richard Dawkin's book the god delusion.
Also the chronology of the conquering of Canaan (books Joshua, Judges, and Samuels) isn't consistent.
I'm in the process of reading Kings 1 (and have read The God Delusion entirely), and as of yet having nothing else to report pertaining to contradictions.
Speaking of literal interpretation, Genesis says god couldn't overpower Jacob in a wrestling match, and Exodus says Moses convinced him to change his mind. So in the former circumstance he is weak, and in the later imperfect.
Literally interpreting the entire thing doesn't get you anywhere. And by the way, whomever that is above, talking about the ancestry, please do be more specific as to where you see alleged contradictions. I would love to see what you have put together. 70.119.231.92 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, more stuff not having to do with Christianity...
If I may have your attention yet again, I'd like to take a look at the beginning of the first section, "Criticism of Christianity as Irrational. Let's look at the first few paragraphs and quotes: "Many skeptics consider that all religious faith is essentially irrational, and incompatible with reason. Friedrich Nietzsche defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true." , and H. L. Mencken described it as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln) The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason. (Benjamin Franklin) When you know a man's religious complexion, you know what sort of books he reads when he wants some more light, and what sort of books he avoids, lest by accident he get more light than he wants. (Mark Twain) Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. (James Madison) The trouble with Faith is that it cannot coexist with Reason. When the religious beliefs run into a conflict with the se
American Atheists | Biblical Contradictions
This is the official site of the American Atheists, an organization that defends the civil rights of Atheists, and calls for the total, absolute separation of church and state.
Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?
Biblical Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions? Inconsistencies and/or Contradictions in the Bible compiled by Donald Morgan.
sultan.org
Library: Modern Documents: Jim Merritt: A List Of Biblical Contradictions . A List of Biblical Contradictions . Jim Merritt . Subject: A List of Biblical Contradictions
Bible Islam - A List of Biblical Contradictions
A List of Biblical Contradictions Subject: A List of Biblical Contradictions By: Jim Meritt Date: 1992-07-24 All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my ...
Biblical Contradictions
A web-site which preaches Atheism by exposing the many evil crimes in the Bible committed by God and his followers.
A List Of Biblical Contradictions
A list of biblical contradictions by Jim Meritt. ... [Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions.
Biblical Contradictions
A List of Biblical Contradictions. Contradictions. The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything ...
Biblical Contradictions
Topic you have posted in Normal Topic Hot Topic (More than 25 replies) Very Hot Topic (More than 50 replies) Locked Topic Sticky Topic Poll
Biblical Contradictions
Biblical Contradictions - I've heard that the Bible goes against itself in many places? Is that true? Read here to find out.
YouTube - Biblical "contradictions" #1: Bats are birds?
Many atheists like to exploit apparent errors in the bible. In this series of videos, I will be refuting some of the claims made by them. In this first video, I refute the claim ...