Talk:Christianity and violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Scope and name

I think one of the things that has generated problems at this article, is the name and the scope. "Christianity and violence" is ambiguous.

Currently, clearly the article is meant to address some "mappings" of these two specific concepts onto another, or the intersection of these two specific concepts. (There are articles about other intersections of broader or more narrow concepts, like the broader Religious violence and many more narrow article about specific events where Christians, as Christians, were violent or had violence visited upon them -- see the disambig-ish page Christian persecution for some of both). The intersection of "christianity" and "nonviolence" or "peace" is in Christian pacifism, which is linked from here. Not really in scope but included because... well, I think it has been necessary due to objections of this being only about the intersection of Christianity with "violence".

Most of the article answers the question: "What violence has been done in the name of Christianity?" The article does it a ~pretty~ thorough job of answering it.
Some of the article answers the question: "Are there aspects of Christianity that promote violence and if so what are they"? This is pretty thin, but there.
Some of the article answers the question: "Are there aspects of Christianity that prevent violence or promote nonviolence and if so what are they?" This is pretty thin, as noted above.

So - what should the scope be, and what should the name be?

If we take the main two questions this article does address, we could break this article into two others along these lines:

That would be "splitting". Another approach could be "lumping" and pull

Violence and peace in Christianity
or something....

Anyway, just wanted to kick this off. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The conjunction "religion and violence" is pretty standard in RSs. One can see it from various book titles, and in finer-grained form in the table of contents of The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. I think the existence of an article with the present title is well-founded.
As you point out, the result is a mixed bag of topics, and one could -- and does -- have spin-off articles for some of them. Christian pacifism is a related topic. It comes up in discussions of the extent to which Christianity may promote violence or non-violence, where it should be given due weight, and it is also a prominent subject in its own right, which should have a summary with a main link in this article. All in all, I think this article has a reasonable structure. Eperoton (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperton: Okay, I took your advice--mostly--and edited four sentences. I just couldn't bring myself to do one. :-) I did not change or remove anything extant. If you would be so kind as to take a look and tell me what you think, I would be grateful. It is my opinion this article takes a position in an area of current debate--it makes an argument that, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång says, "it's Christianity's fault." I personally think it's okay to make that argument because there is a long list of scholars who think that. But I think it's okay so long as both sides of the debate are summarized; there is a lot of other evidence as well. Jytdog says Wiki articles aren't supposed to make an argument--but this one does. I am not wrong in that. It's why people keep coming along and wanting to either counter or beef up the argument they can clearly see is there. I don't see how that can be changed either; it is the nature of the topic itself. If you could take the time and look at the construction of an article on another debated topic, and note how it is written, I think it is a good example of handling things like this. Tell me what you think if you can take the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument§ Thank you for your participation. I am grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the existence of the article is well founded and necessary. I would like to see a more balanced view within the content. I disagree that the article does a thorough job of answering question one posted above, and the fact that question three is "pretty thin" is what makes the article weighted to one view only. It should include contrasting views of all disputed material. If someone concludes wikipedia needs a spin off article, let me know. I'd like to write it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It´s a difficult/controversial topic, and editors can easily clash over what they see as balance/neutrality versus
WP:NEUTRALITY. What violence done in the name of Christianity do you think the article omits, and what sources would you use to add it? What are the views that need to be balanced? As I understand the current lead, the expressed views are "it´s Christianty´s fault" and "it´s the Christian´s fault". I can imagine other views, such as "it´s a bit of both" and "that´s just how people are, specific religion never change that very much in the long run", but that´s my OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jytdog: I have been looking at the article again trying to think of all you have said about writing here, and Eperton's recommendation to start with a sentence, and as I look it over for the fortieth time trying to pick where to begin, (I think I have it memorized now), I get more and more disturbed. I don't see how anyone can say this article does not make an argument. It does. It makes the argument that Christianity is violent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång directly above me here sees it saying "the expressed views are 'it's Christianity's fault.' That's an argument. They see it, I see it. Others must as well because, as you said, they keep coming along and trying to either counter the argument or beef it up. This article is not just a summary of information because it does not summarize all of it; in that approach, it takes a position and makes an argument. It happens to be one that is hotly debated by those in the field. This isn't about passion or even about truth, it's about Wiki standards. This article does make an argument. That's why I wanted to try and balance it a little and present both sides. I'm not wrong on this Jytdog. We have to work out some kind of an approach that will either bring in both sides of the argument or eliminate the argument aspects of this current article--which I don't actually advocate--or something somehow. This article makes a biased argument. Can you not see that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I tend to pay very little mind to the lead, which is just meant to be a summary of the article per
WP:LEAD. I just really read the lead, and I believe I understand why some people react so negatively and want to "correct" the article. The body of the article is quite decent. I just revised the lead in these diffs to summarize the body; it is telling that a not a single ref was lost when I did that. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The change in the lead is good, but if the lead is a summary that is supposed to indicate what the article will cover, and then the article itself only really discusses one, isn't that a problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think between my comment above and yours just here, I had further revised the lead to reduce WEIGHT on pacifism, as this is lightly touched on here, because it is dealt with in depth in the article about christian pacifism.
There is a whole system in Wikipedia of "main" articles about X that are summarized in "daughter" sections in other articles. The main and daughter should also be related per
WP:SUMMARY
.
So we have a whole article on christian pacifism, and the best way to keep this and that SYNCed is to just copy the lead of that article (which summarizes it) here. This article is about violence. The same should probably be done at the pacifism article, with regard to this one (it should have a section on "violence" that summarizes this one). (these are "shoulds" - I need to check to see if the pacifism section here really recapitulates the lead of the pacifism article. One of the hard things about working WP is that there is no authority here - there is nothing to stop somebody from changing a bunch of stuff in the pacifism section here and never changing the main pacifism article, and WP gets all out of sync with itself and brambley, all the time. You find this everywhere - it is a constantly arising problem that needs constant gardening/tending) Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be sufficient to accomplish clearing up some of the problems in this article. I understand this should not include a whole article on pacifism per se--this article is about violence--I get that completely and I even agree it is a correct approach. Narrowing one's topic is absolutely necessary. But I maintain this is not a thorough or balanced discussion of the stated topic--of your stated question number one--and so this article makes an argument in a debated area. If you would, please, take the time and look at the construction of the article under "The Kalam cosmological argument" which is another article on a debated topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument§. It does a marvelous job of presenting both sides pretty equally. It seems to me that pattern is how this article should also be constructed or it will never be balanced. I have made two edits to the article. I'm pretty sure you will go ahead and revert them but please tell me why with some specifics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:CITEHOW). Secondly, this sentence seems out of place in a section called "Attitude to military service". Eperoton (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, I'm concerned about
WP:SYNTH happening in the reference to "that tradition" at the end. Is the author specifically referring to the tradition of non-participation in the military as the origin of American "non-violent movements for social change", as the phrasing suggests? I doubt it. Eperoton (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you! This is really good. You're right of course, pronouns so easily lack clarity. It should be changed to pacifism rather than "this tradition," and yes, it is a claim made in the source stated in a much longer statement which lists the movements by name. I shortened it, thereby making it more general and probably causing it to lose all value. But you are also right that it has no real application to military service the way I have it's stated now. Perhaps it should just be removed. The Quakers did serve in the World Wars as non-combatants. They were kind of famous--they ran ambulances. Perhaps I could just say that instead? I'll be more careful about page numbers. Thank you! So does this mean I got one sentence in? I can't believe it!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eperton: It's three sentences!!!The one under war about Robert Clouse too!!! I just took out the questionable sentence. Why worry about one sentence right? Thank you! YAY! Thank you , thank you!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to this question, but would much prefer the splitting this article as

talk) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

What we have here is not a list of "Christian violence", which may, depending on the definition, include virtually the entire history of violence in the West over the last two millennia, but rather a discussion of how Christian teachings have been used to support or regulate violence of different kinds. The article doesn't even cover all religiously inspired violence, which would include at least the European wars of religion. Eperoton (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude toward the Military

Jenhawk777 You made sections such as Just war, holy war, Inquisition, Attitude towards slavery etc subsections to "your" section, was that your intent? Also, there´s some weird external links in your text, some I think were supposed to be wikilinks, they need to disappear/change, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am still brand new here so if I seem a little clueless--it's because I am! I don't understand quite what this means about it being "mine." Is it because of the size of the headings? Really "War" should be the big heading and the others should follow under it, because they are all aspects of that larger idea, but I did not make that change. I also don't know how to interpret "weird" links. What is weird? All of the links should be accessible--are they not? It was late, I was tired, I just stopped after a while. I couldn't figure out how to fix the problem with the co-author on the Matthews and Platt reference--could you tell me? You seem to understand all this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The subsection thing seems to have been fixed so that is moot. By "your" I only meant you added the section that caused the problem, [1] making a lot of sections fall under "Attitude toward the Military" that didn´t fit. Hmm, so "weird" isn´t helpful enough? That´s we... I mean I can't see why. ;-) Look at the text Jytdog put below, for example "Charlemagne (768-814) is an example of this fusion of culture. [link] ". Try clicking the [link]. That is weird. My guess is that you wanted to wikilink Charlemagne. From what´s in the article: "adding the amount of literature on this subject is now "immense." [15] [1]". The [1] is weird, we don´t add external links to the text of the article like that. I´ll do better next time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the sections are still weird (sorry). Compare the current table of contents to this earlier version [2]. Currently "War" has to many subsections, Inquisition-Domestic violence should not be subsections of war, they´re, well, "civil service". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Church Before Constantine section have a couple of links to a blog, gatesofnineveh.wordpress.com. Any good reason to use this blog for anything?
WP:BLOGS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Wow! Thank you so much! This is helpful. I tried to fix the subsection thing but in doing so created the other issue of too much under the war heading because I did not work my way down and do them all. I can't remember how the headings were before that 'attitude' section was removed, so that's why I didn't put it back the way it was before removal. If you think the headings should revert, I support you doing that. The two of us at least can have consensus on it.
I did go in and fix all the wiki link issues you mentioned--thank you for that btw-- but by the time I did, there was an edit conflict, so I just let them go away. The gates of nineveh can be replaced; it was one of four quotes I had stating the same thing, but the others are copyrighted still and this one is free use. Since I knew it was duplicated elsewhere and not a rogue opinion, I went ahead and used it. If you think that's a bad choice, I am happy to cooperate with that view and change it. No problem. I liked the idea in quote form. The others will have to be paraphrased. "Weird" was fine--I eventually figured it out. It was two AM when I just quit last night. I knew I was leaving some stuff imperfectly done, but I was getting "fuzzy-brained." So thank you for the help today! I know I needed it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Edit Conflicts do indeed suck, and espescially for new editors. An experienced editor, at least, has a chance to remember to copy-paste their intended change before clicking "save changes" at a busy page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, it told me to do that, but almost all of those issues were in the section that got removed, so I didn't think it was worth it. I wanted to let it be removed until there could be some consensus on whether or not that part of that section should stay out, be reworked and put back in or what. The heading is Attitudes toward the military but it only discusses 300 years out of 2000, so I think either the heading should be changed or the content. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

subsection on Attitudes toward the Military in the Middle Ages

This subsection is mostly OFFTOPIC, and what is on-topic duplicates content under just war or holy war.

Attitudes toward the Military in the Middle Ages

In the first years after the fall of Rome, life was precarious, largely reduced to an agrarian existence, and the little security available was provided by the Christian church through its spreading network of monasteries and convents; these served as hospitals, hospices, orphanages, and their communities through strict law, self-denial and the motto "work and pray." [3] [1] Three Germanic tribes arose and occupied parts of the old Roman empire, became dominant, and gradually Germanic warrior traditions fused with the existing Christian/Greco/Roman culture of the church. This society had an upper warrior class headed by the King. [1] Charlemagne (768-814) is an example of this fusion of culture. [4] He established the first real empire in medieval Europe since Rome, promoted education and the arts, creating what is sometimes referred to as the "First Renaissance," and ordered the mass execution of 4500 Saxons at Verden for refusing to convert to Christianity in what is known as the Massacre of Verden. [1] [5] Matthews, in The Western Humanities explains: "With origins in both Roman and German practices, feudalism evolved... [and] Europe became dominated by a military aristocracy" by the High Middle Ages (1000 A.D.- 1300 A.D.)

Causes for the Eastern and the European Crusades are as hotly debated as the pacifism of the early church, but no one debates the effect on the Christian church: the church militant arose. After 1100, there is a merger of violence and holiness at all levels of Christian life. [2] ""The liturgy was expanded to include the blessing of weapons and standards. Knights were consecrated by ceremonies which often were continuations of old pagan customs. There were new religious orders established such as the Templars who promised to fight the enemies of God... When violence became sacred...it became wrong to show mercy to those enemies... The code of the just War was in abeyance..."" [2]

Christian theologians of the High Middle ages accepted war as a condition of society. [1] There was little serious dispute about the necessity of fighting the Turks. [2] In the culture at large, the chivalric ideal emerges as the hero image, and the humble monk and servant Priest are replaced as the Christian ideal with the Knight. [2] It is not until the sixteenth century that Christian pacifism, non-resistance and just war theory begin to recover theologically, and the church's attitude toward the use of military force becomes more diverse and less overtly militant. [1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Matthews, Roy D. (1992). The Western Humanities. Mountainview, California: Mayfield Publishing Co. pp. 198–204, 209, 210, 329–342. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Clouse was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I think the intention was to provide historical context but it needs to be more focused on what it has to do with violence. If we are going to do this, the section should also track East and West separately until the fall of Byzantium at least. For the western side, the impact of

Germanic christianity should be woven in, especially as regards to its way of fusing the power of the state and Christianity and the subsequent effect on Christian attitudes toward war. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay. I don't object to removing it altogether if that's what you recommend. It didn't seem right to me to have a section titled as broadly as this one yet limit it to one short period of time. It seemed on topic to me because it shows the attitude toward soldiering morphing, which contributed to later violence, and both those things are the topic in both the overall article and this section. Only the first and the final sentence is background--the rest directly addresses the attitude of the church toward being a soldier and killing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you are 100% right about including Byzantine views if you decide this information should be added somewhere else. My bad! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: What if we changed it to: "After the fall of Rome, three Germanic tribes arose in the West occupying parts of the old Roman empire, eventually becoming dominant, and fusing Germanic warrior tradition with the existing Christian/Greco/Roman ethic in the church. This society developed a rigid class system with warriors at the top headed by the king. Charlemegne is an example..." etc. etc. Then a few sentences here about the Byzantine attitude. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section seems to start with some strange romanticism, grossly oversimplifies the transition from Rome to successor kingdoms like the Franks (only three German tribes???) then jump to a society with dominant warrior elite. Where is the role of e.g. bishops in the Frankish kingdom as civic and military leaders - something essentially Roman which continues. The interlocking of church and aristocracy because they were drawn from the same social group (and often the same families)?


It might be worth putting the massacre at Verden into the context of a war of expansion eastwards which will continue for some time - it appears like an incongruous one off at present.
The section should mention the Truce of God movement in the late 10th to mid 11th century, which sort to limit certain types of warfare and the days on which it could legally take place, even if the predominant place for this would be under the "non-violence" parallel article. A good basic reference for this would be Contamine, Philippe (1984). War in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 270-5.
ISBN 0631131426
.
Finally, there seems no acknowledgement that, if just war theory disappeared from theological concern, discussion had been taken up by lawyers like John of Legnano. The article is currently misleading in implying there was no development here in the Middle Ages. I hope this helps.Monstrelet (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Monstrelet! Nice to meet you! It does sound slightly romanticized but is "almost" a quote from the referenced book--close enough I was slightly concerned--quoting directly would make it longer. The book referenced is a history of the humanities I got in college--long ago--but is still used. It's a great book--and it focused on the three 'primary' tribes that prospered and grew. This does make a swift jump from Rome to warrior culture, I agree. This wasn't intended as a full discussion--which would not be possible here-- just a swift reference to how the warrior tradition transitioned into (and out of) the church. If you had to pick just a few main points about this--focusing on the church's attitude toward soldiering and on violence (which is the main subject) --what would you pick?
I equivocated about the generalization including just war, and thought about discussing Aquinas, but decided that should be in the actual 'just war' section--so long as it's somewhere it doesn't all have to be here. There were only a couple of developments in just war during the late middle ages, and one was about the law, and this is focused more on religion, and the work done was primarily on founding just war on natural law rather than religion, so it seemed like this section was not the place to include that. But discussing attitudes toward soldiering should probably mention the warrior culture do you think? The Truce of God movement should be in the "sister" article on pacifism--but perhaps there should be more references to that alternate article here in this one. Perhaps you'd be willing to go add some discussion of it there and include a link here. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk . Appreciate the work you are doing here, the patience you have shown and your ability to learn the ways of wikipedia. I'm only here because ofa call to the MILHIST community, so I'm restricting myself to that. I realise that to an extent I'm trying to answer the topic "the military and the Church outside the crusades" rather than attitudes to military service. The problem with attitude towards military service is that it isn't really something anyone said much about. It was a legal obligation in some form or other to most lay men and in many cases for clergy. If you were called up, you served (or paid to get out of it, or found a substitute). It was essentially a legal issue, not a moral one. However, the church inherits a position of power from the Roman Empire which it maintains among the successor states. It seeks to expand that power by gaining some levers of control over the fighting classes. So, we see attempts to control the use of violence and, increasingly, the elevation of the fighting elite into a quasi-religious calling. I think in writing about it here, the focus is wrong in placing the emphasis on Roman tribes or Charlemagne, rather than the Church and how it is strengthening its position in medieval society and trying to influence the shaping of the political elite. Monstrelet (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding there was no "draft" as such, which is how I interpret legal obligation, in Rome, and that Napolean was the one who began the legal draft. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The later Roman Empire installed processes for conscription of recruits from local government (the civitates) to make up the chronic manpower shortages in the army. This was essentially a tax-in-kind, but could be commuted to a monetary tax. Militia service was also instituted for local defence by 5th century.

Fast forward to the Middle Ages. Most European countries operated on a basis of legal obligation of adult males to contribute to the defence of their community. The exact details varied. There were different levels of responsibility. For example, the main responsibility might be to maintain and garrison a local fortress for which the payback was right of refuge. But there were usually selective processes to raise forces for wider service - what you might call drafts. So towns might be assessed to find a certain number of soldiers, or in England a county might have a quota of men it needed to array. How these men were selected was usually down to local custom - some volunteered drawn by the excitement and opportunities for enrichment, others ended up doing it because they weren't rich or well connected enough to dodge it. And some of course - the gentry classes - might feel it was an obligation for men of their social standing. Not sure that advances the article a lot but I hope it enlightens a bit. Monstrelet (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Monstrelet: Well--no--it doesn't't advance the article but it's still very interesting! This article is such a broad topic as it is--narrowing it is a Herculean task! The one section we just did some editing on focused solely on Pre-Constantinian Roman empire. The heading was "Attitude toward military service" but that is too broad for a section that only discusses 300 out of 2000 years. I attempted to add in some references to how militant the church's attitude became in the middle ages, but it immediately got reverted by the guy who monitors this article. Anyway this is all fascinating! But I think if he put a call out to the military history buffs here, he was probably just checking accuracy. It seems impossible to say the church had an attitude toward military service in the middle ages since they sort of were military themselves then. Keeping it simple, I just explained two aspects of how that came about. I know it's inadequate. I hoped it was better than nothing! It will probably be easier to just change the heading of that section!! Thanx for this anyway! This was fun! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I like the changes you made to the Military Attitude section. You cleaned it up nicely. I think it reads better--thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, I see you removed the who-info I added to Helgeland and Kalantzis, was that intentional? If so, I disagree with it, in an article such as this, where so much is "opinion"-based, it´s relevant to mention who´s opinion we´re using. Wikilinks are neater, but they´re not always there to be had. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It goes too far to say that all history is opinion based - in my view we went too far in attributing statements that are widely held and about which there is not significant disagreement.... Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The was not exactly what I meant, hence the "", call them schools of thought, accepted view of modern historians or whatever. However, as long as these names remain in the text (Helgeland x4 in a short section), as a reader, I want to know something about who these people are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Helgeland should have an article to which we could WL, I reckon. But he doesn't. Does this work for you? Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: There is significant disagreement, I completely disagree with that statement. Helgeland is not the final word on this he is represented as. His work has been challenged--but the section still represents both views even though it has been weighted to one side again with this last revision. I agree that including the references is good. This section is okay now. I don't really like it, but it's okay. Maybe we could stop revising it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article says now "he (Helgeland) found that early Christians mostly opposed military service due to the Roman religion and rituals of the Roman army" and that's exactly what the article you found disagrees with. Yet it is stated here as though it's fact. Kryder says they opposed military service because of the killing--and that conclusion is no longer included here. I object to that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found does imply that Hegeland is correct on this, yes.
WP:SAID. So perhaps, stated, said, concluded? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Is it customary here on Wikipedia to remove a whole section of an article when there is disagreement?Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like most things on WP, it depends, and context matters. But basically, per
WP:PRESERVE, and if someone disagrees, try Wikipedia:BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle. Removing a section can be seen as the R or the B, depending. Of course, there´s nothing wrong with trying to start a discussion before wielding a large axe, that can work surprisingly well. [7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Would you explain your reasoning? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you want explained. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why the section was removedJenhawk777 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which section? I was talking about WP in general. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't speaking in general, I was speaking specifically. If you go look at the article, the section we are discussing is no longer in the content--at least as of now. I wondered why--but if you didn't do it you can't really explain it can you?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that what Helgeland found is true. Our two most recent overviews say that a new consensus formed around Helgeland's view. One of those two is Kalantzis who himself says that he dissents from the Helgeland consensus. This is exactly what the content says. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAID states: "For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said." And that´s how it reads to me, like "the court found" or "the detective found". So like I said, can we use another word? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{ping|Jytdog} Could you maybe clean up this sentence--"[Kalantzis] took a contrary stance that up to the time of Constantine, the early Christians always opposed killing"--to make it a little more representative of what he actually said? The word "contrary" is particularly problematic here in my view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve a question about this section in the article:

‘Hunter's third point of the "new consensus" is the assertion that Augustinian just war theory reflects at least one pre-Constantinian view.’

Would somebody be able to explain this further, as Augustine was around after Constantine? BruMeister (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777, sounds like something you might know about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of these days I will take my life in my hands and get back to working on this article. But not today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BruMeisterI am not sure I understand your comment. What does timing have to do with needing further explanation? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not sure about how the source words it, but Just war theory, which Augustine adopted, predates Constantine via people like Cicero and Plato. Augustine did not invent the Just war concept. Perhaps remove "Augustinian"? I think that would fix it. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologetics

Some of the text, like "It was this transformation (which came from viewing all persons as being made in God’s image) that ultimately destroyed slavery." is more apologetics than factual information. This topic might be difficult to discuss objectively, due to definitions of what "Christian" is and a lack of reliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrayson (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bold claim, it needs at the very least to be attributed to someone. One could also argue that slavery is not destroyed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"due to definitions of what "Christian" is"

If he/she kills and murders in the name of Christ, you can bet he/she is a Christian. See the Crusades. Particularly the Albigensian Crusade, the one claimed to be the first genocide.

I particularly like the description of the Massacre at Béziers:

  • "The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates.[1] The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. It was reported that Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, responded, "Kill them all! God will know his own." Whether this was actually said is sometimes considered doubtful, but, according to historian Joseph Strayer, it captures the "spirit" of the Crusaders, who killed nearly every man, woman, and child in the town.[2]"
  • "Amalric and Milo, a fellow legate, in a letter to the Pope, claimed that the crusaders "put to the sword almost 20,000 people".[3] Strayer insists that this estimate is too high, but noted that in his letter "the legate expressed no regret about the massacre, not even a word of condolence for the clergy of the cathedral who were killed in front of their own altar".[4]" Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Peter of les Vaux de Cernay 1998, pp. 90–91.
  2. ^ Strayer 1971, p. 62.
  3. ^ Milo & Arnaud Amalric 2003, p. 128.
  4. ^ Strayer 1971, pp. 62–63.

Recent edit being deleted

Recent conversation with user Snowded: Hey Snowded, I want to resolve the edit war we have with the Violence and Christianity page. What is the reason why you are undoing the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:2564:520:CD06:7EE6:BA97:44FE (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Because you are writing opinions - original research. Read WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page if you want to make a case-----Snowded TALK 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I edited the introduction because if you follow the citation of the sentence I removed you see that it does not relate to the sentence being cited in its entirety. I then added the forced conversions. Later in the article, there is mention of forced conversions after the constantine shift. I also have some of my academic references (in fact, this is widespread knowledge you can get by googling the terms forced conversion constantine shift). Thus, if I include these additional references, or link to a reference already given can this be included? My edit about Ghandi is justified: It has little to do with the main topic in the article and is expressing an opinion of a non-academic external view. I then highlight through a biblical passage that the New testament does not circumvent the old testament through a verse quotation. This was already discussed in your version in the previous paragraph. I just make it more explicit.

I would like to include the stuff I added about Christianity and violence. Please read my edit version and comment.

This is original research, which violates wikipedia policy. You have to provide reliable sources for your claims, not just write your opinions. I will provide a few quotes on the source in a bit since it does not say what you claimed it said. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur -----Snowded TALK 17:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

I don't know, and I don't want to know, who redid the lead for this article, but this is not what a lead is supposed to be. It's interesting, and it may have a place in the body of the text, but the lead is supposed to be a short summary of what's in the entire article, and this is not that. I am asking whoever changed this to please remove what's here and either return the former lead or write one, but to make sure it meets WP requirements. I will feel compelled to do this myself before very long and will simply delete this version of the lead, so if you want any of it saved, you will need to move it to the appropriate section yourself.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_and_violence&oldid=1206681044"