Talk:Christianity and violence/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Gang violence and Christianity in El Salvador

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/08/christianity-is-growing-rapidly-in-el-salvador-along-with-gang-violence-and-murder-rates/ Rupert Loup (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Violence against homosexuals

There isn't information about the violence against homosexuals. 104.245.151.27 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Taiping Rebellion

A mention of and linking to the Taiping Rebellion would make sense on this page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion Xeinok (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christianity and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080406152031/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/religion/ethics/war/just/introduction.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/just/introduction.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110710223116/http://familyunitednetwork.com/Documents/Religious/gender%20churches%20and%20violence.pdf to http://familyunitednetwork.com/Documents/Religious/gender%20churches%20and%20violence.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christianity and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080817014618/http://jsis.artsci.washington.edu/jsis/Chirot-War.pdf to http://jsis.artsci.washington.edu/jsis/Chirot-War.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080225041810/http://olympia.anglican.org:80/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_3.htm to http://olympia.anglican.org/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence section

needs to cover this, actually. as everybody knows the biblical texts about women submitting to their husbands has been used to justify all kinds of nastiness. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Canon law

Jytdog how the inquisition, in which hundreds of thousands of people where tortured and murdered, is offtopic?. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What in any of this content says anything about violence or about these "hundreds of thousands of people where tortured and murdered"? There is not a single word about violence in the content you added. The specific content you added is completely WP:OFFTOPIC. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you read it? because clearly says that it was a discriminatory system. In its corresponding articles says about the deaths. In the end of my edit says about the method of punishment. If you wan't I can make it more explicit. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You are not explaining how is off topic. Please care to elaborate. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It. Doesn't. Discuss. Violence. Especially not the canon law part. Above you mention 'hundreds of thousands of people where tortured and murdered" but the content you added was not even close to that, it was a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo apparently seeking to somehow justify the "hundreds of thousands of people where tortured and murdered". Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination is a form of violence. The inquisition is based in the Canon law, I will make it more explicit with the violent parts and without the redundants. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Discrimination is horseshit compared to "hundreds of thousands of people where tortured and murdered". Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You know I think we need the opinion of other editors. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure we can use DR. But let me make sure what you are after - is what you want, that your initial edit be found to be on-topic and neutral? Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am re-reading. Above you offered to rewrite the discrimination section to be neutral; that would be fine with me, if you think you can do it. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Err I fail in see how is not neutral. If you think that is not neutral then report it. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

the most recent version was much much better. thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable source

I suggest taking a look at the "Christianity and Violence" chapter in [1]. It has some useful information. If I get a chance I'll return and add to the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to add more to the section titled "Christian Opposition to Violence' since the page seems to be more heavily favoring examples linking Christianity with violence. Issues I want to address are Christian pacifism and early persecution of Christians. I also want to research Christian perspectives and attitudes regarding war and violence. Sources for this I have found include:

Niebuhr, Reinhold. Why the Christian Church is not pacifist. Student Christian movement Press, 1940.

Dombrowski, Daniel. "Christian Pacifism." Theological Studies 52.4 (1991): 775.

Kelly, Edward Thomas. The anti-Christian persecution of 1616-1617 in Nanking. Columbia University., 1971.

De Ste, Geoffrey Ernest Maurice. "Why were the early christians persecuted?." Past and Present (1963): 6-38.

Alexander, Paul J. "Religious persecution and resistance in the Byzantine empire of the eighth and ninth centuries: methods and justifications."Speculum 52.02 (1977): 238-264.

Thompson, James Westfall. "The alleged persecution of the Christians at lyons in 177." The American Journal of Theology 16.3 (1912): 359-384.

Frend, William WHC. Martyrdom and persecution in the early church: A study of conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014.

Bainton, Roland H. Christian attitudes toward war and peace: A historical survey and critical re-evaluation. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008.

Gaddis, Michael. There is no crime for those who have Christ: religious violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Vol. 39. Univ of California Press, 2005.

Wilkinson, Alan. Dissent Or Conform?: War, Peace and the English Churches 1900-1945. Lutterworth Press, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephCronin (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions For The Page

There appears to be a lot of data that supports or provides evidence of Christianity and violence being linked.Perhaps an improvement can be made in expanding information on Christianity and pacifism/non violence. The article is very relevant to the topic however it seems biased towards the connection of Christianity and violence. Counterexamples did occur but the overwhelming evidence of violence appears biased. There is a lack of material in "Domestic Violence" although it has already been noted. Josavala (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

there is a separate article on Christian pacifism. This article is about Christianity and violence. Your perception of bias is just that. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

The text makes multiple references to Augustine of Hippo's views on war, but fails to place him in historical context. He lived through the Sack of Rome (410) and wrote The City of God in response to the event. He witnessed the invasion of Africa by the Vandals, and died in 430 during a failed siege of Hippo Regius by Genseric. His views on war reflect the state of the Roman Empire in his lifetime, under constant threat of war by other people. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christianity and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509230737/http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1998/pub_detail.asp to http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1998/pub_detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709000007/http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/Crusades_CanerChristianJihad0505.asp to http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/Crusades_CanerChristianJihad0505.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409231929/http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/publications/StolenGenerations.pdf to http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/publications/StolenGenerations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:Holbach Girl, you have made changes:

• here on 13 June 2017
• here on 13 June
• here on 16 June.

Your changes have been reverted by two editors; they do not reflect mainstream RS. Please come and explain rather than continuing to revert. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I put the cited passages from Gibson & Matthews in the ref. I think the current phrasing reflects the source better than the one proposed by Holbach Girl. Eperoton (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding edits that I made, that were undone by Jytdog

Explain to me, Jytdog, what exactly is the issue here? I have left references for all of my edits. If you have any issue with a specific reference, bring it to me and I will provide a substitute for it. You write that I've pushed my particular POV, but I disagree, that I have not pushed any more than other editors have. I mean, just look at how negative the whole article is. You might as well blame the death of your cat on Christianity or Christians.. I mean, its a joke in its current form. I am, actually attempting to make it more neutral you can say, but really I'm just presenting the facts. TourBus2020 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to give some examples of why I'm calling this article a joke: The New Testament is apparently "overflowing with "texts of terror". And the "Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence". Is that really true? The article further goes on to blame Slavery on Christianity. Or how about this line: "Supersessionist Christians focus on violence in the Old Testament while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament." - I mean, what is that even suppose to mean? Violence in the New Testament? I mean, I realize that original work is not allowed on wiki, and people are just quoting random snippets. But, what violence is there in the New Testament? Point that out to me please. And if editors are simply copy pasting random texts, then why were my edits, which hold far more truth, were removed?

And how can anyone, objective and rational, call my edits pushing POV and not any of the rest of the garbage really, which has been piled on for God knows how long? TourBus2020 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You made a very extensive edit and it was bad in many ways. In general it is unwise to make edits in big chunks as you did. Here are some of the problems:

• You first effort was reverted as vandalism by cluebot (more on that in a bit)
• Your second set of edits here had multiple issues, some noted in my edit note, and more which I will note below
• and this was pure edit warring.

So there are two chunks of text:

• Sociologist and Professor of Comparative Religion, Rodney William Stark, defines the Crusades as a retaliatory and defensive war, precipitated by an encroaching, expansionist and aggressive Islam. Rodney is also critical of Historians whom, in his words "unfairly impose modern notions about proper military conduct on medieval warfare", describing them as "unable to accept that fact and are given to agonizing over the very idea that war can ever be "just", revealing the pacifism that has become so widespread among academics."

and

• Based on observations and statistics, Christianity is the most peaceful religion in the world. The New Testament in particular, in contrast with the Hebrew Bible, the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita has long emerged decidedly as advocating non-violence towards others. Mohandas Gandhi had also embraced the concept of nonviolence which he had discovered in the New Testament, particularly the Sermont on the Mount, which he then utilized in his strategy for social and political struggles.

References

More about problems below. Just want to sign this to show you I am working on an extensive reply.. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to understand this, but it seems to me like you're building a strawman. The message I received was that the first edit was undone by the bot in error, like a false positive. What issues did my second set of edits have exactly? Yes, I made six consecutive edits and I intend to make more. Because this article is terribly written and one sided and I intend to change that. But I fail to see what I did wrong there.

I reverted your edit, yes I am wiling to concede that I perhaps jumped the gun, but I wouldn't call it edit warring. I felt that you've erroneously reverted my edits and said that I was pushing a POV. Now, if that is true, then what exactly is labeling Christianity the most violent religion on the face of this Earth? - "Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of most other major religions."

^What exactly is that? Is it true? If it's just a quote, then why is that allowed and not the quotes that I left? Basically it comes down to this: if I'm POV pushing, then so are all of the other editors.TourBus2020 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, these are all WP:Bare URLs which is just bad editing. Formatting the citations here so people can see what you cited, clearly:

1. Stark, Rodney (2010). God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780061942983.
2. Ngwana, Timothy P. (2007). Religion in World Affairs: America and the World Crisis. Xlibris Corporation. p. 63. ISBN 9781462811151.
3. Desjardins, Michell (1997). Peace, Violence and the New Testament. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9780567239792.
4. Dāsa, Ratana (2005). The Global Vision Of Mahatma Gandhi. Sarup & Sons. p. 240. ISBN 9788176255462.
5. Rynne, Terrence J. (2015). Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence. p. 198. ISBN 9788176255462.

OK, that's done. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused... Is that the only problem you had? The reference URLs? TourBus2020 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

more coming. slow down eager one, Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources first, as everything in Wikipedia starts with the sources you bring.

refs 1, 3, and 5 appear to be strong, decent works of scholarship. Ref 1 has a clearly revisionist agenda that needs to be handled with care, as its intro lays out. Ref 2 is not a reliable source for much of anything beyond what its author thinks and you would need other refs supporting why we would share care; this is because it is a self-published source. Ref 4 does not appear at all in the Open Library not by ISBN and not by author. I searched in my library and found no reviews of in scholarly literature. Maybe I missed some. You would need to justify use of this source.

Additionally, for refs 1 and 3 you provided no page numbers. Would you please post here the numbers of the pages you are summarizing? Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving now to content.

First paragraph: As I noted above, you presented a paragraph based on ref 1 as though the voice of Stark deserves a lot of WEIGHT in Wikipedia, without being put in the context of the mainstream scholarly view, that he says he is actively writing against. WP:WEIGHT (a key part of NPOV, which is policy) specifically says that we don't do this in WP. This content fails NPOV and is not OK.

The second paragraph: The statement " Based on observations and statistics, Christianity is the most peaceful religion in the world." is supported by the unreliable source, so that goes. The second sentence does a terrible injustice to Desjardins. In Wikipedia we summarize sources. But I am very curious for you to provide the page number for this, as requested above.

The last sentence is fine, and doesn't need the second source.

So you had one useable sentence. (done now!) Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what happened but my comment didn't make it through. I'm attempting to rewrite it now.. TourBus2020 (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll do this: I won't include the part where he states that he disagrees with some of the other Authors. Also, it's not really mainstream at-least not anymore. A number of Historians and other scholars state that, that the Crusades were a response to 400 years of Islamic Jihad. What I will do, is that I will just state that Author/scholar___ believes the Crusades were entirely justified.

Also, Rodney is a well known scholar. I wouldn't really call his work revisionist agenda. I will find another source for reference #2. I don't know what you mean re: reference #4, but it was an extra anyway. I can find another one if its required, but it was just to corroborate the other source. TourBus2020 (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I don't agree that, that is a minority view at all. That crusaders were a band of murderous, pillaging zealots is not the mainstream view. I disagree with you, that it fails NPOV. Even the Crusades wiki page doesn't state that. So basically, most of that edits that I made were acceptable (with the exception of badly reference format).TourBus2020 (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Edit conflicts happen. Please indent your comments so they thread. Please see your talk page about that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Now to the substance. Thanks for replying, but you need to follow WP:NPOV -- we all do. It is not OK to give one voice in a debate among scholars the only voice -- the way things work is that we accurately summarize what is going on. We don't pick sides. So picking the book where Rodney makes his case is now we roll here - instead, we use another book or article that describes the debate and we summarize the debate here. Often one has to read five or six fairly recent sources to get a good grip on the state of the discussion, and then one summarizes the discussion here, citing the parts of the sources being summarized. It is a lot of work, especially on broad notions like evaluations of the Crusades as a whole. Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip on indents. Moving on... you're erroneously categorizing it as POV. As I stated earlier, it's not a minority view at all. Even the Crusades wiki page states that in the very first sentence "with the aim of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." It's a fairly recent source and I can include other sources if they are required. That's one thing, another issue I have is that none of the sources and text quoted in the article adhere to the standards you've listed. NPOV? You call this article unbiased? It reads like propaganda. TourBus2020 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, there was no debate there. There are two sides. You're trying to silence one and promoting the Liberal POV. TourBus2020 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on the standards that you've listed, most of the content in the article falls under the following:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

- The quotes by Heitman and Hagan, posted on this article promote the view, that the inquisition and the crusades are notorious examples of "Christian violence" which is widely contested by academics. Therefore, that particular quote should be removed.

Also the statement by Ra'anan S. Boustan that "(v)iolence can be found throughout the pages of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament" is a fringe theory, and contested by most scholars. These statements should be removed from the article. TourBus2020 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, beware of WP:POINT. Please support your assertions (what you actually wrote there) with reliable sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Crusades, I've already posted the source by Rodney. Here is another one:

https://books.google.com/books?id=BiSN-wRa11wC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

(I do not know how to edit the link to make it shorter.) You can start reading on page one. TourBus2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, do not throw out random accusations such as WP:POINT. This article is very poorly written and biased against Christianity and Christians. I am attempting to rectify it the best way possible, but you have been impeding my work here. Regardless, please see WP:POV railroad and WP:No personal attacks before making further accusations. TourBus2020 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have some more reading material for you. These sources are concerning the Inquisition: http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/inquisition1.asp

Read all of it please. And page 67: https://books.google.com/books?id=TnqLow3iKd4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

^The Church executed no-one. It was in-fact, the secular courts that pursued and carried out the executions. A total of 3000 to 5000 people were executed over a span of 350 years in all of Europe. That is less than 1 per month, in all of Europe by the secular courts. TourBus2020 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

TourBus2020 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:NPOV:

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a :more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when :possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by :rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems."

It states that "biased material can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective". That is what I was attempting to do, until the edits I made to the page were removed. TourBus2020 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you are writing now about the Inquisition. None of the content you added was about the Inquisition. With regard to Rodney, as we have both acknowledged, Rodney himself says that he is arguing against the prevalent view. Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

When I wrote that I was disputing the quotes of Heitman and Hagan where they also mentioned the Inquisition, you asked me for sources. I assumed you wanted sources concerning the Inquisition, along with the Crusades. Also, the statement that the New Testament is full of violence is also a fringe theory.

Prevalent views of the 50's perhaps. With the exception of the Eastern Orthodox, the Crusades have actually been heavily romanticized for most of History. Until the early 1900's, when they began to be interpreted in an Western imperialist and colonialist context by liberal historians. Nevertheless, the idea that Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression and Jihad, is by no means a fringe theory. When I paraphrased Rodney, I wrote that "Rodney is also critical of Historians whom..." not that all, or the most or that it's even the prevalent view. I believe that today, it's very much 50/50, with conservative and liberal writers divided in their views. Rodney himself, also only stated that many of the most sympathetic and sensible historians are not willing to part with trying to impose "notions of proper military conduct on medieval warefare" or to accept the concept of a just war, in general. He did not write that they do not believe that the Crusades were precipitated by and a response to Islamic aggression and violence. Only the most liberal of writers that tend to decry anything that has to do with religion, write opinionated pieces critical of the Crusades. They tend to focus on Christianity mostly, as its political incorrect to pick on the practitioners of other faiths. TourBus2020 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What would be helpful would be a source that tries to describe the overall views of the crusades over time that isn't making its own argument. a disinterested history of these views. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A written work of that nature likely does not exist. Also, please address the several points that I brought up in my earlier post and also my concerns on WP:NPOV. TourBus2020 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be surprising. I will go look. About other matters, this is a sprawling discussion. Please be specific. It is unclear if you are still discussing the edits you made (the subject of this thread) or other content. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have repeated this several times in my posts:

• The Crusades as a response to Islamic attacks, to free Christians and to recover lost territory is not in anyway, a fringe theory.
• The current version of the article is biased and pushes a single POV. The idea that Christianity and Christians actively promote violence is not the mainstream view in America, Europe, Russia, Australia or anywhere in the Western world. WP:NPOV holds that "biased material can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective." Therefore, as per wiki guidelines, I feel that you have wrongfully removed my edit which I had referenced with a reliable, legitimate source.
• That the New Testament promotes violence is also a fringe theory, not accepted by the mainstream. And the idea that "Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of most other major religions" or that "Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths" are also not widely accepted views. These statements represent minority views. Please take a look at PEW stats, to see comparative public opinion on Christianity, Islam and Atheism. TourBus2020 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Do any of the sources make a distinction between violence using Christianity as a pretext and Christian violence per se? As far as I can remember, Jesus was against violence and his teachings have been perverted with sophistry and casuistry to excuse the inexcusable. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus said many things. Some of them are very clearly about nonviolence but some are violent, and he did some violent things (like the business at the Temple with the money changers) Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus did not say some things that were about nonviolence. Most of the the things that Jesus taught and preached was about nonviolence. Jesus also did not do anything violent. Jesus never physically attacked another human being, which is what constitutes as a violent act. He overthrew tables in the Temple because he was angry. Anger is not violence. Furthermore, Keith made a very good point. What he said, prompted me to look at some of the sources. The first reference, "Heitman and Hagan", does not specify the page number. You took issue with my references, citing that they were poorly formatted and revered my edits because of it. However the "Heitman and Hagan" citation uses the same reference format that I had used, but you don't seem to have any issues with them. That's not all, even the names "Heitman and Hagan" are incorrect. It's actually "Heitmeyer and Hagan" and its a tertiary source. The author also does not go into any details, he simply explains it away by by naming the Crusades, Inquisition, Wars of Religion and Antisemitism. Lastly, I am not sure why, but you seem to be ignoring me. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems like you are refusing to acknowledge and respond to any of the points that I have brought up. I am asking you again to please, make a thorough response to all of the points that I have brought up. Thank you. TourBus2020 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pointing at bad existing content is not a justification for new bad content. I am completely lost as to the concrete changes you want to make to the article at this point. You have made your general goals clear. What specificially do you want to change at this point? Please be specific. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that bad content does not justify more bad content. Anyway, you must then not have any problem if I were to remove bad content from the article. And the only concrete change that I want to make is to explain why the Crusades were necessitated. TourBus2020 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Apropos my first question, if there is a distinction between violence using Chris as a pretext, wouldn't a comparative analysis help, by exploring the possibility that violence is inherently secular and that exploiting any religion as a pretext is endemic? Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Coming in following request at MILHIST, in general I'd say this is a poorly constructed article. Well referenced, poorly executed. However, turning to the part of military interest, this is poor and the first para in particular is dreadful. It should introduce an argument, not drop random quotes about Oliver Cromwell. The section should really separate biblical approaches and how they develop through time. Just war makes an appearance but there is little on how this doctrine developed over time. The "Peace of God" ideas of the early Middle Ages are absent. More emphasis on the role of the church in "codifying" martial behaviour and how that feeds into developing judicial approaches to warfare is required. Religious warfare is an important subject, both wars against other faiths but crucially within Christendom itself, but needs to be better separated from the concepts of just warfare, which underpinned secular conflicts as well.Monstrelet (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This article gets worked over from time by rabid atheists who push it one way (christianity is the root of all evil) then by rabid christians (christianity is the most peaceful religion EVER) and so it is a mess. Been trying to work on it bit by bit but most effort is just rearguard actions to keep it from getting worse. it really needs TNT.  :) Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, rather than just moaning, I've had a go at reordering the content of the war section. Holy War was a misnomer, as it was only part of the content. I've left content as was, just put content into topics rather than a stream of consciousness. Hopefully, it will inspire other editors here to develop the topics, rather than dump in more material at random. Best wishes for the development of the article. Monstrelet (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Monstrelet Thanks. Would appreciate if you would keep this on your watchlist as the Crusades have been a focus of the recent discussion here and ring in . Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Keith, yes, there is a big distinction between a person simply committing a violent act and using the Bible as a pretext to an act of violence. Nowhere in the Bible, are Christians commanded to go out and commit acts of violence against unbelievers in Jesus name. Christians are told to follow and emulate the actions of Jesus Christ. And Jesus was a very kind person who advocated peace and love. On to what you said... yes I think I understand what you mean. But how do I do that, without it falling under the original research category? I should find published sources that are arguing that point? Thank you. TourBus2020 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You are doing it backwards. In Wikipedia, if you want to write about X, you start by finding the best sources about X you can find. Start with very high quality sources. Read them. Plenty of them. Then summarize them here, giving WEIGHT as the sources give it, citing where got the key parts you are summarizing (yes down to the pages). You don't start with what you already believe and then try to find sources that support that. Please see WP:YESPOV. There are a boatload of very high quality books on the subject of "christianity and violence". Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Keith, also, that they exploited Christianity to further their political agenda is one thing. The Crusaders did use religion as a pretext for war (among other reasons). But it is also true, that they didn't have much of a choice but to go to war. An ever expanding Islamic armada had already conquered 2/3rds of the Christian world. Most of North Africa, the Middle East was Christian prior to Islamic conquests of the region (regions such as Egypt, Syria, Libya, Israel, even Spain fell to Islamic conquest). So it was either go to war or risk subjugation of Western Europe to Islam. And it was after 400 years of Islamic aggression, that the Crusades were sanctioned. So, is it wrong to give this sort of an in-depth analysis (properly sourced of-course), instead of just having the article state that 'the crusades are bad, christians are violent', etc..'? Thanks. TourBus2020 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate your concerns, but I am on the right path. I have considerable knowledge in this particular subject matter (i.e., the Crusades, the Inquisition, history of Christianity in general, etc...). Also, in your earlier post you said something about "Rabid Christians". If you are assuming that I am a Christian, then your assumption is correct. However, I believe that I am the only Christian here. And I am not in any sense a "Rabid" Christian. So please do not use such language. I am only attempting to balance the contents of this article, which almost entirely depicts Christians and Christianity as inherently negative, which in and itself is not the problem. The real issue is that many of the quotes, for example, that are presented are taken out of context and paint a picture of Christians and Christianity that is simply not true. The fourth reference for instance, is a quote that states that 'Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of most other major religions", which was taken from a book that is quoting yet another source that I do not have access to online. I doubt that the individual who had inserted that quote in the article had access to that primary source. And the secondary source makes no effort to reinforce that statement with evidence. Another is the third reference in the article, which is this source:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sMNbcU7UnywC&oi=fnd&pg=PA323&dq=Christianity+antisemitism+%22violent+religion%22&ots=966PvtELST&sig=3xQZzU0CteLD6jDjf85-hKO-u3w#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you click on its link, it will you take to the page, where at the search bar at the top reads "Christianity antisemitism "violent religion". That is the what the individual searched for, when he added those quotes. Do you think that, that user was looking for the objective truth about Christianity? I doubt it. The majority of this article is just a bunch of such quotes, jumbled up together into one big pile of mess. Thanks.TourBus2020 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Tourbus please propose specific changes. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tourbus. Can I suggest when working on prposals you do your best to avoid just producing counter quotes but concentrate on precis of arguments. Quotes should be used sparingly in Wikipedia. You yourself have identified why - lazy dropping of soundbites rather than engaging with the author's argument. Assume good faith on the part of Jytdog and produce decent material that advances a balanced discussion of the topic, because I think we'd all agree it needs it.Monstrelet (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I will also assume good faith on the part of Jytdog, who appears by the exchange above to be the curator of this page. Every time I add text to the page, from the book source already cited, Jytdog takes it out and tells me nothing else except that he hasn't read the source. The source is the Gibson book, page 1-3, especially the first paragraph of page 3. I can copy the text of that paragraph here if you need, if it isn't a copyright issue to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holbach Girl (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog wants me to respond above. So now I have. Jytdog still hasn't addressed my message here. Holbach Girl (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

User:Jytdog, you undid improvements:

• here on 24 May 2017
• here on 13 June 2017
• here on 16 June 2017

Your changes have been reverted and your repeated undoing of edits, failure to read cited sources, and failure to respond to comments have been noted by multiple editors on this page. Your edits do not reflect the one cited source. Please explain what you think is wrong with the improvements rather than continuing to revert. Thanks. Holbach Girl (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please respond above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding some of the text from the book source. I think there was some creative and selective use of ellipsis, as some of the most relevant text was completely left out of your quotation. I added more to the quotation, I hope you don't mind. In that cited introduction, the authors are explaining how scholarship on violence in the Bible only focus on the Old Testament, and the New Testament either isn't mentioned, or "more troubling than" that (I used the wording "worse than), the New Testament is said to absolve the Old Testament violence. Why is Jytdog so determined to keep this off the page? Here is the part now quoted:

The field of religious studies is no exception and has witnessed a flurry of publications documenting and exploring the relationship between religion and violence. However, when scholars of ancient Judaism and early Christianity engage such questions, they frequently attest to the persistence of a millennia-old bias: investigations of violence and the Bible all too commonly treat only the books of the Hebrew Bible or otherwise place the origins of "Judeo-Christian" violence squarely within Judasim. Marcion's second-century distinction between the God of the Old Testament as responsible for violence and vengeance and the God of the New Testament as a God of mercy and love looms large in the consciousness of the West. In its largest scope, this book interrogates the assumption that the New Testament is a book solely of love, mercy, and peace, lying outside the web of religion and violence. [...] More troubling than studies of violence in the Bible that ignore the New Testament are those that lift up the New Testament as somehow containing the antidote for Old Testament violence. This is ultimately the case, for instance, in the work of Girard [...] But as John Gager shows in this volume through his examination of the work of Girard's disciple, Robert Hamerton-Kelly, such a line of thinking has the potential to reinscribe insidiously the prejudices of Marcion.

Holbach Girl (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, see above. The editor who responded there was the one who added the quote. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I am jumping in on your discussion because I am also attempting to edit this article and am having trouble doing so. But I wanted to let you know the bias you refer to isn't millennia old--it is traceable to writers from the enlightenment era and Edward Gibbons--so two hundred years--and I have documentation for that statement!  :-) H.A.Drake's "Intolerance and christianity" says exactly that. Good luck making your case! I personally am getting extremely frustrated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also Jytdog in one of his edits said that sentences at the beginning of a section do not need to be cited to a source. That does not sound right to me. I changed the first sentence of the section to reflect what is said in that section. Jytdog appears prefer a misleading summary, and I don't think that is proper.

Holbach Girl (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are like Marcion. You don't seem to understand the quoted passage. It does not support your edits. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

1) The phrase "Scholars generally agree" is a big generalization which needs to be supported by a source that makes this exact generalization. Otherwise, it's WP:OR. 2) The part about "ignoring the NT" seems to simply point out a bibliographical void which that volume intended to fill. It doesn't state that this neglect stems from a particular interpretation on the part of the authors who concentrate on the OT, and I think the word "ignore" muddles up this distinction. 3) I don't think the change of phrasing about Marcion is an improvement. It moves farther from the source, and it moves emphasis away from the topic. How Marcion thought the two "Gods" related to violence and mercy is very pertinent here. Which one he held to be lower, not so much. Eperoton (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

POV

Note - I copied this comment from ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenhawk777&oldid=780561031 here] Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is too one sided to leave up as it is. I attempted to edit it to include more neutrality, but found today that someone had changed it back to its original format. I suspect that demonstrates the writer is pushing a point of view .

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777

User:Jenhawk777 thanks for opening a discussion but that is not a useful basis on which to begin a discussion. You made this edit to the article, which removed sourced content about christianity and violence and added unsourced opinion like "The question is one of human motivation: does Christianity encourage violence, or do people practice violence in spite of Christianity's influence? The answer to human motives is complex; perhaps history and theology will show 'yes' and 'no' to both. Careful historiography requires avoiding special pleading and assumption, the inclusion of all relevant information including context, and avoiding the fallacy involved in applying modern values to ancient times. Careful theology requires a balanced consensus. ". This is not OK in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

this edit has the same issues as before. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am still learning here, but I was told to paraphrase, not quote, by one of the other editors, and to reference, and make sure everything I say is verifiable. I have done exactly that--there is a reference at the end of nearly every sentence. While I was careful not to plagiarize, and to paraphrase as the instructions on that page say to do, I was also careful to get the ideas the original authors convey in their work accurate--yet you say it is unsourced opinion--how is that true? Everything I have written is from published material and is verifiable. Please check my sources. Many of the statements in the original version of this article are opinion colored by loaded language that is not neutral. For example: the statement that Christians "attempted to justify themselves" assumes a fault that needs justifying; that is not neutral. There are many statements of that type in this article. It needs balancing. Please allow me to help with that. Please check my sources. All my statements are previously published verifiable material. Sorry forgot to sign!! ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777

@Jenhawk777: Given this dispute, I suggest taking an incremental approach to your changes and quoting the passages from the source which support your addition using the quote argument in the ref. I haven't reviewed your edits, so I have no opinion about them, but since you're new here, you may want to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE to be sure we're all on the same page. Eperoton (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Eperton, thanx--how incremental is incremental? The first time I attempted to edit this article I worked for hours and actually attempted the whole thing--I didn't finish--but my intro was stated more as a lead without adequate support--JYTDOG is right about that--for some reason I had the idea there was a little leeway in the introduction. But every word got reverted. So I thought I would try writing an article on this subject myself that was more balanced and neutral than I and others think this one is. I went back and read everything I was told to read, and started, then was told by Doug Weller it wasn't likely to be accepted--then hotdog says it isn't allowed to be a draft and if I don't move it, it will be deleted. I tried--again--editing just the introduction. It was reverted again--and this time there was not a single statement that was opinion. I read the sticktothesource and that is exactly what I did--no ifs ands or buts. I can't quote directly from the source, some of the material is new enough it's still under copyright--I doubt I could get permission for it. A summary is what I can legally do I believe. If I understand the rules correctly. So all I edited this time was the intro and I did follow the rules. It all got reverted anyway. What do I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog Something more specific then "not ok" would be helpful - the edit I saw looked well-sourced, I saw one OUP source - can you be more specific what about it was not ok? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am trying to get a conversation going at their talk page about how they are approaching WP but we are stuck on basics. In general the edit was essay-like, making an argument rather than summarizing reliable sources - something you and I have seen before. It is something this article suffers from generally. What do you think of the edit? Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I thank you for your patience in helping me with the basics. I think I have done everything that everyone has told me to do. It probably is essay-like. I can fix that--I think--now that I know that's the problem. Part of the difficulty in making it sound less essay-like is that is that is how the books I am summarizing are written, they make a particular argument on this issue; plus, I am pretty much only attempting to add more info on one view of the topic, since the other is already represented--that would look biased by itself. How is the right non-argument way to do that? Do I say, in contrast? Alternately? This guy says, instead, that...? What is the right way to include balancing material so it doesn't look like what it is in the sources? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Thank you for responding and trying to help. I thought it WAS a summary of the main ideas. But then I thought I knew what a summary was too, so clearly I don't know anything. The original article is built around three questions; what I was writing is also built around three questions. I state what they are. I take it that's not Wiki-style. I am against a wall and stopped. I've got nowhere to go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Regarding incremental changes: at this juncture, I think this process will go more smoothly if you can pick the smallest coherent modification you can think of (e.g., a sentence), try to add it, and then see what objections are raised, if any. You seem like an editor who's capable of making valuable improvements to this article, and I'd like to help resolving this dispute, but I'm hesitant to get involved unless there is a specific passage and a specific source to focus on, rather than a discussion ranging over various generalities, like the one you pasted below. Eperoton (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

One sentence? It would take years--literally look at how long it is--it would take years to make any effective difference to the imbalance in this article one sentence at a time. But at least it's a concrete idea. It's something I can do or not do. I appreciate that. And I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I don't know if I have the stamina for it but I appreciate the suggestion. I thought I had something to offer here too--I have a degree in religion with a history minor from a State University--not a religious school--and I have a degree in philosophy. I went to grad school at Vanderbilt to study ethics but I didn't finish because I had to have surgery and lost my scholarship. Because I did not get that, I confess I was pretty invested in the idea that I could do some good here. It has upset me more than I realized to run into this wall. I have been at a dead stop for days now and I haven't a clue how to get started again. I think this article is potentially very important, but there is no way around that it is heavily weighted to one point of view. The second sentence in the article uses loaded language. It says Christians "attempted to justify themselves" in their writings. Now, tell me honestly--is that neutral? If the discussion was about any other topic--wouldn't you edit that? If there are conflicting views on a subject, isn't a Wikipedia article supposed to include all of them it possibly can? Nearly every section in this article has conflicts and disputes around what is said--and NONE of those contrasting views are included. Let me not speak in those generalities. I'll just pick a spot--any spot--let's go with Attitude to military service, and the W.E.Addis quote. That section has a total of four sentences-- one quote from one man--which conveys what impression to you? "that Christianity has always had a place for violence" ---that's what it says. But it is historical fact that Christianity was pacifist for nearly its first full 300 years, so even if one doesn't count the last two hundred years, and all the movements pacifism has sponsored and supported and participated in here in America, that statement would still be factually incorrect--and it's a loaded statement. (Yes, I can reference those pacifist movements). This quote dismisses the Quakers, which, since it opens the door, I thought meant I could discuss them as well, but then I am told it's not appropriate to discuss the different traditions. I see Rodney Stark has been removed as a reference--which is too bad really. He has an excellent book--and his conclusions are supportable empirically. He and Kathryn Corcoran show intolerance is one of the primary causes of violence--and that religion can and does contribute to that. Of course, religion also contributes to the opposite! That is what is so fascinating about this subject to me, and what is completely lacking from this article. It does Wikipedia readers a disservice in my view. But right now, I don't know--one sentence at a time? I am feeling trapped--and effectively blocked at every turn. I am shut down. I am deeply discouraged. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved here per discussion above.

Eperoton had some issues with the end of it; I struggle with the first sentence.

There is no record of Christian participation in military service before the end of the second century because Christianity's first three hundred years were pacifist. That tradition of non-participation was revived in the 1500's by the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, and the Quakers of the seventeenth century. The last two hundred years of American history give evidence this tradition is extant in that there have been almost no non-violent movements for social change that did not begin within that tradition.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: What is your concern about the first sentence? Jenhawk777 had removed the sentence which I objected to, so I'll strike it above, though now we need a citation for the last remaining sentence. Eperoton (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I came back this morning to find the entire section with my two sentences gone. Jytdog previously eliminated most of the lead in order to deal with the objections there. If this is the method for dealing with every section I have a problem with, eventually the entire article will be gone. That is not my goal here. I do not want the article deleted, though others have attempted that twice. There is a large body of legitimate scholarship who support the view that intolerance within Christianity causes violence--that needs to be here.

I also agree absolutely the article has to be limited to topic, I do, but I ask you--what topic--especially what controversial topic--is it possible to thoroughly cover while overlooking or ignoring objections to it? Presenting one side of something that is hotly debated, and writing as if that is all there is, does not do either the topic or neutrality --or our readers-- justice.

The first category listed now is The Bible. The first sentence is good, but the body of that section does not cover what the first sentence indicates will be covered. None of the people referenced are actual authorities on the Bible. Plus there is nothing actually from the Bible in the whole section. If you are going to have a section on what the Bible says, then what the Bible says should be in it. Or that section should also be removed entirely. And there we will be--paring this poor article down one section at a time. And that's just wrong.

Instead of actual information from the Bible or from qualified Biblical authorities, this section has unqualified people making unsupported claims about what the Bible says without actually demonstrating what the Bible says. And see--you as a reader have no way of knowing --even after you've read this article on Wikipedia--what the Bible does say on the subject. And that's entirely because the statements included in this section give you nothing but their unsupported opinions. Anybody can say anything--but that doesn't make it so.

I want to attempt to edit this section to produce a balanced and neutral discussion of both views of what the Bible actually says--to stick to topic and do what the lead sentence says.

Dare I attempt another edit? I am about to the limit of how many reverts I'm allowed aren't I?

Oh, and the sentence in the military service section that is now gone that Jytdog didn't like is simple fact. There are extant records of Roman military service and other historical records of Christianity's early pacifism. There is one tiny reference to this in the article on Christian Pacifism that says "Some scholars believe that "the accession of Constantine terminated the pacifist period in church history." Obviously, something can't be terminated unless it is first there. The fact he had a problem with it bothers ME. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So I don't have the source, let me start by saying that, but I struggle with this on a bunch of levels. 1) "there is no record of Christian participation in military service"... to which I respond -- really?? There are none? 2) "there are no records...because.... " to which I respond -- OK, if (and it is a big if) there are no records, would the only reason be that the early chuch was universally pacifist? Maybe (if) there are no records, it is because we simply don't have them.. 3) "Christianity's first three hundred years were pacifist" to which I respond - the early church was very heterogenous, even with regard to some issues that we see as fundamental theology today, like the nature of Christ, as well as practical things like the role of women.

So the question-begging and generalization are difficult to accept.

I did some other reading and found

• Kreider, Alan (2003). "Military Service in the Church Orders". The Journal of Religious Ethics. 31 (3): 415–442. JSTOR 40008336. (which I will be happy to send to anybody who wants it, but it is available through jstor)

which is a good survey as of its date. It says things like: "Tertullian (De Idololatria 19; De Corona 11) sees Christians as “sons of peace” for whom service in the military is intrinsically difficult. He recognizes that two conditions mitigate the difficulties: (a) when a soldier is in “the rank and file,” in which case “there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments,” which were harder for the upper ranks to avoid; (b) when a soldier is serving “even in time of peace,” doing guard duty, in which case he could serve “without a sword, which the Lord has taken away,”in contrast to war-time service. Tertullian admits that a soldier “may be admitted to the faith,” but would ideally like a newly-baptized soldier immediately to abandon military service, or “all sorts of quibbling” will be necessary. He does not allow for a believer to enlist. Nevertheless, it is clear that things weren’t always happening as Tertullian wished."

What is clear there, is that early Christians at least in the region and time where/when Tertullian was working appear to have doing "military service" which contradicts the proposed content.

The article also starts out by saying: "Military service in the early church: to discuss this subject is to wander into a minefield. The Christian traditions, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, state church and free church, have not primarily been pacifist. But some Christian writers of the early centuries wrote things that could make it appear that the pre-Constantinian believers had been pacifist. A lapidary sample comes from Tertullian (De Idololatria 19):“Christ, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.” Within the past century scholars in the pacifist pockets of the Christian churches have written substantial books to demonstrate that the early church was as pacifist as they; they have also attempted to explain how a once-pacifist church (to quote the title of one book on the subject) “made its peace with war” (Cadoux 1919; Driver 1988). These writings have irritated non-pacifist Christian scholars, who have attempted to respond with sounder scholarship and juster argument, thereby liberating us all from“the burden of mistaken assumptions and misread history” (Helgelandet al. 1985). In the latter half of the twentieth century the debate seesawed back and forth." The author then describes what he sees as a 4 point consensus of historians about the attitudes of early christian communities toward military service.....

but yes, i find the first sentence problematic. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, dispute resolution (see WP:DR) is part and parcel of WP editing. Sometimes one can add a whole page of material without objections and at other times details of a single sentence may prompt a lengthy discussion. It is better to concentrate on reaching WP:CONSENSUS on a specific issue at hand.

Jytdog, thanks, this is a good survey. It should be reflected in discussion of Christian attitudes to military service. Jenhawk777's source may be incorporated into this discussion, but we need to verify that 1) it supports the generalizations; 2) it's WP:DUE. Jenhawk777, please give the name of the author of that particular chapter. I note that we identify InterVarsity Press as "a publisher of evangelical Christian books", so, depending on the author, drawing on it may be WP:UNDUE next to a peer-reviewed academic survey. If it's DUE, it would help to have quotations of passages from the source which support the sentence under discussion. Eperoton (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It's my understanding the reference can be included so long as their position and possible bias is also included. Is that correct? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

break

Okay, this back and forth over every sentence is normal? I'll adjust then. I like quoting the early church fathers. There are several who wrote on this subject. Origen defended Christians against the charge of disloyalty to Rome written in 178 by pagan philosopher Celsus who argued that if everyone behaved as Christians do and refused to enter the imperial Forces, Rome would fall. Edward Gibbon in his classic work attributes the fall of Rome to the Christian pacifism that kept them out of military service. If my sentence is problematic--include this Tertullian quote and other quotes from the early church fathers on what the instead. I am fine with that. The statement ""it is clear that things weren’t always happening as Tertullian wished." Do you have a reference for that? This Tertullian quote does not contradict my source since the context of it is about soldiers who are already in military service who get converted. "The author then describes what he sees as a 4 point consensus of historians about the attitudes of early christian communities toward military service..... " Please expand this. This is interesting and might be good to include. The accusation of "misreading history" because people don't agree with their view is one of the problems of, not only this article, but the subject itself. H.A.Drake has a long and thorough --and pretty neutral-- discussion of many of these accusations in his book: "Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity." which I paid $40 to rent for two weeks from: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/intolerance-religious-violence-and-political-legitimacy-in-late-1n4OuLZOYu?. They offer a free two week trial. It is possible to go to their site and read what he says on that. Drake is a highly respected ancient historian and is known for balance and objectivity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The name of the author was included in the reference, but there are actually three authors in the book "War four Christian views" that make the particular claim. Those would be Herbert A.Hoyt, Myron S. Augsberger and Robert G. Clouse the editor who writes the forward and makes the claim there. Their essays are also online, but I own the book too. Hoyt wrote the essay on Non-resistance and augsberger wrote on Christian Pacifism. Those are the titles of the articles. Google those titles and you'll find them. I will go so far as to say the view that early Christianity was pacifist is the mainstream view of ancient historians though I do not have a single reference that makes that particular claim about other historians. Should I provide those quotes here? So they can be reviewed before adding them to the article? I can probably find alternate references if this one is not acceptable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have another question. Well, two actually. If the discussion of attitudes toward military service is "wandering into a minefield" is that why it was removed? Because this whole topic is a minefield--and it should not be removed. In my opinion. And I would like to have a discussion of the Bible section. I have issues with the references and some of the quotes there. I believe they have, at least partially misrepresented the intent of the person being quoted. I have examples. Should we start that someplace else or what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenhawk777. The Four Views book seems to be a questionable source as far as the history of early Christianity goes, at least in part. For example, Myron Augsburger is identified as a preacher and professor of theology rather than a historian. I don't know if his and Hoyt's essays on the publisher's website are taken from that book, but they appear to be pastoral rather than academic historical works. Clouse seems to have somewhat stronger academic credential in this area. Drake's book looks like a solid source, based on both the publisher and the author. Eperoton (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Are all theologians going to be disallowed? Or is it just this section because it's more historical? I really like the jstor article--[[2]] There is a quote that's worthy I think on page 417 titled "The new Consensus" --really that whole page is good! And it does seemingly call into question part of Augsberger, Hoyt, Clouse and even Edward Gibbon who has been the standard for two hundred years! I really kind of love that when that happens! This article is all about the early Christian church leaders though; it does not directly address actual practice of Christians themselves, it is just about "church orders." That is in the Abstract on the title page. The author's point number two under New Consensus supports what my references say about military service before the end of the second century. It should definitely be included--if the section goes back in that is. I would have copied the entire abstract if I could have!!! This is a worthy reference I think. Including this, along with mine maybe--and then adding, if we could run down one on actual practice amongst ordinary Christians, which one of Drake's earlier books does cover I think, then we would truly have a good presentation in this section in my view. Does anyone else agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In general doing social history is difficult, methodologically. And the issue of whether individual early Christians participated in the miltary, is exactly such an issue. One thing people look at, to try to get at it, are guidance documents. Part of the methodological reasoning of looking at these "Church Orders" is that you don't need rules about X, if X wasn't something people in the community were doing or involved in. (similar thing with all the fulminating about the "high places" by the biblical prophets in the hebrew bible. they wouldn't be ranting about that if people weren't doing it. so what does that say about the reality of monotheism among every day people at the time (whenever that was) that the prophets were doing their thing? That sort of thing)

and in general we look to high-quality scholarship by experts in the field to generate content about the field; so we would look to historians for content about what early christians did and did not do; we would look to theologians to speak about theology. some theologians do history of theology, of course. but that is often "what origen said" and the like, not necessarily what everyday people then did or believed. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you say here. It is confusing when a subject is raised--such as Tertullian and the church orders--and a door seems to open--then it closes again when I say I agree and would like to participate in pursuing that. I didn't raise the church fathers as a reference--but if we use this book, they will have to be referenced I would think. High quality content from experts in the field--I wholeheartedly support that idea. That means the whole Bible section has to go then doesn't it? There is only one name there that qualifies--and they are not centrist.

Maybe I misunderstand you now, but "centrist"? On WP, a reliable source can very well be un-neutral (that´s a WP:ESSAY of course, but valid here). If there´s disagreement about which sources are WP:RS for what, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can help if necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, a scholar like, say, Ra'anan S. Boustan is of course a reliable source for his own opinions, that is not an issue. What can be challenging for our valiant editors is forming a consensus on WP:WEIGHT, does a particular scholar "deserve" to be in our article? Reasonable minds can come to different conclusions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Perhaps "centrist" is not a good word--it is not one I would include in an article! But people range from what is termed conservative to what is called liberal and in the "center" on this. It's alot like politics! But all I meant was Drake is neither particularly to the liberal view or the conservative one. The best scholars seem to be like that in my view. He's a good one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Jenhawk777, yes reflecting the JSTOR article and any other RSs that may complement it is a good idea. The status of theologians for WP purposes is a difficult issue. I've struggled with it elsewhere. Clearly, if a professor of theology publishes an academic work about theology, that's a RS. But there are a number of grey areas. In particular, when a theologian comments on an area of history where they aren't an academic authority, and when they seem to act in a pastoral rather than academic capacity, their statements should be treated with caution. Eperoton (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In the article by Michael Kreider on jstor--Military Service--that you found--good job btw!! He says on page 431 that “no Christian theologian before Constantine justified Christian participation in warfare." Could that quote be used? The earliest record of Christians in the Roman army is 173 A.D. It is reasonable to depend upon the Roman records. Speculating on the reasons why we don't have other records might make a useful PhD thesis some day but it is not a good reason to keep information out of a Wikipedia article. Historians don't really call the validity of the records into question. Theologian and best-selling author Preston Sprinkle says in his new book, "The issue of killing was prohibited in every mention by early church writers. Whenever the issue of military service and warfare was discussed, Christians were prohibited from participating. Nowhere in the written record in the first three hundred years of Christianity is killing ever justified. Not even for soldiers." That is excerpted from "Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence" (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013). He writes popular books, but if I understand correctly, it's okay to use writers like that so long as you explain that's what they are. It's also a verifiable statement by referencing the early church writers themselves: Lactantius in (Divine Institutes, 6.20). Origen (Against Celsum 8.73). Tertullian (The Crown) and throughout other of his writings such as (On Idolatry). The "Canons of Hipolytus" say "a soldier must be taught not to kill men and must refuse to do so if he is commanded." (It's no wonder the Romans kept trying to kill the Christians off. :-)) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

On page 12 of War 4 views, Clouse says: "There is no evidence of a single Christian soldier after New Testament times until after 170 AD. ...Toward the close of the second century the situation began to change and there are records of Christians in the army despite the condemnation of the theologians. Many soldiers were converted to Christianity because of its increasing popularity... some felt a person could be a model Roman as well as a follower of Christ." It seems fair, if it is decided that this could be used, to qualify it as "evangelical" if Wiki lists the publisher that way. And now we have a veritable plethora of quotes and references all saying basically the same thing. My goal here was not to make a one sided argument in the other direction. Christianity became extremely militant in the Middle Ages; it seems to me these references do support that it did not begin that way and that was the assertion in the "military service"-- that has now been completely removed. So now what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The article here on Wiki on Gibbons's 'decline and fall' also offers some possible quotes. Gibbon "believed that Christianity's comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit." There is an extensive quote fro Gibbon's book there that makes some applicable usable statements for us here. "Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. " and "The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies and perpetual correspondence maintained the communion of distant churches; and the benevolent temper of the Gospel was strengthened, though confirmed, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily obeyed which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the barbarian proselytes of the North. " These are both at: [[3]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Since we've all agreed that the survey at JSTOR is a solid source, I think the priority for someone who has the time and desire to fill out this gap in the article should be writing an WP:NPOV summary of that paper. Other sources can be used to complement it, keeping that same policy in mind. Clouse and Sprinkle probably qualify as RSs, though their use may or may not lead to disagreements in light of NPOV. As a general principle, views of an academic specialist should not be given equal weight to views of a non-specialist; however, I haven't looked at the sources closely enough to have a set opinion on the specifics of applying that principle here. For all the merits of Gibbons, his work is not up-to-date scholarship. Eperoton (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you may be using the notion of verifiability in a way that's liable to cause confusion on WP. WP:V is a core policy, and it states that all article content must be verifiable. However, that does not refer to judging statements found in RSs in light of primary sources, which would violate WP:PRIMARY. It refers to verifying statements in WP articles against non-primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

May I volunteer? Or should I just do it and see what you all think? Is that how it's done here? I do understand verifiability--but thank you for checking!! I am unsure exactly what is being referred to in that comment--but I am guessing it was my comment about the Roman records??? That was an answer to the question raised about the first sentence in my previous paragraph that Jytdog had reservations about. He stated there could be other reasons for not having the records--and that is irrefutable--and I was just explaining what I thought about might contribute to that objection being invalid--even though it is an absolutely true statement. That's the historian's call. Right? We are not qualified to judge the primary sources. That's all I was saying. I agree completely those sources should not be on an equal footing. It's like people quoting Hitchins--he's popular. So why not? If--as you say--possible objections are noted. Eperoton I know I am not supposed to comment on other commenters but I can't help but say thank you. You have been genuinely helpful--so reasonable and fair. Jytdog has been kind and patient and everyone here is really great. I hope you all don't quit on me before I get this figured out! I'm trying not to be too prickly!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Jenhawk777. The normal process is to WP:Be bold and then work toward consensus if there are objections. Personally, I would appreciate it if you took the lead composing this content. I'm interested in the subject, but it's not at the top of my to-do list. Eperoton (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Blessings be upon your head O Wise one!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bible-section

It currently starts "Scholars are divided on whether the text of the Bible itself supports the waging of violence." There is though, no scholar mentioned who denies that there are such texts. I actually wonder if there is any WP:RS scholar who would state that there are no texts in the bible that supports the waging of violence. Would a reasonable change be ""Scholars are divided on to what extent the text of the Bible itself supports the waging of violence"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That is well pointed out, and btw thanks for your edits going through the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the first statement is correct; scholars are divided on the issue--not on the extent of it. Those that say the Bible does teach violence quote mostly old testament texts surrounding war, and Joshua, and point to the murder of Cain, the sacrifice of Isaac, and a couple others--which should probably be listed in this section specifically; those that say it does not answer that describing history is not advocating it, they'll say no race was ever actually extirminated so if the Bible advocates violence does it do so by word or by deed? Then they will add that the old testament's history is from a time when the world was a more warlike place--it's just how it was for everyone back then. I have read, and this may--may--be true though I haven't checked, that every nation of that period has a war record longer than Israel's. There are other arguments on both sides but those are the primary ones--I think. The fact there is no scholar cited--on both sides--is part of my problem with this section too. Theologians will need to be quoted in this one though as well as historians. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Per your description it still sounds to me that those you allude to mostly do not deny that there are texts in the bible that supports the waging of violence. That they are in the OT do not mean that they don´t exist, that "everybody was doing it" does not mean that they don´t exist. But sure, if some "describing history is not advocating it so there are no text in the bible that supports the waging of violence" WP:RS scholar/scholars could be added to the section, it would justify the current writing. On the OR level, I would have a problem with for example verses 10-forward here [4], but I am not a scholar. BTW, is Cain/Abel really used as "support"? As I remember, God was displeased about that. Though Cain did ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BALANCE, I would not be surprised if something like "Scholarly consensus is that there are texts in the bible that supports the waging of violence." would be reasonable in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Stating that a text "supports the waging of violence" can mean different things. I think a formulation like that needs to be explicitly sourced. We should either find a source for it, stick to truly non-committal phrasing similar to the new lead, or remove this generalization altogether. Eperoton (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Eperoton. I vote for sticking to the phrasing as is. These are my reasons. Gibbons is old, very true, and many of his views are outdated, to some degree, but he has had more influence over scholarship in this subject area-- in the last two hundred years--than any other scholar EVER. He is the one who originated the explanation: intolerance in Christianity was responsible for violence. Much scholarship since then has been built on that premise: they assumed he was correct and proceeded from that point. Modern scholarship is just beginning to add to and analyze that premise. H.A. Drake and William Cavenaugh are two I want to add into the discussion here who have done brilliantly at that. Cavenaugh's latest book is set to become the new standard on 16th century religious violence. While they both agree intolerance is an issue, they say religion was never, by itself, a cause of violence, and it is an oversimplification, and an insufficient explanation, if that's all that's offered to explain violence. Drake calls the intolerance theory "too slender a reed" to support the weight of events all by itself. In light of those shifting views I would say that there are plenty of people who DO deny that the Bible actually teaches violence. But yeah, every reference to every violent act recorded in the Bible--including Cain--is used as "evidence" that the Bible advocates violence by mentioning it without condemning it--even though condemnation is often observable through consequences on down the road. It doesn't matter that God disapproved--often the people taking this position don't believe in God and feel that objection is irrelevant. Their perspective should be included just as those that object to that view should also be included. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is not the consensus among scholars one might expect--on this or any subject related to the Bible or faith et al.. Since Evangelicals are not a small group--I'd have to check PEW for exact numbers and I don't think anyone has tried counting liberals--but it's true that nine out of ten seminaries are conservative--while nearly 100% of Universities are liberal--and what that means is those writing theology and historical studies on this are pretty evenly divided. The quality of the scholarship done at both is pretty equal, but it's wrong to assume either side of this discussion is free of bias. Just because someone is at a University does not automatically prove objectivity--or the opposite. N.T. Wright is probably the greatest living Bible scholar today. He is famous famous famous in the biblical world. He teaches at Oxford--and he went to seminary as well as to Oxford for his doctorate--and he says the Bible does not teach violence--and he is not a conservative. Nor would I say he's a liberal though! He defies categorizing! He has a recent book out on the christian and the State where he discusses it some. Anyway--if the only side of this discussion you have ever heard is from a university professor--it looks cut and dried--but it probably looks just as cut and dried to all those seminarians--of the opposite opinion. That's why both sides need to be included. "Everyone was doing it" does influence societal culture. We are--at least to some degree--all products of our time and place. People fought for survival then more than now--at least here in the west. It was a bronze age culture after all. The world was a violent place. A lot of that is recorded in the bible. Whether or not that "advocates" for anything--or warns as some maintain--is the discussion that should be presented. The body of scholarship is split. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Starting with the politics is the wrong way. The right way is to start with the highest quality refs available and see what they say. if there is actually disagreement among them, we look to high quality sources to explain the differences. For example, The Oxford Companion to the Bible and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, are both top notch totally mainstream refs. We start with stuff like that. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Did I say something to make you think I started with any position here? Is the fact I already have a background in this subject clouding things? I used politics as an example to explain to someone unfamiliar with this field to try and explain how scholars spread out on this issue. That's all. I have used the Oxford companion. I have never used the New Jerome. I would not expect to use Bible commentary to any great extent in this kind of work though. Is that what you recommend? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of the refs I mentioned have high quality overviews that are great for WP work. Violence in the Bible is not a hard thing to describe. Trying to make theological sense out of it is an entirely different matter. We don't do that in WP. We do and should do more description of accepted knowledge about various approaches to violence by Christians which will include descriptions of theology. We should probably not handle that in this section; it is something that will come out in the other sections. This section is really background to me at least. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Descriptions of theology?? I don't understand exactly what you mean by saying a section titled Bible is background. You say violence in the Bible is not hard to describe--but do you realize that is a point of view? I agree the various approaches to violence by Christians should be discussed. How about expanding the sentence from Clouse under "War"? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't a point of view. The bible says various kinds of things about violence and those things can be neutrally described, in their historical context. Again what meaning people put on them is another matter. This section is about the bible. War stuff is above. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't understand what you were saying, but--if I understand you correctly-- this is perfectly reasonable. when you were discussing the scope of the article above and suggesting possible other connected articles, I thought that was brilliant on your part. I really like that idea. You may be right that we are simply trying to do too much in one article because the subject seems so huge. A pared down version seems inadequate--but it just isn't possible to include everything. And hey, I thought you were planning on moving the lead to the pacifism article here too--did you change your mind or are you working on it or did I misunderstand --or what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)