Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

images from old testament

@Tahc: Hey, I was glad to see your name on some edits but a bit dismayed at the reason. Removing Old Testament images is inconsistent with Christian ethics which includes the Old Testament. If you can find a source that says Christian ethics excludes the Old, then I will accept this, otherwise, I will probably put at least one back.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments comes to mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

America - Centrist

In the section on Abortion, a line reads "African-American Protestants are much more strongly anti-abortion than white Protestants" - this doesn't seem (to me) to fit into an article about a religion which is widespread across the world, not just in the U.S., and I think it should be removed, or at least a section built to incorporate Christian ethics in the specific context of the U.S. Is there a reason to keep it? Xx78900 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Xx78900 I thought your observation just, and I invite you to take a look at the current rewrite. I'll be asking for a peer review soon, so if you wanted to help out by getting a jump on that, it seems to me your observations would be valuable. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment

"The tremendous diversity of the Bible" I'm guessing it means something like written by a lot of people over a long time, but I'm not quite happy with this in WP-voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"In this, Jesus was reaffirming teachings of Deut 6:4–9 and Lev 19:18. He united these commands together and proposed himself as a model of the love required in John 13:12, known also as the New Commandment." Here, it sounds to me like we are to some extent talking theology in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A leftover from the original author who I am guessing is Tahc. It is theology, but ethics is an aspect of theology, so maybe. I left it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

About lead: There's nothing about Virtue ethics in the body, and I generally think it's unnecessary to name specific scholars in the lead of an article like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

All have now been addressed, I hope, to your satisfaction. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

historical Christian ethics

Resolved

@Tahc: This article does not state that it is Current Christian ethics only - anywhere. It is not titled that way. Its content previously had some history - Thomism and scholasticism and so on - so the complaint isn't even consistent with what was already there. Please do not remove content without getting consensus again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your interest in this article, but Wikipedia does not lend itself to statements like "this article is about current Christian ethics only", but I am open to ideas on how to indicate this. While the sources section of (even current) Christian ethics is rooted in history, and that section is mostly chronological in format, it is not about the history of Christian ethics, aside from sources of current Christian ethics. It would really be much easier to gather and document great quantities of information on Christian ethics in history, but I think Wikipedia readers deserve an article (with sub-articles) on the tricky area of current Christian ethics. I do not see any current consensus that this history sort of "more" information would be better. I think adding some history to the current Christian ethics would invite editors to continue to add more and more on the history of Christian ethics. Per WP:BRD and all Wikipedia policies, you would need a new WP:consensus it change the topic of the article. If you think we need to create a Wikipedia article on the history of Christian ethics, you can create that elsewhere. tahc chat 05:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Resolved

@Tahc: The reason you gave for reverting - multiple times - of everything added into this article is This is an article on current Christian ethics; the history of Christian ethics can be discussed elsewhere. Here's the dif that says so: [1] and another one: [2] But the article does not say it is current Christian ethics. That is not in the title or in an 'about' statement, nor is its content limited to current Christian ethics, nor is there any definition of such, nor is the historical information that is there connected in any explicit way with current Christian ethics. While the sources section of (even current) Christian ethics is rooted in history The article does contain history. Topics are defined by titles and vice versa. The topic is [Christian ethics]; the topic is not [Current Christian ethics] or [Contemporary Christian ethics] or [Modern Christian ethics]. None of those exist. If you want to create one, that would be great, but this isn't it. This is the broader topic of [Christian ethics]. If I were a reader looking up Christian ethics, I would not expect an article limited to only the modern day. I would expect a more comprehensive discussion of the whole topic. Because that's the title. I requested that you not make any further reverts without consensus, yet you went ahead based on "I think", "I do not see" and more "I think" while making no effort to talk here, or gain consensus, before doing so. Please demonstrate courtesy and good faith and self revert this last revert until such time as you get consensus support for your views. This was an opportunity to demonstrate good faith tahc and yet you have not taken advantage of that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC) This was an to opportunity for us to discuss the issues, but you did not even try. You merely asked me to cave to your view right away, and since I didn't, you called for a RFC. Even then, you continued to avoiding discussing any issue I raised. You just don't see demonstrations of good faith when you get it. tahc chat 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC) If we need to call for an RFC then let's do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777, even if you think the current article would be better with a focus on historical Christian ethics, and you think the article name allows for the focus on historical Christian ethics, you have still made controversial edits to the article without first gaining consensus for them. Per WP:BRD, you may may boldly make changes you think to be improvements, but once they are reverted and shown to be controversial, it is contingent on you to gain new consensus to match the changes you seek. (Although I have tried to show you the rational for the article on current Christian ethics.) You do not get to make all new changes to an article and then ask other editors to find a new consensus for the article as it already was. tahc chat 08:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) As a reader, I find it reasonable to find something about historical background in an article with this title, like in, say, Italy or Painting. The name indicate "Top level", it is not Modern CE or Contemporary CE. Even if "History of Christian ethics" is created I would expect to see a section on it in this article. Rfc may be the way forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC) @Tahc: Other than your unsupported personal opinion that this article should be limited to current ethics and not contain history, there is nothing controversial about those edits. The only controversy here is that assumption and your action. We now have a third opinion here that does not support your view. With no evidence of cooperation or evidence of intent to do so on your part, I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and will post an RFC. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

broken ref

Hi, in order to fix 2 broken reference names, I just changed <ref name="Wogaman"/> to <ref name="Wogaman2010"/> following consistency within the new section, assuming it was not <ref name="Wogaman93"/> as in some other places in the article. As I don't have the source, please correct if wrong. And of course, happy editing. Wakari07 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wakari07 Well bless your little pea-pickin' heart! Thank you! You did good! Happy holidays and happy editing to you too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Some comments

@Jenhawk777: I want to go through the article more thoroughly but I thought I should say this. The article is quite long and would benefit greatly from summary style—a bird's eye overview of Christian ethics focusing on its history and general philosophy, rather than details about all of its varying positions. "Wealth and poverty", for example, is three paragraphs long, and if I wanted to learn the details of Christian views on poverty, I would click the hatnote. A one paragraph summary would let me go through without getting caught up in the details. For example,

Christian ethical views on poverty and wealth vary widely. Some people (maybe cite a couple scholars/theologians here) believe that excess wealth is an evil; theologian John B. Cobb even argues that Western overvaluing of wealth has taken the place of God. On the other end, some Christians view economic prosperity and well-being as a blessing from God, citing their opposition to the destitution and hardship associated with poverty. Professor David W. Miller constructed a three-part rubric presenting three prevalent Protestant attitudes towards wealth: that wealth is an offense to the Christian faith, that it is an obstacle to achieving faith, and that it is an outcome of faith. Maybe add a sentence about Catholic views.

If that's the only thing in that section, along with a hatnote, I get a better understanding of the debate. Note that a lot of what you wrote can just be merged into their respective subarticles! And as a reader and reviewer, it would also let me process the article a lot better. Sorry if this came across as harsh, but I think you'll agree that our main motivation here is to help our readers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I'll do it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ovinus I removed over 6,000 bites, so hopefully that helps toward a summary style with a little more consistency. It's hard for me not to discuss every argument in detail! Thanx for the help, it actually was a help, and I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and thank you for your work! I sense a pattern of attacking subpar articles and bringing them to completeness. :P

I know it's hard to summarize—especially since you've probably spent much of your life studying this stuff!—but I'm still a bit concerned about the length of Areas of applied ethics. I think the sections on sexuality, slavery, abortion, alcohol and war could also be shortened a lot because they have respective subarticles. I'm thinking two to three medium-length paragraphs each. My sense of this article is that it should focus on the ethical principles and their history, then give an overview of some of the great Christian moral debates, but leave their details for the subarticles—if they exist. Hopefully some other editors can weigh in; pinging Gråbergs Gråa Sång who also seems interested in this article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

HAH! Your timing is perfect! I was just coming here to write that I had moved on and edited the rest as well removing about 15,000 bites this time! I tried to get all the "Applieds" down to one paragraph, but was unable to in every instance. The paragraphs are short, but the division of concepts seemed to require separating. If you can think of a fix for that I will be forever in your debt! Gråbergs Gråa Sång rules!!

You Ovinus sense a pattern of attacking subpar articles and bringing them to completeness because you are perceptive and right! I love remodeling and repairing. I have only started one article myself, but this is my bread and butter. Any articles you run across that are heavily tagged that you think might interest me - send to me! Please! Thanx again for your input here. It helped! Ovinus rules too!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Heh, we all rule! :D The length is significantly more manageable and I'll try to do a more in-depth review in the coming week. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We all rule!! I am going to post a request for peer review here soon, so this will either prepare it nicely, or you can wait and do it then. As you see fit. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite complete imo

To whomever is interested in this article, I believe I have completed the rewrite. Please review it for any problems. If they are small, please just make the changes needed yourself. If you think they might be controversial, please bring them here, and we will work it through. We have already shown that cooperation produces the best result, so don't be afraid to note whatever you think needs changing here. I'm going to give it a little while and will then post a peer review request. Thank you for your contributions and support in improving this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777, hope you had a nice New Years. I've read the lead, so far.

"Evidential, Reformed and volitional epistemology are the three most common forms of Christian epistemology." As a reader, I don't now what this means (fine, I'm not that sure on scholasticism either), but hopefully the article well tell me further down, if I get that far.

"but the debate is waged using both reason and revelation" This doesn't seem to quite fit in WP-voice, assuming revelation means "What God told somebody." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång, what a faithful friend you are, thank you for showing up and reading anything at all! Since the lead is just a summary, and epistemology is explained in its own section, I thought a mere mention was adequate. It's what I've done in other articles where explanations get complicated. I don't quite know what to do about the WP voice thing. It's a reference to what is said in the part on basic ethical principles. I didn't have a separate section for that principle - one sentence seemed adequate - but if you don't agree I will change it - I just don't know exactly how. What would you suggest? Would adding the phrase, 'Christian ethics uses' make a difference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I did a rewrite, is it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the rewrite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Awesome! I also aded links to the epistemologies, does that help? On the who? tag, it was a typo, so I fixed that. I wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't tagged it. These are great and valuable comments - as your comments always are. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tahc: What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

• I think you need to reorder the lead. The first paragraph doesn't really define it as much as classify it, as theology/not theology and virtue ethics/deontology. I would instead put the third paragraph of the lead first, as it seems both more accessible and more important to the topic.
• Furthermore, the first sentence: "Christian ethics is a virtue ethic, which focuses on the building of an ethical character, and a deontological ethic, which assesses choices" Since virtue ethics and deontology are typically two opposed schools of ethical thought, I wonder if it would be better to change to something like, "Christian ethics has elements of both virtue ethics... and deontological ethics... "

(t · c) buidhe 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe I like your version. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)