Talk:Christianity

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Older archives
Before July 2003 More old debate

Lead Image -- Revisited

Per a discussion on the last Talk Archive, i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christianity/Archive_45#lead_image

I am wondering if there was still interest in having a lead image for Christianity? I found the following resurrection image, one that I believe is public domain as it is pretty much everywhere and can be found on prayer cards. This page could really use a lead image. LotR (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• 
  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

At present it has copyright problems so I suggest not considering it until they are sorted. Personally, I don't like it but only because of its style.--BozMo talk 05:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I thought so, but I just wanted to see if there was still interest in this. I know there was interest last time, but it seemed to fizzle, probably due to the whole copyright thing. It just seems there should be an image out there. The Jesus page has a very nice one, but I don't like the idea of merely copy-and-pasting that one. LotR (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?

Bytebear (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be good also (I presume it's the Sermon on the Mount, and it would be identified as such, thus highlighting the moral teachings of Christianity?) LotR (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better anyway. The last supper by Leonardo or similar might also work? --BozMo talk 14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It is the Sermon on the Mount, and I think it is one image that is universal to all of Christianity. Bytebear (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the Sermon on the Mount over Da Vinci's last supper. The original discussion on this topic had editors leaning toward a Resurrection image, but the Sermon on the Mount is excellent. LotR (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made the change, by simply moving the image to the lead. I also changed the text to describe the painting:

The Sermon On the Mount by Carl Heinrich Bloch, Danish painter, d. 1890.

The original text was:

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant. His famous Sermon on the Mount is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.

But I thought that was to theologically detailed for the lead. I am open to a simple sentence describing the significance of Christ as a teacher in the context of this event, but I don't think it should go too deep. I also think the artist information should remain. Bytebear (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only for the lead. Such explanations, if relevant, should be given in the article's text and not in picture captions.

Though I am not completely happy with this move, as it highlights the Sermon on the Mount too much over other aspects of Christ's ministry, it is not bad enough to actively object. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Resurrection would've been better, but again, this particular image conveys a certain Christian feeling, and it is certainly better than the blank page. LotR (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The image looks good -- certainly much better than no image at all. Regarding text, why not leave the original text in its place? In the lead, I would merely make mention of the Sermon on the Mount as being one of the "masterpieces" (don't have to use that particular word, but you know what I mean) of Jesus' existential moral teachings (and, if I'm not mistaken, they are teachings with a distinctly Christian flavor). LotR (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sin

I have cut the following section from the article:

"Sin

Christians categories many forms of human behavior as "sin"; this term is used to describe any action that violates a rule set out in the Bible, and is also used to refer to the state of having committed such a violation. In some Christian sects, sin can refer to a state of mind rather than a specific action - any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful"."

Str had just marked it dubious, but I find the whole thing to be OR. There are no references and its placement in front of Jesus Christ under the beliefs section is completely out of balance with what major beliefs are in Christianity. Does someone want to take a run at making this worthy of putting in the article or should it just be left out entirely? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Storm, sure it is probably OR ... and not very well done OR.

The section is wrong since

1. Sin is not restricted to behaviour or actions,
2. Sin is certainly not defined merely by some set of rules,
3. And to locate this simply in "the Bible" is Protestant POV.
4. claiming only "some Christian sects" go beyond actions to states of minds or thoughs is mistaken as well - though I can believe that some "sects" or subgroups do focus more on the one than the other, they hardly can dispense with the idea of "sinful thoughts" altogether in the light of what Jesus taught (see Sermon of the Mount - Antitheses). There is a real disagreement between Lutherans and Catholics about whether "concupiscence", the propensity to sin, is a sin itself (Luther yes, Church no) but that's a totally different matter.
5. The last one is also selfcontradicting as the sentence before described the "state of mind" thing as fact, only then to turned around and to ascribe it some "sects".
6. "any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful"." is nonsense. Any thought, word or act that IS (considered) sinful IS (considered) sinful. The description above is not helpful at all. And there well might be acs not considered shameful that are sinful.
7. All in all, nothing in the section is particularly Christian (except for the badly done passage about "sinful thoughts").
8. Nothing in the section even addressed the importance of sin in regard to salvation, God, redemption etc.
9. In the light of these the misuse of "categorize" is mere nitpicking. (No, I am not speaking about the mistyped "Christians categories", but about the misunderstanding what a category is - classify would be more fitting.)
10. Finally, the section is not really needed - if I am not mistaken it was born out of the will of an editor to have every word explained in this article - and certainly badly placed where it was.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are lots of things that need to be done to improve the section. However, whether it should be included and whether it should be given prominence are two questions that are easy to answer, in my view. Christians' belief in Sin is surely their most fundamental belief, isn't it? Without a belief in sin, there wouldn't actually be any reason for Christians to regard Jesus as any more important than any other early 1st Millennium figure? It's necessary for readers to understand the importance that Christians place on Sin for them to understand the importance they place on Jesus. I can't believe anyone actually thinks that the general thrust of the section is OR (some of the details, maybe). It should be incredibly easy to find reliable references to describe what are some of the most basic attitudes prevalent among Christians. SP-KP (talk)

That is an interesting spin I have never considered. To me the most significant belief of Christianity is Jesus Christ and not the presence of sin. The Christian concept of sin is what required a Savior found in Christ, but that is not the same thing as sin being a more significant concept.

That Christians have a concept of right and wrong, sin and righteousness, goes without saying, but the section is so poorly written and its placement improper that I thought it better to move it here to further discuss. In other words, I am not against having a section on sin but the wording should actually reflect Christian beliefs and its placement would be different. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the current version is bad. I also would not be against the idea of a section on Sin, if only because it's a concept frequently associated with Christianity, rightly or wrongly.

I strongly disagree with the statement that "Christians' belief in Sin is surely their most fundamental belief". Even if there had never been any sin, Jesus would still have been God (though admittedly the absence of sin would have negated a major reason for the incarnation). Even if that had been true there are more fundamental doctrines: God's existence, his creative power, his love for his creations, his holiness, his gift of free will; without those sin is pretty much irrelevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some good points above. First, Storm Rider, just to clarify, I wasn't saying that Christianity's most significant belief is a belief in sin, I was merely making a statement about how fundamental a belief this was - you're absolutely right in saying that beliefs that surround Jesus' status are Christianity's most significant beliefs. I agree with you completely that any section on Sin has to reflect the Christian viewpoint accurately, and if the current words don't do that, they must certainly be changed.

DJClayworth, upon reflection, I agree with you that a belief in Sin isn't Christianity's most fundamental belief, and that all of the things you list are definitely more fundamental. What I should have said is that Christians' belief in Sin is a more fundamental belief than any belief regarding Jesus' role in "dealing" with Sin - without the former, the latter is meaningless.

Perhaps the way forward is to split the section about Jesus into two - one, early in the article, dealing with Christianity's beliefs about Jesus himself, and then another, later, which deals with his role in relation to Sin, once we've covered the topic of Sin itself. SP-KP (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against a passage (rather than a section) on sin in principle, only it must be well written, accurate and neutral.

SP-KP, yes it isn't. Sin is not "the most fundamental belief of Christianity" though it plays a part in the basic tenets.

Yes, the general thrust of the section was not original research because it was not researched or informed at all but a badly written assembly of misunderstandings, banalities etc.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic "propaganda"

Catholic "propaganda" is what this article reads like. Non-religious historians agree that the Orthodox Church alone can claim an unbroken line to antiquity. This article places the Catholic Church in a place of prominence throughout. Whoever set the tone of this article is either a biased Catholic or in need of a history lesson. (unsigned contribution by User:Nikoz78)

Exactly, what one earth are you on about? Where in teh article is written as such? It is true that the Orthodox Church has a good claim, if not one of the best claims to antiquity, but tally ho!! One forgets numerous other Oriental Churches! And lets not forget the Assyrian Church of the East one of the oldest Churches, some parts of which are part of Rome. Tourskin (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being a member of either church, but having a deep admiration for both, I don't have a horse in this race. However, I do find that other Christians can bristle at what appears to be an overly Catholic tone. This is an area that demands patience and caution. Patience in that things do not change overnight and caution because no one is interested in swinging the pendulum the other way. First, there is no Christian church larger than the Catholic church; none even comes close. That is not to say that the majority gets to write history, but we generally start out with their position and then move outward. Does that make sense?

Also, if there is something historically incorrect, please correct it using reputable references for the material. To correct tone is tricker, but easily done if you are a good word smith. Why don't you offer a few edits and see how they go. If they are deemed controversial you will find them reverted and then you can just bring them here for discussion. Does that sound acceptable? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just can't stand trolling, regardless of whether its pro or anti catholic or pro or anti orthodox or whatever church one seems to have a phobia of these days. I think people almost forget that no Christian Church actually own Chistianity either. Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reread this article curious about the comment. I am not RC but cannot see much Roman Catholic bias. The only issue I can see in half a dozen places with the placement of the Anglican Communion amongst the Protestant churches whereas it declares itself as Catholic. E.g the diagram "branches of Protestantism" which gives the Roman Catholic POV drawing Anglicanism as a branch of Protestantism versus the official Anglican view that it is a branch of Catholicism encompassing Protestant elements. There is also an issue in the text describing "Pope Paul III then excommunicated King Henry VIII in 1538, beginning what would become a decisive schism between Rome and Canterbury.[131]" which is not even POV but whitewash, see History_of_the_Anglican_Communion: the decisive schism started in 1570 with the excommunication of Elizabeth and the two churches were completely reunited by the Act of Reunion in the middle. Equally the way the headings read placing Anglicanism under Protestant Churches but listing other "Catholic" elsewhere all seem to be in error. They also seem to have been changed since the version used for this [[1]] It does look as though some POV has sneaked in and the wording does need correcting when someone has the energy. The articles elsewhere in WP on the Church of England all seem correct on this point. --BozMo talk 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On balance I think the diagram on Protestantism has to go. Aside the Anglican question there are a number of other issues and lots of cross overs which are not included. It is hard to know about the relative size of things like the Congregational Chuch (which joined the URC) etc but that's the problem with the diagram: its a bit of a DIY job and I cannot find a basis for accepting that these simplifications are the right ones. --BozMo talk 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree - it occupies more real estate than the rest of the text in the section. It's there at Protestantism which is probably a good place for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is overblown to say that the Anglican communion "proclaims itself Catholic". The communion has protestant evangelical, modernist liberal and anglo-catholic streams. "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" is still one of the proper names of the Episcopal Church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) holic

Perhaps a little. Of course both the CoE and the AC contain protestant elements as an integral part, however you have to look at what the church and communion state officially. I cannot find a statement by the AC yet but I'll work on it. --BozMo talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Episcopal church has had opportunities to "declare itself as Catholic" and not a branch of Protestantism, and it has turned them down. But although etymologically "protestant" is a positive or optimistic word ("putting forward a testimony" - "evangelical"), it has almost entirely negative connotations in English ("complainant", "remonstrant", as in "protest"), and this is a good reason for disliking the word "Protestant" as insufficiently expressive of what Anglicanism is - especially because the church more and more in recent times has "officially" distanced itself from anti-Catholicism. I grew up in the Episcopal church, where via media was not a foreign concept to me. But all this recent rhetoric is new to me, and sounds to my ear as though the more descriptive slogan is not both, but "neither Protestant nor catholic", representing some kind of effort to lift Anglicanism out of history and to immunize it from any rational comparison with anything else. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark, isn't there some evidence that the Anglican communion does proclaim itself to be "catholic" not Catholic? There is acknowledgement as being part of the One holy and apostolic catholic church, but does not recognize the papacy.

It certainly proclaims itself as catholic as well. I don't really have any skin in the issue and was brought up as a congregationalist too (although I guess I am now an Anglican) but as far as I know the formal position of the Church of England is that it has the legitimate claim to being the Catholic church in the UK and that the "Roman Catholic" church was the other half of the Catholic church split off by the excommunication of Elizabeth, which was the schismatic act in 1570. Funnily though, the last formal statement I could find on that was over a hundred years old. Now, the formal position of the C of E is not necessarily what the people in the pews think (many of whom are protestant) and also the Anglican Communion isn't the same as the Church of England, although the continuity back to the Early Church follows the same route. Also as with the Roman Catholics trying to avoid calling themselves "the Church" out of respect for other Christians (even though they apparently believe their members have a degree of unique salvation) many Anglican try to avoid using "Catholic" and many people (like me) think the whole issue of titles is a bit of a waste of time. Nonetheless Catholic with a capital C exists on service sheets and church names and amongst a small core of Anglo-Catholics these things matter a lot. Should Wikipedia care? Bit of an WP:UNDUE issue perhaps. It seems to me a bit like the issue of who is allowed to call what "Cheddar" or "Champagne"... one for the European court perhaps. --BozMo talk 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The depiction of Anglicanism within Protestantism is entirely accurate. The Anglican Church has its origin in Protestantism, splitting of the Catholic Church under Elizabeth I (and not the other way around). For centuries it was staunchly Protestant. Anglo-Catholicism and ideas like the "Third Branch" did not spring up until the 19th century.

It also would be better if one could avoid nonsense like "even though they apparently believe their members have a degree of unique salvation" or capitalisation madness.

This umbrella article is hardly the place to go into the complex labelling issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think the "major branches of Christianity" picture describes matters quite well. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very clear statement of the Roman Catholic POV, for which I thank you. However please do not dream that it amounts to a neutral point of view. --BozMo talk 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally as far as I can see from the edit history you were the original person who changed the article to that form and so it is good to have you involved in the discussion. --BozMo talk 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I agree that the "major branches of Christianity" picture describes matters quite well. But it differs slightly from the protestantism one in this regard. --BozMo talk 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote above is certainly not a "Roman Catholic POV" but the facts of history. How to interpret these is a matter of POV but not the facts, e.g. that the CoE split from the (Roman) Catholic Church under Henry VIII and under Elisabeth I again. That the CoE took a Protestant direction under Edward VI and again under Elisabeth I. That Anglo-Catholicism (along with the branch theory) only emerged in the 19th century. These are facts. These need not be neutralised into a some say, some say structure - the interpretation by these is a matter of opinion but not what actually happened. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah good. Facts, eh? So not hard to demonstrate at all? All through the 18th century, say, to set against the whole congregation declaring weekly in creed that is was variously Catholic or catholic you can stack up lots of official (say liturgical or passed motions of Synod or the like) declarations of protestantism? (Not accusations of Protestantism by others of course since you say fact not POV). You may have a better library than me, do please share them all? --BozMo talk 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Does this mean that the Lutheran Church has "lots of official (say liturgical or passed motions of Synod or the like) declarations of 'Protestantism'"? I would also take it that Luther himself must have self-identified as "Protestant"? (things I would not have guessed, but am interested to know otherwise) For what it's worth, I went to a public school in a largely "Protestant" geopolitical area and was taught in history classes throughout that Anglicanism falls under Protestantism, even if it is a unique entity within that classification, given the original events surrounding the Anglican "protest" against Rome were largely non-doctrinal. LotR (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess if anyone seriously raised the q about Lutheran's there are in their articles references to the book of concord and the first "protestant meeting", and none of them claim to be Catholics from a continuous Catholic line (as the Anglo Catholics do, although Mr Str1977 obviously pours scorn on the claim). On the other bit "the original events surrounding the Anglican "protest" against Rome were largely non-doctrinal" isn't necessarily true although doctrine and politics is muddled. Of course the Henry the 8th stuff wasn't doctrinal, and he self-declared as an alternative pope but that stuff was all completely "irrevocably" reversed by the act of reunion under Bloody Mary. The present anglican protest (if that is what it is) dates to Elizabeth I and seems to be doctrinal to me, as least in part, which I suppose means it is partly protestant. I don't doubt that Ed6 was very protestant mind you. But E1 also succeeded a Queen who had tortured hundreds to death on Romes order's so the claim the break was driven by a political split with Rome not a split with Catholic tradition is one we need to consider. All muddy IMHO. --BozMo talk 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LDS in scriptures

When I read the scriptures section I find that the LDS church, representing a tiny fraction of Christians worldwide, gets a paragraph occupying nearly half the section about it's scriptures. Isn't this a case of undue weight? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the material entirely. I could not think of a way to shorten it that would make it relevant and at end felt this article is too high level to cover the specifics of a relatively small group. My objective is not to disparage a group that is seen as the 4th largest church in the US, but that relative to the total number of Christians world wide we are talking about 0.65%, less than 1% of the total group population. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree I think the descion to delete it was good considering the LDS Chruch is not considered part of the Christian Church beacause of its belifs about Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that Jesus was the Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, bled and died for our sins, rose again on the third day, returned to sit on the right hand of the Father and will return again. He is the only way, truth, and life for us to return to God. The only reasons I deleted this material was as I stated above. The LDS church falls completely within Restorationist Christianity. Regardless, this conversation is at an end given the topic of this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry StormRider can't let that rest. While you may believe that LDS is a part of Restorationist Christianity, the views of the majority of Christians are to the contrary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry DJ Clayworth, but how much more Christian can you get than with the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Whether they are considered Restorationalist Christians or not they are still Christians, and all of your denying that won't change the FACT that they are Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're judging a group's theological correctness based on their name now? Ah, that explains why the German Democratic Republic was so much more democratic than the German Federal Republic. Seriously though I didn't say they weren't Christian, I said most Christian groups considered them not Christian. Anyway, probably time this discussion stopped. It's not really relevant to the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulls***

I think there should be a section added about the criticism of Christianity, notably the many films such as this and this that attempt both to disprove and undermine the fundamental practises of the religion. I am an Atheist myself, but I respect others beliefs, except when those beliefs impact negatively on others, which they often have. As well as there being criticism on religion as a whole, there are specific arguments against Christianity in particular. Are these worth mentioning? --92.3.166.115 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article Criticism of Christianity? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So out of curiosity do you respect atheism when forms of it have negatively impacted on others such as National Socialism and Stalinism? --BozMo talk 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm...National Socialism and Stalinism are no more forms of Atheism than a car is a form of tree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephan. We both have to accept that classification is arbitrary to a degree. One could easily construct a belief tree to classify all beliefs where the first subdivision is "belief in God y/n" and call all the "n" as a subset of Atheism. Then you get the mass murders. Of course you would prefer to do the first subdivision on something else (perhaps "called steven"...). My personal first split one would be "sensible or closed-minded" and I'd throw Dawkins in with all fundamentalists of all religions and say "not me" but I can see other people might have a problem with this....--BozMo talk 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so we get the Buddhists (no God) and the Ancient Greeks (lot's of Gods)? We can wrangle about wether Stalin filled the role of a (and then, of course, "the") god in the Soviet Union. I'm a bit of a fan of Dawkins, and I find his approach to religion quite a bit more subtle and devastating than Hitchens, who quite disappointed me with the old "look at all the bad religion does". Why do you believe into one thing with no tangible evidence, but not another? And why do others, on the same evidence, believe in something different? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am moving my reply to your talk page in case it is considered irrelevant here. --BozMo talk 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious from the title of Bulls*** that this guy is a troll? Tourskin (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion has always been the basis of morality, read Aristotle and Plato please. Tourskin (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone that Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of the article's subject, but on ways to improve the presentation of the article itself.

In any case, we are discouraged from developing a section or article whose specific purpose is to outline criticisms of the subject, mostly due to the danger of forking. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of religions is not valid because the criticisms levelled against specific religions is usually caused by adherents of the religion rather than the religion itself; its difficult to differentiate between the two. We can't say Christianity is a violent religion because of the Crusades, for example because 1) the Popes and Kings who called for Crusades do not represent Christianity or even Catholicism as a whole, acting in unorthodox manners 2) There is a difference between a Pope acting as a man and acting as the head of Church, many popes acting as the former rather than latter 3) the actions of a few cannot be labelled indiscriminantly against a belief held in common by many who are not at fault and a few who are at fault 4) You cannot criticize a religion's beliefs, only its logic in a civlized argument which would produce alot of arguments and counter-arguments and wikipedia article pages are not the places for philosophical discussions. Tourskin (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is indeed valid, but perhaps only when a large number of figures recognise and implement it. Of course certain individuals will not represent a religion as a whole, but as long as the content of the article is purely factual, stating what the criticism is and why it exists, it is surely acceptable, no? Anyway, the criticism I was referring to does not involve actions of a few or a heirachial elite, but rather the actual basis of the religion, the Bible and its contents being the prime example. --92.2.14.223 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course religions can be criticized on different levels - e.g. the philosophical foundations (Is the core creed sound? Can it possibly be true? Is there reasonable evidence that it is true?), but also on the effect of its followers. Excluding all of this borders on the No true Scotsman fallacy. However, to be included in this article without giving them undue weight, such views would have to be notable and widely acknowledged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, what I meant was criticism of the four points I mentioned was not valid, which is often the most common criticism of religions. Criticism of religion is not only valid in some circumstances, but necessary for the religion itself. Any religion that can't take criticism isn't worth its salt. Tourskin (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)