From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christianity page.

I don't think that the Islam section should be in an article titled "Christianity." The discussion of the Qur'an, and the Dome of the Rock, etc. isn't really related to the topic that this page is about. If there's a page for Islam, this portion of the article should be merged with it. ~ iBrain 2.26.2008

I find the fact that these quotes are filed under the heading christianity most disturbing. As a christian myself, I object strongly to my religion being associated with these horrible, judgemental, and deeply misguided, quotes. I feel the heading 'bigotry' or at least 'christian fundamentalism' would suit these quotes far better. ~M. McQuay 4/8/05

I am going to review the article soon, and if I find nothing which screams "obvious non-neutrality", I'm going to remove the npov tag. AIUI, many Christians disagree about a great many things, but npov mandates that we present quotes from all Christian view points (at least all those following the Nicene(sp?) creed). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The article has had alot added since I last commented. It is no-longer just a collection of judgemental conservative remarks using christianity as an excuse. It is now definately more neutral and includes other interpretations of christianity. -MM 24/10/05

There are a lot of hate filled systems... and presumptive hate filled mentalities... and not all of them are those that put on the disguises that religious traditions can provide; and not all people who reject flawed or deficient traditions are entirely free of flaws or deficiencies themselves.
There are traditions of insult and traditions of respect, traditions of hate, and traditions of love, traditions of lies and traditions of honesty, traditions of truth and traditions of error. One of the worst and most common of errors among many traditions, and among many people is to put labels on things, and presume that all they need to know about things can be summed up by those labels, or that people and things they would like to believe to either be absolutely worthless or supremely virtuous actually are.
Many traditions of virtue and many traditions of foolishness often go by the exact same name and labels, and it is attitude and behavior that the wise are alert to, not the labels and creeds that people might be inclined to embrace. Not all christians, jews, muslims, pagans, agnostics or atheists are hate filled bigots, and no one who presumes to claim that they are can rightfully claim to be guiltless of the very same flaw that they would like to emphasize or exaggerate in the traditions of others. ~ Achilles
Perhaps splitting the quotes in to Sections would help. Fundemental, historical, Criticism. --Chalko 18:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Start from Scratch[edit]

This page is so unbelievably biased that we might as well scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. Come on: the only quotes by Christians on this page are from the center crust of the extremists that most Christians facepalm at, or quotes taken grossly out of context (example: most of the Biblical quotes pertaining to violence).

100% agree, this page is about god, creation, religion, the Bible, other religious texts, etc. It is very little about Christianity, and what is Christian, is nowhere near wikipedia's standards. 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs revision[edit]

While I'm usually the first to stand up and point out all the flaws in organized religion [I'm a devout Pastafarian], this page isn't helping anybody learn about christianity. It's all quotes, that in some way or another, are pointed at making christianity look bad.

I've no problem with making religion look bad, but wikipedia isn't a political or religious debate, it should be a place to learn what thing are. In this case, the article doesn't foster a spirit of learning, and should be revised.

This isn't Wikipedia, it's wikiquote. Wikipedia is a place to learn how things are, Wikiquote is a library of quotations, archived by person, work or theme. This page collects quotes about Christianity. If the Christians don't like negative quotes, they should add quotes that they like, not fight to have the negative quotes removed. 13:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

me thinks[edit]

THe sh*t load of quotes I've droped will ballence things out for a while.

Off topic quotes[edit]

I've removed the following quotes because they're not specificaly about Christianity. Most of these quotes are from evangelicals or the founding fathers and deal more about issues relating to American politics and the seperation of church and state than they do to Christianity. Others may mention the word Christianity, but actually have another subject as their main topic. Most of them could be moved to other more appropriate pages like God, Religion, the Bible ect... 05:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy. ~ Fob James (Governor of Alabama)
  • "Be religiously careful in your choice of all public officers...and judge of tree by it's fruit." ~ Elias Boudinot, paraphrasing Matthew 7:13-23.
  • Behind this judicial wall of separation there is a tyranny of lies that will fall... I say to you, my friends, let it fall! ~ Fob James (Governor of Alabama)
  • Democracy originated in the mind of a rational being who has the deepest hatred for God. ~ Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments)
  • Do you realize that the only thing that gives democracy existence is sin? The absence of democracy is perfect obedience to God. ~ Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments)
  • George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God. -Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin
  • "God governs in the affairs of man. and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire rise without His aid? we have been assured in the sacred writtings that except the lord build the house, they labor in vain that bulid it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall suceed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel! the beginning of the contest with brittain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously we no longer need His assistance?" ~ Benjamin Franklin, constitutional convention speech of 1787, thursday June 28.
  • "He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all...Our forefathers opened the bible to all." ~ Samual Adams, from "American Independence" August 1, 1776. speech delivered at the state house in Philadelphia.
  • I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like – and if you have babies, you have babies. ~ Randall Terry (Operation Rescue)
  • "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the bible is the book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have ever seen." ~ John Adams, December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson.
  • I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ~ Randall Terry (Operation Rescue)
  • "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" ~ William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream (III, ii, 115)
  • Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol. ~ Joseph Morecraft (Chalcedon Presbyterian Church)
  • Politics and political involvement dictated by faith is not the exclusive province of the right wing. ~ unknown
  • Take her, fair son, and from her blood raise up Issue to me, that the contending kingdoms Of France and England, whose very shores look pale With envy of each other's happiness, May cease their hatred, and this dear conjunction Plant neighborhood and Christian-like accord In their sweet bosoms, that never war advance His bleeding sword 'twixt England and fair France. ~ William Shakespeare, The Life of King Henry the Fifth (Isabel, Queen of France at V, ii)
  • The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc. ~ Jerry Falwell
  • “The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I think of it this way: Faith is believing in spite of the evidence and then watching the evidence change.” ~ Jim Wallis
  • "The fourth of july ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to god almighty" ~ John Adams, from a letter written to abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by congress.
  • The Media is ruled by Satan. But yet I wonder if many Christians fully understand that. Also, will they believe what the Media says, considering that its aim is to steal, kill, and destroy? ~ Jimmy Swaggart
  • The Right is comfortable with the language of religion, values, God talk. So much so that they sometimes claim to own that territory. Or own God. But then they narrow everything down to one or two issues: abortion and gay marriage. ~ Jim Wallis
  • There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America. ~ David Barton (Wallbuilders)
  • To be a single-issue voter is not the most responsible kind of Christian citizenship. ~ Jim Wallis
    • refering to the GOP's use of abortion in the 2004 Presidential election.
  • We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe. ~ Gary Bauer (American Values)
  • We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our way. ~ Jay Grimstead (Coalition on Revival)
  • We had lost the fight for the preservation of the white race until God himself intervened in earthly affairs with AIDS to rescue and preserve the white race that he had created.... I praise God all the time for AIDS. ~ J. B. Stoner
  • "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to government of any other" ~ John Adams, october 11, 1798
  • We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism...we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today...our battle is with Satan himself. ~ Jerry Falwell
  • When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together. ~ Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition)
  • When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. ~ Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research)
  • With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. ~ Bailey Smith
  • "Without religion this world would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." ~ John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817.
  • "You can't have national morality apart from religious principal." ~ George Washington
  • You do not have the right to be wrong, regardless of what any man-made or demonic charter says. ~ Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments)
  • As the church watches from the sidelines, the ungodly elect atheists and homosexuals to school boards and legislatures to enact policies and laws that destroy our Christian children and discriminate against Christian families. ~ Robert Simonds (Citizens for Excellence in Education)

Clean up[edit]

I reverted a recent deletion of several quotes, that were specifically about Christianity, and added a clean up tag, because a better organization, with a few sub-headings might help, as the quotes currently are very disorganized, and create circumstances that confront readers with sudden and extreme clashes of perceptions and sensibilities. This would help minimze the warring edits of people who would seek to add or remove quotes on simply a "pro" or "con" basis. We seek to collect quotes on all sides of many issues, and a more appropriate response to any imbalances that exist is to add quotes with additional views, and not merely to delete those that are plainly topical. ~ Kalki 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for some info about religions before christianity, it was interesting to find out that there is nothing even about christianity !

This should be informative, not contemptuous[edit]

I think some of the comments in this discussion make it clear that the intention of filling this quotes page with hate, biggotry, prejudice, and malice was to do just that. If you judge the individual Christian by the mistakes of some, then you are only creating a stereotype to justify an arrogant and biased disposition. The true Christians are the ones who do not give in to hate. They are the ones who do not harm others for their sins or mistakes, but sacrifice their own comfort to help them, with sensitivity and love. A true Christian would never force their ideals on another, to try and make them understand. A true Christian would share their personal testimony, share evidence with those who will recieve it, and allow those who will listen to hear. You can never change someone elses mind. You can only help others to change their own. You can never thrust help unto others. First they must recieve it. Forceful, biased, deceptive, hate filled, and contemptible people are not Christians. You may claim to be something, but it's really all a mask. The truth is, those who do not take a Christian attitude and following the true teachings of Christ, the gospel of love, are not Christians regardless of what they claim. Your attitude, and the contents of your heart determine such things. Don't group the wicked with the righteous. If you are to hate something, hate the corruption that attempts to slither it's way into our system. Hate the Christian for the Christian mask of a deciever and a diluted cult follower, and you've indoctrinated yourself with a gospel of hate that you claim us to have. Never answer good intentions with hateful reactions. Direct your efforts at those who would taint these intentions. But even in doing so, do not answer contempt with contempt. If you still insist on intentionally smearing the church's name, re-read wikipedia's nuetrality policy. If you don't like it, take your anger somewhere else. It's quite disturbing that an article for quotes on Christianity would only contain a massive quanity of material in opposition to it. That isn't nuetral.

As soon as I get the time, I'll be sure to add an equal quantity of quotes in support of it. That way, this can remain nuetral. --Waenishikusu 17:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


MF> This wikiquote was nothing but inciting and inflammatory, beginning with a section of "Sourced" Quotes, and Voltaire inciting Frederick the Great that "Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition (Christianity)", duplicated from the Atheism wikiquote. The first positive quote was 15x quotes deep, and this was from Friedrich Nietzsche's The AntiChrist! This now begins the section. I am grieved that those militant against Christianity were the primary editors here. MarkF (Methodist). 5-Aug-2006.

The way to counterbalance what you consider a one-sided article is to add notable quotes providing a different view. As you can see from the above discussions, we do not delete quotations because someone finds them "inciting and inflammatory." Adding, not removing, is the solution here. Anyone who is "miltant" against Christianity is allowed to post here the same as anyone else. We do not filter out edits based on viewpoints. I will therefore be restoring the quotes you deleted. - InvisibleSun 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

MF> Then perhaps you can also provide an objective defense how its lead quotes to a depth of 15x were not "inciting and inflammatory"?

As I've just explained to you, we do not remove quotes on the grounds that anyone thinks them "inciting and inflammatory." We allow all views here, from the most fervently Christian to the most fervently anti-Christian and everything else besides. Here is an opportunity for you to add quotes of your own choosing and to your own liking; a positive contribution, in short. - InvisibleSun 17:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

MF> I will not be sitting at the table as currently paritioned, when what should be advancing public knowledge is been used as a platform to "expose (Christianity) as the hate-filled system it really is."

Is someone's anonymous remark on a talk page enough to make you flinch? Do you require, in order to advance public knowledge, that the table be cleared of everyone who offends you? If so, then you are sure to end up disappointed here. Christians do not own the Christianity page; nor do atheists own the page on atheism. If you were to add notable quotes against atheism on the Atheism page, it wouldn't matter who was offended.

I'm left to wonder, in closing, how it would ever advance public knowledge to have a forum where only one side may be heard. Nor is Wikiquote even a forum in the sense of being a debating society. It is an archive of quotations, as impartial and balanced as its contributors make it. When you refuse to improve on something that offends you, it is your own loss and ours. If people had spent as much effort in adding and sourcing as they spent in debating and deleting, we would have a richer and more varied store of knowledge. - InvisibleSun 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

MF> If I require the "table be cleared of everyone who offends", then did I, or did I not, leave Nietzsche's The AntiChrist to be its leading quote? Everything has its season and ought be partitioned into it; not the militant status-quo for a Narnia-like Winter of anti-Christianity. "A forum where only one side may be heard" is a misnomer, given these "notable quotes" seem callously annexed from original, more-professional wikiquotes, and the bias [my mistake & corrected] in clearing this table of "Off topic quotes" (see above) that leaves the tableware of "A Writer's Notebook" and "The Gay Science" rather bemusing. So, to quote, "I think it better to keep a profound silence with regard to the Christian (fables)", from Frederick II of Prussia.

Once again, the solution is in your hands and yet you refuse to make use of it. You believe it your prerogative as an editor to whittle down quotes until you create what you believe is a fair balance. This is not how balance could be created here on Wikiquote, since it would merely result in an endless series of edit wars, reversions, arbitrations, etc. There is only one way to create balance here, and that is to add quotations which serve as a counterbalance to the ones that already exist. If you were to add two hundred notable quotes about Christianity, it would not be justifiable for anyone who came after you to say: "These quotes are now far too balanced in favor of Christianity; it's up to me to whittle them down to create more balance and fairness." So long as you had provided two hundred notable quotes about Christianity, every one of them would deserve to stay and no one would deserve to remove even one of them. That's how it works here.

The grounds for deleting quotes are very few: vandalism and hoaxes; long quotes that represent entire texts, a potential copyright problem; and off-topic quotes. Basically, that's pretty much it. If quotations are by notable people and are about Christianity itself, as are the Maugham and Nietzsche quotes you think unworthy, then they must stay. There are no grounds for removing them. What's happened on this page is that most of the anti-Christian quotes are direct attacks upon Christianity, and are therefore at least on topic; while many of the favorable quotes, like the ones listed above, were not about Christianity per se as about religion in general or else about secondary, merely topical issues. It's not exactly hard to find a great many quotations, all of them in praise of Christianity, which could belong on this page; so why not add them? Who's stopping you?

Incidentally, in looking over the deleted quotes listed above, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of these quotes -- such as the ones by Lee, Stoner and Morecraft -- had been added by those who wanted to make Christianity look bad: quoting only what most people, including mainstream Christians, would consider the most "extreme" Christian statements. It wasn't why they were removed; but if you consider the removal of some of these quotes a proof of bias, you have to wonder who actually benefited the most from their omission.

As for where these quotations come from and how many are from other quotation pages, what exactly is the relevance of this? I have no idea, or much interest in knowing, where people happened to get these quotes; it doesn't pertain to the question of notability. The more notable the quote, the more likely it is to have been quoted elsewhere. So long as a quote belongs on a page, it doesn't matter whether it's been quoted a thousand times or has never been quoted before.

You assume, it would appear, a sort of conspiracy to suppress pro-Christian quotes. You have only to provide quotes from the many centuries of Christian thought, and you will see little how this assumption holds up. So far, however, you have added nothing. - InvisibleSun 21:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

MF> You are correct that I "have added no (pro-Christian quotes)", and whilst I'm expected to run around wolves hungry for my exit, then nor will I invest time beforehand. Someone hungered for a unity of Chirstianity and inflammatory Anti-Christian quotes, and hungered to remove Kalki's "few sub-headings" (given Kalki's express reason) to favour its present quotes via just Sourced and Unsourced. It seems to have evolved thru posters "filling the quotes page" with "horrible, judgemental, and deeply misguided, quotes" to "expose the hate-filled system it really is", then into needing "loads of quotes ... droped (to) ballance things out for a while", which Kalki hints at having been "extreme clashes of perceptions and sensibilities" from "warring edits ... to add or remove quotes on simply a 'pro' or 'con' basis." So its present quotes page is once again just the howls of wolves. Even Waenishikusu had previously remarked that "If you still insist on intentionally smearing the church's name, re-read wikipedia's nuetrality policy."

I was off-base, and agree with your appraisal (against bias) that "more than a few of (the Off-topic Quotes had) wanted to make Christianity look bad: quoting only what most people ... would consider the most 'extreme' Christian statements". The list was quick-scanned, picking-up on some quotes within the context of Christianity or using "Bible" as euphemism (Franklin/Wallis), as been equal to weak contenders in the quotes page simply including "Christian" in the quote (Maugham/Gay Science) with Goldman's also been "more appropriate" to the Bible section. My picking at straws. In closing, its opening Voltaire quote strikes me as a metaphor of intent, and few Christians would respond to "Let the games begin", when a platform is what it has been, is now, and tilted to become.

Recent additions[edit]

  • But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.
    • Jesus's Parable of the Ten Minas, Luke 19:27. This has often been quoted out of context, as if it were a command of Jesus, when it is in fact a command given by the protaganist of one of his parables. However, also see Mark 4:11-12, in which Jesus says that his parables contain hidden teachings.

I added the first part of the comment on the context of this statement, but removed the additional comment that was subsequently appended. Of course there are hidden lessons in parables, but the interpretation, assessment or almost certainly false conclusions that many detractors of conventional christianity are obviously trying to imply is that he was issuing a command "those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" and this is absolutely not the case, and that he was definitely implying such tyranny on the part of people was a great idea, is not the case either. He was issuing a warning that such harshness easily comes about among people, when they are neglectful or unmindful of certain trusts and potentials.

I personally do not propound the idea of Jesus as perfect and all-knowing person, but I also reject the notion that he was a charlatan with tyrannical aspirations, or even non-existent, as some of the most zealous detractors of the traditions that have arisen in his name would like to imply, or flatly claim. I hold him to be a person who was far wiser and insightful than most Christian and anti-Christian interpreters can easily fathom, along with many of the prophets and sages of other traditions. I am not inclined to give a full delineation of my own assessments here, but I do wish that some effort would be made to organize the article, in addition to adding whatever further material might be relevant to it. ~ Kalki 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Full parable relevant to this statement runs from 19:10 - 27 which in the King James Version is rendered:

The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

This is obviously one of his harsher parables, but probably not his harshest, and though Christian and anti-Christian interpreters might misinterpret and misuse it in promoting their own agendas, there is also much that most people in either camp tend to be oblivious to as well, and to a great extent the gist of the parable is to promote action and involvement in human society rather than simply resting content with what one is provided, or being ungrateful and even resentful about it. ~ Kalki 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As Jesus does have his own page, and is certainly a primary subject of most forms christianity, I also feel their should not be an over-abundance of quotations by him here, but most quotes by him should be on his own page, in an appropriate subsection. Only a relatively few quotes specifically dealing with major aspects of the legacies he wished to establish should probably here. ~ Kalki 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this theme page[edit]

An inherent problem with theme pages is a tendency to lose all focus on a specific subject, becoming a catch-all for more or less secondary themes. Recent additions to this page have illustrated the problem. In this article there are many quotes which do not have Christianity as their stated subject. The actual subjects of these quotes include: religion in general; the relations between church and state; some historical applications of Christian doctrine, as in Luther's views on Jews and Judaism; biblical passages applying the views of Jesus or Paul on various topics; the religious views of well-known historical figures; etc. It's as if an article about Law were to include scores of particular laws, all laboriously printed verbatim and included on the assumption that laws must have Law as their subject. A good half of these quotes could be cut on the grounds that they are not about Christianity per se. It isn't easy to make a distinction between Christianity and the history of Christianity; but such a distinction should at least be attempted if this theme page is not to become endlessly digressive. - InvisibleSun 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Specificity, please. I would argue that all quotes pertain directly to their speakers view of their own Christianity or duties to their Christian community. Luther's quotes are a primary example of this (e.g., "we Christians, in turn, are obliged not to tolerate their [the Jews'] wanton and conscious blasphemy"), and fit within a larger theme stretching from Matthew 27:25 right through the twentieth century. It would be a glaring omission for any collection of quotes on Christianity to not include these. As for the quotes on general religion, in context, these refer specifically to Christianity, though they can in some instances be generalized. In all cases the speaker does have Chrisianity directly in mind, such as Jimmy Carter's "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith." Obviously about a very relevent subject in contemporary/historic Christianity: anti-science. I suppose we could insert "[Christianity]" in places where the speaker says religion or the like, but the context should already be clear from this page and the speaker's subject. Écrasez l'infâme 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Your standard for relevant quotes — namely, that they need only express a Christian viewpoint or have a Christian context, instead of being quotes in which Christianity is the actual subject — have now contributed to make a 124 KB page, of which about half of that material has been added by yourself within the last week. There is almost literally no sort of limit to the number of quotes which could be added based on your notions of relevance. This page could reach completely unmanageable (and unreadable) proportions in no time flat if others of a different view were to do as you have done: adding, for example, hundreds of quotes from hymns, prayers, sermons, letters, meditations, speeches, etc. After all, if you alone can add 60 KB to a page, why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't dozens of people add 60 KB apiece? Aside from the questions others have raised — of POV, for example — there is the simpler question of manageability here.

The point is not that your additions don't belong on Wikiquote just because their relevance to this page is debatable. It would be more apt, I think, for you to create new pages in which the subject matter of many of these quotes would be more focused. It would also better allow for further expansion in depth and scope. I would propose, as a start, the following new theme pages: 1) Church and state; 2) Antisemitism; 3) The Jefferson Bible. [On the Church and state topic I could add a number of quotes myself, having once done some informal collecting of Presidential quotes on the subject.] - InvisibleSun 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

InvisibleSun, You make some good points about editing—I have edited these down to address redundancy and overlap with the subjects you list to salient, relevant quotes with direct bearing on Christianity. Given the huge scope of the subject—religious, cultural, historic, geopolitical—size and manageability are inherent problems with any comprehensive collection of quotations on Christianity. I've suggested a solution to this problems through the outline: a standard sequence of Western historical periods, with the exception of one highly relevant section on the Qur'an (and possibly Islam). I also agree with the criticism that the page requires a greater balance of views to achieve NPOV—there are Christian responses to the criticisms quoted on this page; they are directly relevant and should be added as well. I've also added several Biblical passages, a little Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I'm certain that others will be able to add more. Écrasez l'infâme 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the page still has far too many quotes which are only tangentially related (at best) to Christianity or Christian theology. I've removed what I find to be the most blatant digressions, but I'm reluctant to make any major moves until we can come to a consensus on the precise scope of what this page should cover. I would tentatively propose that only quotes about Christian beliefs/theology should be permitted, but this is just my point of view. Johnleemk 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic on which one could fill an entire library, from Apologetics to Zoroastrian influences, and still leave important things out. Interested editors might do well to consider limiting the scope of the main article and organizing subtopics into separate articles. ~ Ningauble 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Taken from WQ:NPOV:

Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to which points of view are worth mentioning, and this can be an area of conflict.) This policy exists on all Wikimedia projects.

This article can hardly be considered NPOV. The vast majority of these quotes are either anti-Christianity or downright out of context, and simply adding quotes from a different point of view to balance the viewpoints presented would just bloat the page ridiculously. I think that many of these need to be removed or clarified, not just neutralized. I'd dive in, but I'd like to hear some other editor's opinions on this. TK925 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, the entire Reformation and Counter-Reformation section consists of quotes by Martin Luther, all but one of which are from On the Jews and Their Lies. TK925 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am especially observant of the numerous quotes by Adolph Hitler (which mostly say the same thing over and over. Why should we quote him more than once when he wasn’t a theologian and certainly violated practically every principal of Christianity ever written?). Also the lack of quotes by C. S. Lewis and other prominent Christian theologians. --Narfil Palùrfalas 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Century sections I see very few, if any quotes from pro-Christian writers. Where are Butler, Newman, Belloc, Chesterton, et al.? The early sections also need expanding. --Ramses II


Is it really necessary to include the Arabic version of quotes from the Qur'an alongside the English translation? Jda 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Though not absolutely necessary, the inclusion of original language material as well as variant translations of it is encouraged at Wikiquote. Often one translation can be very different from another, both in style and in implication, based on divergent interpretations of passages and the selection of words and phrases used to express them. This is particularly true of material where doctrines and creeds have been developed that often have a very pronounced affect on possible interpretations, and those that are preferred by any particular translator. ~ Kalki 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclination to the West[edit]

I prefer chronology, but also I feel a slight embarassement on this article. It covers only Western Christianity, and some chronological sections are named mainly from the view of the West. Besides the Bible, there is no quotations from Greek sources ... We can rename it to "Western Christianity"? This article seems to me already huge in a size and hardly convinient to make it double with Eastern Fathers' quotes and other Eastern people sayings (we may include Dostoevsky, Tolstoy et al...) --Aphaia 05:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several quotes from Arius (of Alexandria), Augustine (a Berber from Algeria), Jermome (spent his whole life in the Eastern Empire). I agree, though. There should be quotes from Constantine, Justinian (and their heirs), the iconoclasts, the Monophysites, the Nestorites, and more Arians. Such quotes fit naturally in the chronological order. Écrasez l'infâme 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag[edit]

I know that on some topics, it's impossible to have something which is truly neutral but this is the most egregious case of POVing I've ever seen on the wikis excluding vandalism. Ironically, I was looking for some quotes on Christianity that were neutral, neither saying "Christianity good" or "Christianity bad". But going through the 20th and 21st centuries, all I've seen is either quotes deriding Christianity, quotes from nutjobs like Hitler (who in private also derided Christianity, which would make me question the validity of having his quotes there in the first place), quotes from extremist Christians making Christianity look nuts and quotes from the Pope chosen only to make him look foolish (such as the Harry Potter quote).

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
Not that I dispute your NPOV tag but I think that you must realize that the modern civilized world has been trending away from organized religion for some time now. The US is one of the last bastions of heavy belief. Most other nations have a population which pays lip service to belief but do not truly believe. They do not truly believe the creation myth otherwise they would not also believe the earth to be millions of years old instead of a scant thousands. Now, I am not saying this to antagonize, only to point out that the recent quotations may be, in part, a reflection of this decline in heavy belief.
The end result would be that whatever is left will either be negative in nature or look to be crack-pottery by the ever increasing moderation of the population. -- Greyed 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side it could be worse, there's no Fred Phelps in there. -- Greyed 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, I'm not American, nor do I believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old, that evolution is just a theory or that the Bible should be used as a primary source for teaching history or morality just in case your wondering. I've read more of the quotes in the article and I looked in the history and it seems that there are a couple of people who seem to have something against Christianity and are inserting quotes that serve to show it in only a bad light. Take a look at the Biblical passages that have been chosen. Based only on those selected passages, especially when removed from the rest of the story and removed from any historical or symbolical context, you come away with the idea that Jesus was a bad guy. You continue to read it and you come off with the idea that Christianity and Christians are bad. I'D estimate that over 95% of the quotes on the page are negative and some of these quotes about Christianity are just about deriding religion in general. And as I said, they quote Hitler as a proponant of Christianity when, not only was he not well versed in the religion but in private he derided it. There is quote after quote from Paine, Jefferson and Russell which are just variations on a theme and surely these can be truncated. There are several quotes from Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, considered by Christians, theists and atheists alike as representing the worse of Christianity and there is one single quote from a modern pope having to do with Harry Potter. As I said, this is the worst example (excluding of course vandalism) that I have ever seen.

These concerns about NPOV are misguided. From the Wikiquote policy on NPOV:

Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual; however, all non-quote text on Wikiquote (excluding userpages and with limitations in the Wikiquote namespace) should conform to NPOV.

This is simply a page of notable and relevant quotes about Christianity, not notable relevant quotes about Christianity that conform to a particular point of view. As noted above on this page:

Adding, not removing, is the solution here. Anyone who is "miltant" against Christianity is allowed to post here the same as anyone else. We do not filter out edits based on viewpoints.

Écrasez l'infâme 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When 117 edits out of 315 have been made by someone calling themselves "Écrasez l'infâme" and who primarily seems interested in dredging up the worst that can be found on the subject, I would say the NPOV tag on the page is entirely appropriate. I am not all that interested in giving high accolades to any specific religious, non-religious, or anti-religious traditions of devotion, but I see the root causes of human animosity, as ignorance, confusion, prejudice and bigotry, and I do not see the major religious traditions as the sole nor even the worst participants in these particular human failings — though I am well aware that many zealously anti-religious bigots would casually and presumptuously portray them as that. I am well aware that there have been all manner of foolish traditions, beliefs, prejudices, and bigotry embraced in the name of many religions, but I am also aware that there are all manner of foolishness, prejudices and bigotry embraced out of sheer ignorance and confusion that have little or nothing to do with any specific religious tradition. The NPOV tag exist on this site to signal that there has been a high degree of unbalanced bias evident in the creation of the article, and that this is the case here is very plain. ~ Kalki 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikiquote NPOV policy: Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual; however, all non-quote text on Wikiquote (excluding userpages and with limitations in the Wikiquote namespace) should conform to NPOV.
Kalki, you're free to add notable and relevant quotes about Christianity if you feel strongly that the page requires more balance: Adding, not removing, is the solution here. Anyone who is "miltant" against Christianity is allowed to post here the same as anyone else. We do not filter out edits based on viewpoints. Écrasez l'infâme 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case I certainly did not suggest removing anything — I have not been attending to this page, because I have many other concerns, but the NPOV tag exists and has been used on several pages where zealous editors have flooded the the page with material reflecting extremely hostile biases. It is currently in-use at Rush Limbaugh page for the same reason. ~ Kalki 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, you say on that page that
"I feel the existing NPOV tag for articles really doesn't apply quite as well here as it might on WIkipedia"
Why the double standard for the Christianity page? Why the flagrant contradiction with stated Wikiquote NPOV policy? Why don't you just add notable and relevant quotes that achieve the balance that you say is missing? Écrasez l'infâme 03:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is NOT FUNNY AT ALL how much many people choose to ignore or exclude to make an insulting or deceiving point that is highly misleading or entirely false. So that you can make the FALSE claim that I have a double standard you snip that small portion and exclude the fact that my full statement reads:
As to the NPOV tag dispute: while I feel the existing NPOV tag for articles really doesn't apply quite as well here as it might on WIkipedia, and that perhaps we should have a more applicable tag, indicating a "severe imbalance of biased quotes" or something, I agree that some indication of a severe imbalance continues to belong on this page, and this is all we have at present.
No one alive has enough time to balance all the imbalances that various forms of bigotries can drive people to create, but the NPOV tag is one of the means which exists on the project to signal that such bigotry is perceived. I do not find the tag adequate, but it is all that has as yet been devised to deal with a real and palpable problem. ~ Kalki 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I see you again removed the tag, with the statement:
"Please state explicitly where WQ says that the NPOV tag "EXISTS to indicate there is a need for further balance."
As I state above, the NPOV tag is an indicator, and as most biased comments are usually quickly removed with much less fuss, it has been used in such cases as this in the past, and likely will be in the future, to try to indicate a page needs to better conform to what is declared in the first paragraph of policy:
Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to which points of view are worth mentioning, and this can be an area of conflict.) This policy exists on all Wikimedia projects.
I repeat that I find the tag inadequate, but I do not have any immediate ideas to improve it that I find all that superior, so I am content to make do with it for now. My memory might be faulty on this, but I don't believe I myself have ever actually added the tag to any page, but merely replaced it on pages where others had posted it. Where I see imbalances I want to address, and have time to, I generally do so, but I recognize that there are zealots who have done extensive work on a few pages which I don't have a corresponding zeal to dredge through and even attempt to adequately balance. ~ Kalki 04:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person who put the NPOV here in the first place. Though quotes are allowed to have a non neutral point of view (no one is arguing to the contrary and there would be very little in wikiquotes if the rule was otherwise), you still can not use wikiquote as a place to push an agenda or provide a skewered view of a topic or a person which is exactly what you're doing and you yourslef admited to being a militant anti-Christian. Many of the quotes you provided are repetitious, out of context or quotations from people like Hitler who used Christianity in his public speeches but vilified it in private.

I think some of the edits of the above user should be truncated so that the basic and important quotations of Russell, Jefferson et al. remain without the litany of repetetive ideas stretching the page. Quotes that are completely disingenuous such as Hitler's should be removed and out of context quotes should be put into context or be removed. At the end of the day, this page should reflect Christianity as accurately as possible. We should note the modern abusrdity of some Biblical passages, the paradoxical wrath of God and love of Godand the actual message that Jesus Christ was preaching not ridiculously out of context selective sentence fragments that are there now. There should be quotes showing the good and the bad that was done in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries, quotes showing what love and hate Christians can show in the name of their reliigon and quotes both supporting and deriding Christianity as an entity.

I will be happy to do my part in trying to present a balanced article, but I would like some assurance from the admins that we won't let one overzealous person basically undo all the work due to their inability to control their hatred.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
I have not had time to examine the page thoroughly lately, and though there might be some trimming possible, desirable, or even necessary (if the quotes are of only marginal or very strained relevance), the best contributions would be positive quotes as balance. I might attempt to collect a few of these myself within the next few months, but I have many other priorities. ~ Kalki 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can put some quotes as well but I'm not exactly a top expert in this field. And I personally as well can't really patrol this page. I have an account on the english wiki but I hardly ever even log in because the only time I edit is when I find errors on the spot. I want to add that I think we should completely remove those quotes that are about religion as a whole and not specifically about Christianity. There are also some quotes like the abu Ghraib one which though it does mention Jesus, has really zip to do with Christianity. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Agreed. Just looking directly around that area I can see several that could be removed. The Abu Ghraib quote mentions Jesus but isn't about Christianity (I wonder if it's hiding out on Jesus too, if Écrasez l'infâme put it on this page I'd bet it is there, too). In that same vein the Christopher Hitchens quote right under it is about the church's actions and not about the religion itself. Two quotes below that is one from Pat Robertson which is certainly not about the religion, just his own bias showing through his words. That's what I can see just on a quick perusal while confirming what said about the Abu Ghraib quote. -- Greyed 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the anon, And I agree with Kalki as one of editors who have no enough time to counterbalance this article with addition. Most of additions of Écrasez l'infâme seems not to directly relate to Christianity just as same as Jesus/John Chrysostom case. Blatantly saying, he seems to want to input his favorite quotes to inappropriate pages only he think them more visible than appropriate ones. --Aphaia 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I started work by going into the Twenty first century quotes and removing those that did not refer to or have to do with Christianity. Some were borderline so I left them in. One deletion that I should note is the removal of the pope's quote since the reference to Christianity is only implied due to who he is and more importantly, it was written by a subordinate and was written before he was pope. Before I continue (perhaps I should create an account?), I'd like to know if everyone here thought the deletions appropriate; if I removed too much, too little and any other suggestions would be helpful. Thank you. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Quotes cited as the reason for this tag were removed 2 weeks ago, and there have been no changes since. Therefore, I have removed this tag. Écrasez l'infâme 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Once Again Added NPOV[edit]

This article is still absolutely flooded with quotes, the better part of which post Christianity in a very negative light, whether taken from critics, or taken out-of-context from their original authors. I added NPOV, as I'm hardly the first person to stake this complaint regarding this page. Adding more quotes to "balance" isn't really going to help, it's just going to completely flood the page.

I read up above that someone directly quoted from the NPOV guideline, which basically says that as long as the quote is correct, it can fly; yet obviously, someone with two thoughts too rub together can undoubtably see that a bunch of pseudo-'revolutionaries' and other sorts of 'arm-chair' visionaries are editing this Wikiquote page to make Christianity look bad. Like, honestly, some of these quotes seem just random, bigoted, messages that supposed Christians said, and now are put up here too look like divine doctrine.

Also, I believe we should keep generalties of religion out of this page, unless, of course, you think it doesn't have enough quotes.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.

Why do we have that here?

A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution [the University of Virginia].

why do we have that here?

But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill[.] … The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems,[footnote: e.g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, etc. —T.J.] invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him, is a most desirable object, and one to which Priestley has successfully devoted his labors and learning. It would in time, it is to be hoped, effect a quiet euthanasia of the heresies of bigotry and fanaticism which have so long triumphed over human reason, and so generally and deeply afflicted mankind; but this work is to be begun by winnowing the grain from the chaff of the historians of his life.

I believe this quote is talking about Jesus...

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?

Why is this here?

You go into it as a business and you treat it like a business.

Why this here?

-- Eichelberger 10:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l'infâme, that's exactly the thing we're trying to discuss here. Out of context quotes that do nothing but potray Jesus as a deluded maniac.

-- Eichelberger 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was added over one month ago, and in that time no one has suggested any edits to improve on the claimed bias,n or provided a rationale why it should remain. Therefore, I am removing it. Écrasez l'infâme 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you a complete idiot? Honestly, there has been a long and hard discussion, and you are still plowing away. Please, stop man. Rationale? Why is there more than 15 quotes about the Catholic Church? Sorry, but I think you will be hard pressed to explain to anyone how the Catholic Church is synonomous with Christianity. How Adolf Hitler (the theologian to debunk all others) is synomous with an educated quote on Christianity and not on his page. How quote about Virginian Universities have a place in Christianity. The list goes on and on and on, somewhat like you... -- Eichelberger

The NPOV tag was added over two-and-one-half years ago, and in that time no one has suggested any edits to improve on the claimed bias or provided a rationale why it should remain. Therefore, I am removing it. Écrasez l'infâme 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For good and sufficient reasons described by Kalki and Aphaia above, I have reinstated the {{NPOV}} tag. This lengthy article contains many quotes that are not even about Christianity per se, but the real POV problem is that the preponderance of quotes, including those that are more or less directly on topic, are highly polemical. An article that emphasizes contention, even if it were to balance those for and those against, is not a neutral treatment of the subject, it is a study in contention over the subject.
Of course, discussion of religion is very often contentious and controversial. Because the natural dynamic of the Wiki process, when applied to topics that engender contentiousness, at best tends to result in compromise that places undue emphasis on the contention rather than the subject, I do not foresee that this article will ever achieve neutrality. So it goes ... so the tag stays. ~ Ningauble 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


I think the bias of anti-Christianity on this page is appalling. The fact that quite a few of the most anti Christianity quotes have sections of them that are bolded in obvious bias. I am also trying to figure out why ALL of Christopher Hitchens' book wasn't posted, I mean that is most of it that's on there isn't it?

You're welcome to add any quotes that you believe would provide balance. Écrasez l'infâme 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that this sort of argument borders on the ridiculously banal. A flood of antagonistic and often irrelevant quotes are injected, at which point the culprit responds to criticism of slanted production by stating "If you don't like my torrent of bias, then add your own torrent of bias." As if sewage and water in equal measure were to equal wine! It reminds me, in an unflattering way, of comedian Bill Maher's excellent discussion of political malfeasance in which one party responsible for most atrocities points at her opponent and declares "We did some things, you did some things, it's a wash." But none but the most ardently militant idealogue would lower him- or herself to the level of this unprofessional Wikiquote article. Expected perhaps in politics, but in a civilized venue such as this? No. Simply appalling. - Mr. Pilkington : —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
I have no great admiration for many of the quotes User:Écrasez chooses to post, and find many of them appallingly banal and stupid, but the fact remains that that particular user has been busy doing constructive work, even if it is with a very destructive disposition towards many things, while others have simply whined and complained about such people doing too much, and that there should be an increase in rules and strictures which could insure such imbalances as they create be prevented — which is one of the most banal loads of crap which I can imagine arising here, despite also being aware many might wish to see such things accepted. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Christianity is such an enormous topic. The first 1500 years of its life span at least 3 major cultural groups, so that anyone who was a part of these groups or encountered Christians in anyway could theoretically have something to say. Not to mention the volumes of theological literature that have been produced down through the centuries. I propose limiting the quotes here to those dealing with Christianity and Christians. No Bible(except perhaps those few instances when the New Testament mentions Christians), No Qur'an, No Talmud, No Book of Mormon. These belong under pages for their respective books, also perhaps pages related to Jesus, Mary etc. No theology. After all, Christianity is a system, a religion, in a way distinct from its books and founder, which can and have been used by non-Christians for various purposes.--TDCalvini 07:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have since deleted quotes not dealing with Christians and Christianity per se. There was a lot of stuff that dealt with the Bible, Jesus, Mary, God etc that was not dealing with the system Christianity in particular. Moreover, there are an inordinate number of quotes of an inordinate length from the founders of the United States. I deleted some of them, but it still needs work to pare down Thomas Jefferson to his most pithy points. This page seems to have many more quotes from foes of Christianity than from its fans. Hard to believe that 2000 years and billions of people have not produced more that's worth repeating. TDCalvini 07:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is to break out a substantial number of pages by narrower topics. For example, we should be careful to separate quotes on Christian doctrines for example from quotes on Christian institutions, and should further be careful to separate general quotes on generally accepted points of Christianity from quotes on aspects of the religion that are unique to a particular sect or group of sects. BD2412 T 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I remarked several threads above, "this is a topic on which one could fill an entire library, from Apologetics to Zoroastrian influences, and still leave important things out. Interested editors might do well to consider limiting the scope of the main article and organizing subtopics into separate articles." It would be a very good idea to split some articles for quotes that are clearly about well defined and recognized doctrines or institutions, but this should be done with careful attention to neutral point of view. In some cases, characterizing what a quote is about may be a debatable proposition.

(E.g., "Mariolatry" would be a title identifying a point of view rather than a doctrine. "Immaculate conception" or "Virgin birth" could be acceptable titles for doctrines, but it might be better to include quotes on these topics at Mary (mother of Jesus) unless they are very numerous. &e.g., Fundamentalist Christianity is a noteworthy characterization, but its application to particular institutions or doctrines can be a debatable point of view.)

I support the idea even though I anticipate its application would sometimes be contentious. ~ Ningauble 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it will be contentious, but I'm going to do it anyway. ;-) BD2412 T 12:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Why is there such an abundant amount of quotes from Hitler on this article in support of Christianity? I out of interest clicked through to the page on Hitler and there seem to be a fair few quotes from Hitler against Christianity, none of which seem to be present on this article. -- 20:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a whole page dedicated to Adolf Hitler's religious views; rather than include them all here too, we should probably just have a see also link. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please quote in context[edit]

Hello everybody. I was very displeased to see that the very first section in the article was very biased:

  • Someone quoted almost every passage out of context.
  • I noticed that several quotes were cut so that it made Jesus seem something completely different to what the he actually taught.
  • Some quotes were taken out of context, from parables with passages that, in context, are evidently either metaphorical or symbolic.
  • Some passages (such as those of revelation) were taken out of context from prophetic passages that contain a lot of symbolisms that great theologians such as Newton and others study deeply, along with their language, meaning and message IN CONTEXT.

Having seen the unfairness of such biased presentation of Christianity, I decided to quote many of those passages in context, and order them alphabetically (not merely according to the preference of someone who obviously was an critic of Christianity). And I dare to assume that since many of those verses are the very same that anti-christian groups take out of context to promote their prejudice or hatred towards Christianity, or to call them crazy or fools.

I want to give an example of a passage that is often taken out of context by critics of Christianity:

  • Luke 9:27, which states: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me".

in this case, Jesus was telling a story. He was telling a parable. He was not commanding anyone to kill anyone. It's a teaching about the Judgment day, not about how Christians should behave!, because we know for example that Jesus commanded his followers to "love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back", and also "bless them that curse you, and pray for those who persecute you", and "turn the other cheek", and many many other non-violent callings who inspired Christian pacifists such as Martin Luther King Jr., among others. My request is that if someone wants to quote a passage like that, they should quote the whole story, so that people do not misunderstand anything.

  • In one quote, there was also a long commentary of someone who explained how someone would use it centuries later to promote hatred against Jews. I ask you to please let the passage speaks for itself in context, and not to cut it. And why should a long commentary of an critic of Christianity be there, and not a long commentary of a Christian pacifist?

Please, if you're going to quote Jesus Christ, quote Jesus Christ in context and let his words speak for himself. That is something vital for anyone, because it's not fair when people quote Darwin out of context to make him seem as a racist, and it's not fair the Gush Emunim Underground group out of context to make Jewish people seem as terrorists, just as it's not fair to quote Jesus out of context to make him seem as a crazy pro-violence. We need peace and religious tolerance.--Goose friend (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would list them in the order they appear in the Bible, starting with Matthew and ending with Revelation.
It's generally unnecessary to quote entire parables to contextualize one sentence. Often a single sentence of context will do. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


  • We cannot do without Christianity, and we cannot endure it as it is.
  • The greatest source of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but deny Him by their lifestyles. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
  • Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love.
  • I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you.
  • It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.
  • Let us be done with being anti-anybody. Let us become pro-Christ and pro-love! Let us stop talking against this person and that, this nation and that. Let us begin to live Christianity!
  • My parents would always tell me that I should not hate the white man, but that it was my duty as a Christian to love all.
  • Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies.
  • Raising your children under Americanism or any other principles other than true Christianity is child abuse.
    • Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments).
  • This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians.
  • We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.
    • James Watt (Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Admin).
  • We need a legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold Christian convictions which will afford us the opportunity to contend once again for the mind of this culture.
  • We've staked our future on our abilty to follow the ten commandments with all our heart.
  • When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.
    • Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action).
  • It is the truth divine, speaking to our whole being: occupying, calling into action, and satisfying man's every faculty, supplying the minutest wants of his being, and speaking in one and the same moment to his reason, his conscience and his heart. It is the light of reason, the life of the heart, and the strength of the will.