Talk:Christian ethics

No mention of Galatians 3:28?

I would have expected to see it somewhere. I wrote an article a while back at Galatians 3:28 since it has an extensive bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also mentions slavery, but not race. But most of the civil rights movement saw racial equality as part of Christian ethics. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Hi! Glad to see you here! You know, of course, that this article is, of necessity, just a summary overview of some of the big issues, and that there is more that is left out than is discussed. But this is a good point concerning modern issues. None of the sources I looked at made this a major point, and if they mentioned it at all, it was about gender not race. But there is a series called New issues in Christian ethics, and perhaps there is one on race that I could add in here. That might actually be a better section heading than slavery. I'll look! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If combined, I think the heading should be "race and slavery" since slavery was an issue in Christian ethics long before modern race concepts existed. (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe So far I can't find a decent discussion of this issue within Christian ethics. I think I will have to widen my search. Christianity is in denial and doesn't talk about race apparently. I did add Gal.3:28 to the inclusivity exclusivity section however, though I don't think I'll stop there. I'm all het up over this now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Animal ethics

It's hard to believe that Animal rights is more significant than the rest of Environmental ethics, given how significant issues of global warming and pollution have been in recent Christian debates. I would try to cut down the animal section to 1 paragraph if possible. Also, I think one should mention the conservative Christian case against environmentalism, explained here[1] (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Ugh. I suppose even flat-earthers get to be included don't they? I will work on editing down animal rights, but tomorrow. It's 1:30 Am here and I am signing off for tonight. buidhe - thank you - sincerely. I greatly appreciate your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Okay those are both done now - I hope... Your comments are always pertinent and offer genuine improvement. You never tell me to change happy to glad as so many do and have. I am grateful for what you offer - and what you don't. :-) Thanx again - keep it up as long as you can stand! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't really do prose nitpicking, you'll have to get that from someone else :) (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

However I would recommend getting a copyedit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests before FAC since that tends to prevent prose issues from derailing a nomination. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I will check out that info for my own information but I will never put an article up for FAC again buidhe. Prose reviews aren't my problem. There are lots of ways to say the same thing, so I always cooperate figuring it doesn't really matter, but it gets to be a grind when multiple reviewers go over the same ground, and one says change A to B, then another comes along and says, change B to A. There ought to be a limit to how many of the same thing people can put you through as FAC reviewers - if prose has been reviewed twice, that should be seen as enough for any article, it should be posted on the review page as closed and done. One reviewer put too many templates in his review and I got fussed at for that - I guess I was supposed to know better if the reviewer didn't. Another reviewer would make two comments a day and took too long - there should be a time limit to how long each individual reviewer is allowed to take - and that was interpreted as disinterest, but by what standard? I found it to be a very haphazard approach that I spent three months responding to, every day, and it was all for nothing. I won't do it again. People like you come along and critique my work and I'm grateful. You make me better. You and GA will just have to be enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that FAC didn't work out for you :( My first FAC didn't go well but I learned from that experience and now write articles that meet the criteria. I don't see your biblical criticism FACs as failures because they resulted in considerable article improvement, which is after all the point, but it can be a stressful process so I understand if you don't find it enjoyable. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Thank you for understanding and not holding it against me. As long as you don't abandon me, I should be okay. It lifts me a little to think that your first FAC didn't go well - I suppose I will have to take that into consideration since I think of you as the pinnacle of WP. And yes, article improvement is the real point, so I am okay with that result, and you're also right that I did learn some good stuff from the experience. I am more careful about quotations and images and citations. I'm more aware. What I find enjoyable is the writing itself - the research - take a look at the version of this article from six months ago for example. It took a while on the talk page to get cooperation, but we negotiated and the other guy was reasonable and we worked it out. I think I'm as proud of that as I am of the article itself.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Capital punishment

Capital punishment section seems to mostly give the pro- argument. But most countries in the world have abolished it and the largest Christian denomination (Catholic Church) is now opposed. Although probably for most of history capital punishment was considered compatible with Christianity, I think you might give more of a sense that Christian views on this issue have changed. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Done. Your advice has definitely improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. But it now reads a little US-centric, talking about possible future repeal of the death penalty in this country without mentioning the much more successful abolition of capital punishment in Europe, and initiatives like the United Nations moratorium on the death penalty supported mostly by Christian-majority countries. Also, it doesn't answer why denominations like the Catholic Church went from being in favor to opposition. (t · c) buidhe 06:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Quote from Pope Francis: death penalty was "a consequence of a mentality of the time – more legalistic than Christian – that sanctified the value of laws lacking in humanity and mercy."[2] (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe There are several areas where a global discussion would be pertinent, and I have avoided going there anyway. The section on wealth and poverty could include global economics - a hot topic today - but I left it out, going for summaries as short as I could make them, figuring that each of these topics probably already has an article of its own where all the details are covered. That's not here. I have a degree in philosophy buidhe, I really want to discuss all of these in detail, but it made it all too long, so I cut myself mercilessly. I cut out thousands of 'bits' that I had already written in that effort. Now you are tempting me to add here and add there, and I am trying. hard to resist. The image of capital punishment around the world partly serves the purpose you advocate, and while I am waffling a bit, because it's you, I don't think I support adding in more detail here. If you feel strongly about it, you can of course edit however you please, but do please keep in mind that length is an issue. These are all just short summaries of major points. That's all there's room for.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe So I went back and added half a sentence. It didn't cost me much space, and it added the global reference, which as you say, is appropriate, so that's done now too - okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Fine, okay, one sentence about the Catholics works, but I will rebel at any suggestion of tracing all the Protestant views on this topic. And no worries about Crystal: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It isn't my prediction. I accept and agree and even like and value your additions, but much more adding will require some removal elsewhere I'm afraid! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is with the sentence "As capital punishment is gradually being abolished around the globe". This implies a prediction about the future, which should not be in wikivoice. I submit that rewording to "Capital punishment has been abolished in many countries (around the world)", an objectively true observation that no one can object to, is more encyclopedic. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right about Protestant views: too many of them! (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay I get you! You're right. Changing it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ooops! Looks like you already did. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ovinus proceeds

Sorry it's been so long. I proceed! I'm going to focus on content and organization for now and ignore MOS/grammar until the prose has settled down.

• • Welcome back!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• The lead sentence is lovely now, very clear, and the whole lead is great.
  • CoolJenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• between AD 27–30 and AD 325 A bit weird to have a range within a range; is there a reason it's not just just between AD 27 and AD 325?
  • It is isn't it? But what do you do when the scholars are unsure of a date? It's an approximation of when Jesus died. That's how the source referenced it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Definition and sources looks great
• held as generally binding Among whom?
  • For Christians. It seems to me that saying so would be a bit redundant, since the the discussion is about early ChristianityJenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• the Summa Theologica, that became known as Thomism, Do you mean "gave rise to Thomism" ?
  • Yes of course you're right. Changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• in his classic treatise On Christian Liberty argued that moral effort is a response to grace Giving a date of publication for his treatise would be nice
  • You got it!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• all humans have a vocation, a calling, and the guiding measure of its value is simply whether it impedes or furthers God's will I found this fascinating. So Calvin said that some humans intrinsically have a calling to a role in society that impedes God's will? Is this related to predestination?
  • It's an interesting assertion - reversing it - but I suppose, yes, Calvin would agree there are those whose role is to impede, since he believed in a hard double predestination. (It's a horrible doctrine imo! No one teaches it anymore.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Reform ethic We should probably make clear that Calvinism is Reformed Christianity, for the unfamiliar
  • I have removed that phrase for better accuracy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• This "Reformation ... humanism" section could do with a topic sentence or two summarizing its contents; it's rather long.
  • Introductory sentences would just make it longer. The ideas all seem important to Christian ethics, so I can't see how to shorten it. I'll keep looking at it. Do you have some suggestions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• upheld the separation of the spiritual and earthly roles for government, asserting that one important role of civil government is to provide restraint for evildoers I don't really understand what this is saying. What is the spiritual role of government here?
  • I rewrote it. See if it's clearer.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Government
• but "it is a nice question whether those (Enlightenment) ideas ... form" Probably a long enough quote that the author needs to be credited inline. Alternatively, paraphrase! :D
  • Thank you for catching that! Attributed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Roman Catholic church of the 1600s responded to Reformation Protestantism in three ways The "three ways" part is a bit confusing I think because the enumeration isn't completely clear. I'd prefer just "various ways" or a clearer distinction between the following three ways. Alternatively, something like "in three ways: papal reform, new orders of monks such as the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent."
  • Well, you got all three. I will number them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• commonly known as the Jesuits Well that's an easter egg link if I've ever seen one! :P Imo I think we can just say "with the most influential being the Jesuits". The full name isn't important
  • OOps! Full name is in the link. I shouldn't have included "the" Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• was the nature of human nature How meta! Love it.
  • Oh. good! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Multiple versions of modern Christian ethics have been produced by the influence of different strands of thought This seems a bit verbose and vague. The rest of the paragraph is also a bit weak; there doesn't seem to be anything tying it together.
  • Reworded, see if it works better Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• asserts the answer to this difficulty lies in embracing secular standards of rationality and coherence while refusing secular conclusions Fascinating.
  • :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• In general I think the "Modern Christian ethics" section is the one that needs the most work.
  • Reworked it a little, see if it's better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm wondering whether you could draw some general trends in Christian ethics' history. Ethical analyses grew more complex; more emphasis on the individual and his or her everyday life (?); greater religious freedom; et cetera. Say three or four sentences, at the beginning of Historical background? Just an idea.
  • IDK, I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. History isn't homogenous. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Will get to more later. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

On a cursory look-through, the sections in Applied ethics still seem rather long. I'll go through them eventually, but it can be hard to get through so much text. I genuinely think halving their length would be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's okay really, if it's too much, don't. I'll look at them, but I don't think I agree. One paragraph on subjects that have books on them is not too much, but I will look them over. Things can usually be cut a little even if not in half. Thank you for doing this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's funny, you know? Buidhe kept going through adding to various discussions. I think these applied sections are not going to satisfy people and will leave everyone wanting more - or less. All I can do is give a summary of main points, but that at least should be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I just did a count, it has under 10,000 words, so its length is fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ovinus proceeds some more

I have beefed up modern ethics and actually cut nearly 500 words from the rest, but as God is my witness, I do not see how to cut more. There are just so many separate topics here! I understand if you don't want to do more, but do know your comments are genuinely helpful - whether I am capable of following them or not! :-) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Making changes in the modern section led to more changes in the definition and the lead. This is all an improvement. However, I am back to adding rather than subtracting. Sorry - but thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christian ethics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article, probably will take about a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am looking forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I admire you for taking on such a broad topic! So many GAs (including my own!) are about narrow topics which are easy to write. Summing up a tradition of 2000 years is a daunting task but you've written an excellent article. Of course I have suggestions for improvement, but I have no doubt this article will be a GA once we finish the review process. My comments below are in no particular order, if you disagree with any of them just say so! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sermon on the Mount: I think the article should emphasize the Sermon on the Mount more, as one of the keystones of Christian ethics. I like that you use the picture of it in the lead, later though in the "authority, force and personal conscience," you do have a couple quotes from Matthew 5 but I would emphasize that these are from the Sermon on the Mount. Change the second sentence to something like, In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commanded his disciples to "turn the other cheek" etc. And then make it clear that this was a departure from the "eye for an eye" principle in Judaism, that will highlight how Christian ethics is different from other systems.
  • Okay - I tried! See if that's what you had in mind or if you want something else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Old Covenant: A related point, but in the caption on that picture in the lead, you mention the Old and New Covenant. These concepts are not explained elsewhere in the article, I would either remove that part of the caption or add some info to the article.
  •  Done Someone else had added that image and I just left it, but you make a good point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Date style: Since the 1400s in the lead, I would change this to since the 15th century. Just a suggestion though, the MOS allows both styles.
  •  Done
• Controversies: You do a good job of discussing most of the difficult issues in a neutral way, like homosexuality, role of women, abortion. There are two things I would add. First is birth control, specifically the Catholic position on it. Second is the morality of the Old Testament. The second paragraph of Ethics in the Bible#Criticism is a summary of the issues I'm thinking of, such as perceived ethnic cleansing of the Philistines. Do you think it would make sense to cover the morality of the Old Testament in this article? Or is it outside the scope of what you're talking about?
  • First let me say there are any number of specifics missing from this article; birth control is not the only one. Others have also come along and asked, 'why don't you talk about such and so', and I have to answer that it is a small specific, related only to Pentecostals, or to Latin American Christians, or only Seventh Day Adventists, or only Church of Christ, or some other subgroup, and there is just not enough room on all of Wikipedia to discuss every one of them. Only those things that affect all are included here. Catholic issues that are common issues of Protestants as well are mentioned. If you want me to add a statement to that effect somewhere - if you can think of where it would be appropriate - I can do that, but I just don't see how it's viable to discuss one group's particular issues and no one else's.
  • Second, I oppose adding Old Testament ethics to this particular article, as I believe it is off topic and is covered in multiple other articles which are blue-linked here. I also wrote Ethics in the Bible that is heavily oriented toward the Old Testament, and discusses the Old Testament teachings on war, and hagiography of the time period and all those issues. There simply isn't room for all of that here, and it really is not an issue in Christian ethics. So I vote no on that one.
• Crusades: Crusade (which is not necessarily religious) can be seen as an attempt to set right a past act of aggression. Sure, but the historical Crusades are often used as an argument against Christianity, just like the Inquisition or how jihad is used as an argument against Islam. For the sake of balance I think you need a second sentence here, something like, The Catholic Church used Christian principles to justify the Crusades in the Middle Ages, proclaiming a religious obligation to retake the Holy Land. I don't have a source for that, just shooting from the hip.
  • If you wouldn't mind, please read this summary of current majority views: [[3]] and then we can discuss whether to enlarge this with the ongoing controversy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wealth and poverty: Just my opinion, I think in this section it would be helpful to quote the verse about a camel entering the eye of a needle being more difficult than a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven.
  • And I could add the rich young ruler who was told to give away all he owned, and the widow who donated her two pennies, and Jesus', and James', and Peter's, and Paul's teachings on the poor, as the New Testament is pretty full of teachings about handling money, but I think their thoughts are all covered in the general statements, and that more detail would not add more real content. I have to avoid the sense of writing a sermon here and too many Bible references comes across that way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• War and peace: Would it make sense to mention the verse about Jesus bringing not peace but a sword here, as a justification for war in Christianity? Or would that be taking it out of context?
  • That verse seems to be commonly misunderstood. Jesus is not advocating taking a sword to your family members. He is making the observation that following him will cause divisions that will sunder relationships as though they were cut with a sword: following him will sever mother from daughter, father from son, and so on. That is what happened. That verse has nothing to do with war and does not advocate violence. It is only seen that way by those that separate it from the explanation that follows it. To include it would be to include very bad hermeneutics which would immediately be challenged by others as there would be no source support.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That is all of the "big picture" content comments I have, everything else will just be specific stuff about the prose, references, images, or whatever. I'll get that stuff to you Monday. I haven't read the talk page discussions so I apologize if any of this has already been discussed. My personal POV is secular so the comments above may be biased against Christianity, if you think so let's talk about it and find a neutral middle ground. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Cerebellum I am glad your perspective is secular as this article must be readable from all points of view, and your input will help ensure that. I don't see any of your comments as biased against Christianity, but if you are, that's okay too, as this needs to stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I write all my articles with the view that all claims must be sufficiently supported in the sources to not only accurately represent the scholarly views but to stand up to opposition from those who personally disagree. If I haven't accomplished that, I hope you will catch it, and we will fix it together.
  • I want to thank you, especially, for the freedom to disagree and the room to explain why. Not all reviewers are okay with that. I hope my reasons make sense, and if you don't find them sufficient, then you too have the freedom to come back and explain your reasoning and assert the need for change again. I will listen, I promise. I have no doubt your input will improve the article because other points of view always do. I put this through peer review and am grateful to Ovinus and buidhe for their wonderful comments which did improve the article, so I am sure yours will as well. Thank you again. I know, I keep saying that, but I really am overwhelmingly grateful for your willingness to review such a long and somewhat complex article. I look forward to Monday. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I am going to be late finishing the review :( There is an internet outage at my house and I am not good at editing on mobile. Spectrum is coming tomorrow night to make repairs, so hopefully Wednesday I’ll finish the review. Your responses above all seem reasonable, none of that stuff should be an issue. —Cerebellum (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Cerebellum No worries mate! I hope it all works out swiftly and relatively easily. I will hear from you when I hear from you. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I put a clarification needed on "Pauline virtues" since neither I nor WP (afaict) knows what that is. I've also been who-ing some of the in-text bare names, and adding some wikilinks. I wonder if all the redlinks are motivated, but they may be, I haven't tried to check or anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have now addressed that, to your satisfaction I hope, and removed the tag. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Aha, so WP did know: Theological virtues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed Gråbergs Gråa Sång WP knows all... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the delay! On to the more formal portion of the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Definition and sources

• beginning with obedience to a set of rules and laws (seen as divine commands) which are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. I think you can omit a few words here, I would change to beginning with obedience to a set of rules and laws which are seen as divine commands. It is evident that the rules and laws are morally required, and saying that they are forbidden or permitted is a little awkward; it is certain actions which are forbidden or permitted, not the rules themselves.
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Natural-law ethic. Does the source say it that way? I would say natural law ethic.
  • You're right.  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• universally known independently. It's strange to have two adverbs sandwiching the verb, I would omit "universally". The rest of the sentence says that the laws are innate in all people so you won't lose any meaning.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Anabaptists: Here and in "modern Christian ethics" you link the Anabaptists to prophetic ethics, which you say developed either "by the twenty-first century" or "in the late twentieth century". But aren't the Anabaptists much older?
  • Yes they are. See if you like the change. I don't discuss any of the others, but you are no doubt right in thinking that needed clearing up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pinckaers: I know in academic writing you can just use the last name when citing someone, for Wikipedia I prefer using the full name. This occurs a couple other times in the article, others are Matthews and Dewitt and Gustafson.
  • I make it a rule to only do that for subsequent mentions after having first explained who they are, but this is a first mention, so it's a mistake on my part. Thank you for catching it!  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Link Plato and Aristotle at first mention.
  • Done, assuming Aristotle in lead "counts". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hellenist: Should be Hellenistic, and Hellenistic philosophy is specifically philosophy after the death of Alexander in 323 BC. If that's what you mean it's all good, if you're using it as a synonym for Greek you could just take it out.
  • Groan. I did not mean Hellenistic philosophy. I meant Hellenic. Good catch Cerebellum. Really good. That would have been an embarrassing mistake for a philosophy major to publish! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical background

• It emerged from Judaism still dependent on the Hebrew canon, and the legacies of ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. This sentence is a little confusing to me and doesn't read smoothly, could you omit still dependent on the Hebrew canon? It's evident that Judaism depends on the Hebrew canon. Or maybe revert back to an earlier version, it used to say It emerged out of the heritage shared by both Judaism and Christianity, and depended upon the Hebrew canon as well as important legacies from Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. I thought that was pretty clear.
  • Oh bless you and thank you. This was one of several changes made by a recent editor (who didn't know as much as you do about philosophy as you do) and so she introduced errors and made changes like this that just seemed to muddy the water imo. I asked her to revert herself but she said if I didn't like her changes I could do it myself. I tried to go through and find them all, and tried to rewrite what I could without totally reverting her, but I agree, the original sentence was clearer. Thank you.  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• abstain from blood. I'm not sure what that means; eating blood?
  • Old Testament food laws required cutting the throat of a slaughtered animal and draining the blood from the carcass before cooking and eating the meat. I find these old laws fascinating since they all came about before people ever conceived of germs or diseases transmitted by blood. Christianity left behind most of the over 600 laws of Judaism, yet kept that one. Islam also has it. Interesting don't you think?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "with the marked exception of Visigothic Spain in the seventh century, Jews in Latin Christendom lived relatively peacefully with their Christian neighbors through most of the Middle Ages" Since there are two footnotes here, it's not clear which one the quote is from.
  • How do you want me to fix that? The quote is in the foirst reference but it is discussed in more detail in the second one. I hate to remove it but I can if you think it's best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Middle Ages: Sometimes this is capitalized sometimes not, I think it should be capitalized.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "one of the outstanding achievements of the High Middle Ages" MOS:QUOTE says that " The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion", I'm on the fence here since you could say that the status of the Summa is a fact not an opinion. What do you think?
  • I don't believe you will find a source anywhere that would say otherwise. It is as accepted a historical fact as historical facts get. Aquinas is still taught, in secular schools not just Catholic ones, in political science, philosophy, ethics, law and several other areas. Anyone who studies natural law - human rights, social justice, etc. - studies Aquinas at some point. He kind of founded a lot of our Federal ethics that make democracy possible. Yeah, if that statement is just opinion it's an uncontested one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Riley-Smith: Needs full name, and I would capitalize and link Crusades.
  • Damn! Second one! This comes from writing in my sandbox and then only using part of what was written. Thank you for catching yet another one. I am so thankful!  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Seven deadly sins: This is a pretty influential concept, would it be worth listing them?
  • I will let you decide, but in order to make your decision more difficult :-) I will add that I am also writing a new article on the history of Christian ethics which will go into more detail on all of these and does list them there. (It's in my sandbox if you want to peek). In this article I was attempting to keep the history to as short a summary as I could make it and still create context. But you tell me what you think. I can go either way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• that eventually became the school of thought known as Thomism Can you omit this? Doesn't seem relevant to this article.
  • Well, it is relevant if you're Catholic. Their Christian ethics are all based in Thomist theology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Luther: full name and link. I would do the same for Zwingli, and Kant and Hume later in the article.
  •  DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• early modern Christian ethicists: The early modern period ends around 1800, maybe change to 19th century?
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• was determining the nature of human nature I think {tq|was the study of human nature}} sounds better.
  • Awwww.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Meyer asserts the answer to this difficulty: This is just my opinion, feel free to ignore. What you wrote is grammatically correct, but I prefer Meyer asserts that. I just think it sounds better, here is some background on the issue.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Philosophical core

• Four basic points: Aesthetically I don't like the format of (a) (metaphysics). What about making this a bulleted list?
  • Your wish is my command:  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "It is arguably one of Judaism's greatest contributions to the history of religions to assert that the divine Reality is communicated to mankind through words." Raw quote with no context :( I would provide attribution or rephrase in your own words.
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is tension between inclusivity and exclusivity inherent in all the Abrahamic traditions. I would rephrase as {There is an inherent tension between inclusivity and exclusivity in all the Abrahamic traditions.

 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• had significant moral and legal questions: Change to faced significant moral and legal questions.
• Song of Songs: link.
  • Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Applied ethics

• Poll tax: I don't think poll should be capitalized.
  •  Done
• Counter-terrorism is a kind of preventive war. I would omit this, not relevant to the article.
  • I strongly disagree. Relevant examples are absolutely necessary to communicate that this isn't just something that happened in the past that we are now over. It is something current and happening right now. I feel strongly about this, please don't make me take it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Early key elements in criminal justice: Change to Early criminal justice.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need": This is a common saying, but I think since it is a quote it needs a source.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• In most ancient religions the primary focus is on humankind's relationship to nature: The source does say this, but I don't really believe it and the source is from 1889; could you find a more modern source if it is true?
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?" Maybe add Bible citation, When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?" in the Gospel of X.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ontologically equal, Functionally different: Does this need to be capitalized?
  • It's like their slogan, but here, no, you are right, so  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cahill concludes that, "Personal autonomy and mutual consent are almost the only criteria now commonly accepted in governing our sexual behavior. Is this the case within Christianity, or the non-Christian world?
  • The world where we all live. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Novella 142: Link if it has an article, I would also link Saint Patrick.
  • It doesn't. Novellae Constitutiones exists, but the sentence already has Roman law and Justinian. SP linked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• sacrifices to free slaves: Might be silly, but since this is an article about religion a reader might confuse sacrifices of one's money with animal sacrifices; maybe change to something like "used their personal resources to free slaves." Or maybe it's clear from the context.
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Stories of racial violence over the last decades: Can change to Racial violence during the last decades.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Charges of abuses of technology in neo-natal intensive care units have already been leveled. Weasel words? Since the text doesn't say who leveled these charges. I would rephrase or remove.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Manipulating the genetic code can prevent inheritable diseases and also produce, for those rich enough, designer babies "destined to be taller, faster and smarter than their classmates." You don't need this here, since genetic engineering has its own section.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• rooted in covenant fidelity I don't know what this means, and if you omitted it the sentence would still make sense.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• actions that can be seen as unconditionally wrong, when they are acts of maximal love toward another, become unconditionally right. I would omit both uses of "unconditionally", doesn't seem to add meaning.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• P. Singer: Change to Peter Singer, with link.
  • Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Still, many American Christians have become polarized over these issues with a number of conservatives responding in opposition because of fear concerning the perceived threat that modern pluralism poses to their values. Does the source really say that? In the abstract I see fears that “stewardship” of God’s creation is drifting toward neo-pagan nature worship, and from apocalyptic beliefs about “end times” that make it pointless to worry about global warming, which isn't quite the same thing. I think this sentence is an overly broad generalization, I would remove everything after "opposition".
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Misc

• See also: Move "Buddhist ethics" under "ethics in religion."
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Images: all are free or tagged, no issues.
• References: The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; I did not do a thorough source review. Only things I have for your are to italicize the title in ref #20, and decapitalize the title of refs #48 and 101. Ref #113 confused me, is it just a faculty bio?
  • 103 and yes 115 was a personal reference, my friend likes to add those because he wants to know why we should care what someone says if they don't have a blue link, but I removed it. These are  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cerebellum I'm responsible for 113, I put it there to ref that Stanley K. Stowers is professor of religious studies. When I do who?-ing, I feel it's improvement to add a ref if necessary (if it's a blue-linked person I trust WP unless someone points out that I shouldn't). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• External links: Not checked, tool is down.

@Jenhawk777: Sorry for the long review :( Hope it is helpful. I will place the article on hold for now, take as long as you need to work on it before I close the review. More important to improve the article than meet an arbitrary deadline. Once again I'm humbled by the amount of effort you and other editors have put into this article. If you ever get tired of working on it perhaps it will help to reflect that it got 12,000 page views last month, probably a broader reach than the average PhD dissertation! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Cerebellum It was not an overly long review at all - it is a long article - and all your comments were relevant and valuable and definitely improved the article. There is no need to place the review on hold, as you can see, all your concerns have been met. Thank you for your kind comments. The best way to reward me is by awarding the article the status it deserves. Thank you again for doing this and for your intelligent and helpful input. I hope we run across each other again some time. You are easy to work with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Did not expect you to work that fast! Pass. Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your help as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-reviewer

• Steve Wilkins in the lead. IMO, articles like this should try to avoid mentioning/quoting modern scholars in the lead, it gives them a strange "top-dog" position. So my personal preference would be to get him out of there. Also, I get no good google-hits on him, who is he? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here at his publisher [4], InterVarsity Press. Professor at Azusa Pacific University. Ok-ish I guess, but no Thomas Aquinas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's for sure, but I liked its summary for the context. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspect backwards-copy

The URLs in the {{Backwards copy}} tag above are suspect, to say the least (not to mention the "malicious" comments – what is that?); the tag should probably be removed, since the article is at GAN. Miniapolis 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Mini I found and added the backwards copy tags, but I did not add the malicious comment. If you look at this diff: [[5]] you will see that what I wrote was that this is a fishing address. Click it and you get directed here: [6] Pursue, and you will get redirected to any number of different sites for book sales, streaming movies, and others that all want your credit card before allowing you to see the supposed article. Even if you sign up, you don't get the article itself because you get redirected to those other sites. This is not a genuine article. I assume buidhe (talk · contribs) had good reason for overwriting my explanation and adding the malicious warning on 14 Feb. of this year instead. She generally has good reasons for everything she does. I suggest that if you disagree with our conclusions, that you click on those web addresses in each of the separate tags and see what you find for yourself. Then come back and tell us whether you think this backwards copy-vio tag is "suspect". Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please AGF. I was trying to help you, because a malformed tag like that might affect the page's GAN. I'm glad I'm done here. Miniapolis 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What was the BF? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you added all three spam links, I strongly suggest that you remove the tag. Miniapolis 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The template is there to warn editors (including GA and FA folk) of potential "false positive" copyvios. In what way, shape or form are the links "the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization" in this context? Note also that WP:SPAM is about mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Miniapolis I do not for a minute doubt your good faith and I am thankful for all contributions that improve this article. I apologize if I came across as anything other than slightly confused - which I still am. I found these sites by running the copy-vio detector on this article. It said there was something like a 98% match and violation was therefore likely. I was distressed, understandably I think, since I knew I was not guilty of any copyright violation. So I investigated the sites, and found what I have already described, posting the BCV tag so anyone else who ran the copy-vio detector would know to ignore the results. Now you say the tags should be removed, and I am certainly willing to be taught by you as it seems you have more understanding of all of this than I do. I would be happy to remove them, but I have a question first: what is to prevent a reviewer, or anyone else, from running the copy-vio detector, finding that same violation, and no explanation, and immediately deleting the entire page in response? It isn't like that doesn't happen. Deletion is a legitimate response to that level of violation. I would prefer it didn't happen here, so how can I prevent possible future misunderstanding if I remove these tags? I can move buidhe (talk · contribs)'s warnings out of the date parameter and into comments and that will clean it up a little, but I am hard-pressed to see how removing the tags altogether is a good idea. As I said, I am willing to learn more about all of this, so if you can explain, that would help, and since you said you were trying to help, I hope you will take the time to work this through. Thank you, Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving Buidhe's warnings to the comments parameter would help, and I don't think anyone would suspect copyvio since all three links are obvious spam. All the best, Miniapolis 01:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Miniapolis If the tags are gone the links won't be there and there is nothing there to be obvious to anyone. Up front, they look like legitimate sites - they include comments from fake people on how wonderful the article is - to make it look real. There is nothing to prevent anyone from going part way through the process and believing it. Really, you should go through the process yourself. If you really want to help, take the time and run the copy-vio, click on the site that says this is copied from, follow it - and you will see it is only then that it becomes obvious that it's spam. Without the tag and warning up front you, Mini, would never have known any of this. As far as I can tell, there is only hindsight in this recommendation, not foresight, and I want to know how to protect the article in the future. If WP didn't invent backwards copy-vio tags to protect articles from being wrongly summarily deleted for copy right violations, why did they? What purpose do they serve otherwise? What will protect this article if the tags are removed? That's all I need an answer to Mini. I'm not being uncooperative, I just have concerns that need addressing, and I'm not getting any actual answers. "It's obvious" isn't a real answer because it's only obvious to you because you've been told. If the tags are gone, Mini, what would make it obvious to any one else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) {{Backwards copy}} is used for a link to "a mainstream news article or publication", not a spam link. WP is a collaborative project, and it's not any one editor's job to protect an article. Miniapolis 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Miniapolis You still have not answered my question or addressed what will prevent future problems if the tags are removed. It's everyone's job to protect WP articles - whether we have worked on them or not. I don't find that a backwards copy tag is limited to one thing; if it comes up as a copy violation then it needs to be explained. Otherwise it is a potential landmine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've answered your questions and addressed the issue to the best of my ability. You've been pretty argumentative, and this thread doesn't look good on a GAN. I'm done here, so please stop pinging me. Miniapolis 13:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha! That's pretty funny. I assume that's a joke of course, since after receiving various threats and warnings and no direct answers to a genuine question and reasonable concern, I have now also received a personal attack from you. Please don't post on my talk page anymore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Tag for quotes etc

All quotation marks are used according to MOS standards in British style now, I'm sure. I went through the entire article. I did find about a dozen errors - out of 786 uses - and that improves the quality of this article, so thank you. I found two contractions, and removed them from the text, but there are still a couple contractions that remain within quotes and titles. I can't - cannot - do anything about those. There are no uses of quotation marks for emphasis and never were in this article. All quotation marks are around quotes from the source cited inline. All of them are quotes or references. Thank you so much to whoever contributed that! It has indeed improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) I know you are trying to help but you went through and changed back a few of the quotation marks I just changed. I was making those changes to be sure they are all British style - which puts the period after the quotes instead of before like us crazy yanks do it - so unless you are going to go through the entire article and check the entire list of 786 uses of quotation marks, and change them all from British to American, can you undo your changes? One or the other, I don't care which, just create consistency please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:LQ for Wikipedia's guidelines on punctuation and quotation marks. Also, italic markup (two consecutive single quote marks) is still being used for emphasis (example: ''prophetic ethics''), despite the removal of the {{cleanup}} template. See MOS:EMPHASIS and MOS:BADEMPHASIS for guidance. Good luck with the GA review; it looks like the article is developing nicely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 prophetic ethics has italics because that's what is proper for a title of something, which it is, it isn't for emphasis. I guess I could just capitalize it as Natural Law ethics and Divine Command are, but it's a new title, so it's italicized on its first use. It seems right to me and doesn't actually break any rules. There is after all some discretion allowed. Thanx for the good thoughts on the GA! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please check that MOS link again. If you want to emphasize "prophetic ethics", the recommended wikitext is <em>...</em>, not ''...''.

Jonesey95 You objected, so I changed it last night. I didn't want to emphasize it, but it is now. I hope that's cool with you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting

The article Christian values really sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh it does doesn't it? I have added it to my list. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting a merge with this article, but "Christian values" probably have some specific use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)