Template talk:Christianity and gender/Archive 1

Comp, Egal, Fem

Historically, alphabetically and numerically the order of the views ought to be:

• Complementarian
• Egalitarian
• Feminist

However, like the good complementarian chauvinist that I am, I wholeheartedly approve of placing feminists first, egalitarians second and complementarians last. ;)

I do note that the order seems to be mixed up in the other sections, so as to attempt to suggest no priority. Not a bad idea, if that's the rationale.

Since I'm very much involved in this debate in real life, I'll generally stay out of it at Wiki.

The only thing that would really concern me is if theologians supporting the three views were cited as:

• complementarian—Saul of Tarsus,
• feminist—Priscilla, and
• egalitarian—Jesus!

Alastair Haines (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki Canvassing

Please note there has been an off-wiki call to action to lobby wikipedians to sway the discussion about the use of images.

... So, if you have a minute, please email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and tell them the picture of the nudes on the Template:GenderChristianity page is offensive to you and would they please remove it.

— http://carolinacajun.wordpress.com/

This is not in concordance with wikipedia polices or the spirit of collaborative editing. Please bear this in mind before making any changes to this article's images. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the policy and practice and have modified the statement on my blog and elsewhere. I have no problem following the process, but I am still learning what the process is.Cajun tiger (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offensive Picture

Given that there is only one other person who has posted on this talk page, I don't know that I will get much support for this. I find the picture used on this page offensive, and I know a number of people who also find it offensive.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone should find it offensive, but if you can agree that there may be people who will find this offensive, then let us start the discussion from there. If someone finds this picture offensive, I can imagine you will come to one of two conclusions: either they have a legitimate complaint, or they are being foolish and responding from an uneducated perspective (I'm being polite here).

In the first case, you agree that this is a legitimate complaint, please comment and say so. In order to have the picture removed, I was told I have to "build consensus" and I would appreciate the support in proving that I have consesnus.

In the second case, you need to realize that the people we are talking about will not likely visit this page (anywhere this side-bar shows up) because they are offended. Some (not me) may go so far as to refuse to use Wikipedia for anything. This seems contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia, and in fact, by not agreeing to remove the picture, you are helping to further the problem. If you believe these people who find the picture offensive are uneducated, then you should believe that they could use a little information like what Wikipedia provides. If you don't agree to remove the picture, you are helping to further the lack of education because people will not visit and therefore cannot learn.

In either case, if there are people who don't visit a Wikipedia page (or a large number of pages in this case) because something so unrelated to the topic is a photo is offensive to them, then that very fact seems to contradict the very purpose of Wikipedia. As I understand it, part of the purpose of Wikipedia is to make information freely available. If something unrelated to that information, and yet within the power of Wikipedia to correct prevents people from accessing that information, then it should be removed and the information should be made more accessible. Cajun tiger (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to follow the process. You might be surprised at the number of people who will enter the discussion. By no means is this a chat page where things happen on a minute-by-minute basis, but there are thousands of active editors who either have this page on their watchlist, are part of the religious discussion groups, patrol changes to templates, etc.

I would start by stating what you find offensive about the picture and why. Further, what would be your proposed solution? Wperdue (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to follow the process, and I apologize if I came across gruff before. I am new to the process (just registered today) and am still learning how all this works.

To be honest, I think the biggest thing I have a problem with is that I know people who would be offended by the nudity. Offensive may be a stronger word than what I really feel, because while I don't particularly want to look at naked people (whether they are 1500 artist renderings or modern strippers), I also recognize that "classical" art is full of such items. However, I come from a VERY conservative funamentalist background. God has been gracious to me and opened my eyes to a lot of the true teachings of His Word, and while I have a long way to go, I do feel like my beliefs are much closer to what He intended now than they have been. In my blog, I try to help return a focus on the truths of God's word which I believe many Christian fundamentalists have lost as men have set up their own "kingdoms" based on their own traditions or false teachings.

In my most recent entry, I'm discussing gender roles, specifically in marriage and wanted to link to the Complementarianism and Egalitarianism pages. With the current picture, I'm fairly certain that many of the folks I'm trying to reach with the message would be offended and disregard what I said because I chose to link to "porn".

Now, personally, I think anyone (except maybe puberty driven boys) who find the picture an object to lust after probably have a bigger problem than I can deal with in a blog. But what about the people who may not be lustful after the picture, but expect others to be. They would also reject the message, in essence throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is a common problem in dealing with Christian fundamentalists, and in order to reach them, it is vital to not offend them otherwise your message, no matter how much true value and woth it contains, is disregarded.

Some may suggest that if that is their attitude, then let them go off in their crazy little "cult" and hopefully eventually they will go away. My response is that I am VERY glad God didn't take this attitude with me. I still care and love even the "crazy" ones, and I wish there was a way to get through to all of them. Unfortunately I know I may never get through to all of them, but I want to get through to as many as I can.

As to what I would propose as a solution, I don't have anything immediate in mind. I will consider it and would be open to suggestions that others may come up with. I would be fine with no picture, but I also recognize that the standard for these "side-bar" type templates seems to be a picture. Anything that seems to be relative to the topic (Christianity and Gender) but that does not include nudity would fit the bill.

I'm sure this is the wrong place to ask this, and as you said, this isn't really chat, but what consideration is made for the users of Wikipedia who may not have logged in and may never log in. I understand that until it is proven otherwise, this is "something I personally find offensive", but what about the people who come to Wikipedia for information and yet never register?

Cajun tiger (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no apology necessary. Attitude is hard to judge, and I should have assumed good-faith. Wikipedia is far from perfect and, in my experience, tries to take all views into consideration. One of the core policies on this site is neutrality, which means that all entries must present a neutral point of view. You can imagine how difficult this is with people from many different cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds all with their inherent beliefs and prejudices. However the actual content which can be added vis-a-vis articles, pictures, videos, etc. does not seem to be censored except in "obvious" circumstances such as child pornography. It seems that the situation here is an image which some might find offensive and which others would not. There are some images and articles on this site which, personally, I find to have crossed the line of good taste. I will refrain from citing examples as I don't wish you to be further offended. I just stay away from those areas. In this case, that seems to be difficult as this image is tied directly to your area(s) of interest.

As someone who interacts with people on the web both for business and personal reasons on a daily basis, I do have some experience with image blocking software. As a possible solution, have you thought about using some such software to block images which are considered offensive and, if so, is this image actually blocked by that software? I'm not suggesting this is the only or ideal solution, only that it might be a possibility.

I do not think you will find many on this site who suggest that you or the group to which you are targeting your blog are a "cult" and should "go away". You will find a great deal of tolerance. Personally, I even edit articles on subjects where I actively disagree with some of subject matter but will make sure that everyone gets their say as long as it is sourced, verifiable, and presented from a neutral point of view.

As to your questions, Wikipedia does try to encourage everyone to participate in the project. I don't know what Wikipedia has as far as "outreach" to different groups. I'm sure other editors would be able to answer that question better than I.

If any other editors have suggestions or compromises, I'm open to them. Wperdue (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the picture in detail, you'll notice that a rose and some leaves hide the most private parts. And given that it's a picture of Adam and Eve in Eden, the picture's subject demands nudity. Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. One might try and find a more "appropriate" picture for the subject of "Christianity and Gender", but I don't think that's necessary. A depiction of the first man and woman created by God seems to me a very good image for that subject (and I think it strange that Christians would have a problem with depictions of Biblical scenes - though I don't doubt that such Christians exist). If you have a better image suggestion, feel free to present it.

Anyway, anybody with internet access needs not look at Dürer engravings to "lust after" - some random online underwear store or even the celebrity news would be much more "lustful", wouldn't they?

Not relevant to this picture, but an account is not required for editing most pages. Some more heavily vandalized articles are banned to non-registered editors, but talk pages almost never are; this one definitely isn't. So someone offended by the template can edit here without creating an account first. Huon (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find one of the masterpieces of western art offensive, I personally do not. It's not as if the image is a fully nude photograph of a man and a woman. It is a beautiful engraving, with the "naught bits" hidden by foliage. I'm all for keeping it as is. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, one more attempt at this now that I'm understanding the policy and process a bit better. Let me start with the concept that Wikipedia is not censored. According to that link, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I submit that the exclusion of this picture would not make the article in question (a reference "side-tab") less "informative, relevant, or accurate" I also suggest that ther are "equally suitable alternatives". I offer a few of these:

On the Web: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9340211@N05/3911333014/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobkrejci/3670206484/

From WikiMedia: Media:2004 st edmundsbury 06.JPG
Media:The Fall - Stained Glass from the Marienkirche, Frankfurt an der Oder.JPG

I don't disagree with the value of the art currently included from an art perspective. I do question the necessity of it in this context. Would it be appropriate to include a video of an adulterous affair in the entry regarding David and Bathsheba. (Although I do sadly see on her page the "consensus" seems to have agreed that nude pictures are necessary. Sorry, I just don't get that as being necessary.) Cajun tiger (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You just started editing yesterday and went straight to this subject. What ID's or IP's have you edited under previously? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no indication that this is not a new account. Cajun's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes should take away any suspicions. How is going straight to this particular topic suspicious behavior? Religious subjects are always SPA magnets and this account is no different.--Atlan (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I would have to defend myself in this, but if you must know, you can check out my blog (listed below). The topics I address there had come up several times in coversation and I wanted to blog on it. I wanted to clarify terms that, although I don't use, might be used or heard by my readers. As I mention, I consider Wikipedia a good source for this type of information clarification. I felt that a link to the wiki the way it was because of the image would damage the message to whom it was intended. So, I created an account and removed the image. After that I was informed that was not the appropriate course of action, so I began posting here as suggested. I am new, and I'm learning.Cajun tiger (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were this guy[1] from a year ago, who also tried to delete the image (the one preceding the current one). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that removal of the image wouldn't make the template less informative. However, I totally disagree with the concept that the image is offensive. It's about the most inoffensive display of human nudity I can imagine. You also seem to be under the impression that we should cater to conservative Christians, or that their opinion somehow matters more, because this is a Christian template. This is not the case and any editor's opinion will be treated equal. You would do best to convince the community with arguments other than "I know many Christians that would find this offensive". Lastly, read WP:CANVASS. Your off-wikipedia canvassing (on your blog) for support is frowned upon and any support this yields will likely be dismissed.--Atlan (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize the "typical Wikipedia readers" in the above quote from WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't think that the typical readers would be offended. Note that those not offended include the (probably vast) majority of Christians, and that the engraving was created when Church control of society was much stronger than it is today. Concerning the suggested replacements: The Flickr images strike me as kitsch, are not recognizably Christian, and there might be copyright concerns, too. The stained-glass images have precisely the same amount of nudity as the engraving, they're just a lot harder to recognize if shrunk to the same size (and the one I didn't link seems to be a bit off-color in parts). Huon (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the image. Adam and Eve seem like an appropriate image to use for this template, and the nudity is artistic, tasteful, and barely visible at the size on the template. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to suggest that any one opinion on what is offensive matters more. I simply suggest that with the image the way it is now, it limits the access to the information. I will grant you that the limitation is placed upon these people by themselves. But the question remains that if the image as is does not contribute to the accuracy or informativeness of the article, and at the same time does limit (for whatever reason) the freedom of the information, is there value in maintaining the status quo. I consider the question to be simply will removal/replacement of the image cause detriment to anyome? (No) and at the same time will the removal/replacement of the image be to the benefit of free access to information? (Yes)Cajun tiger (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you're the only one arguing the image is too offensive for Christian eyes to behold (a notion I find ridiculous and am not willing to accept just like that), I'm not too worried about the viewing limitations it places on what has to be the most narrow minded group of Christians in existence. Note that you are the first and only one to complain here in the 22 months the template has existed, while a great many Christians edit Wikipedia (the previous image used was [2]). Furthermore, I find removal of the image to be to the detriment of the template, yes. Wikipedia would be a mess if we remove every image someone, anyone, has a problem with.--Atlan (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got a series of books on Bible stories that I got as a gift from my very-straight-laced parents, and it's filled with Gustav Dore's engravings, which are far racier than this image. Typically, classically drawn nudes are not considered offensive, because they idealize the body. Very few except the most extreme prudes (i.e far more prudish than my own parents) would be offended by the illustration used here. Cajun's approach to this is very strange, frankly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive in this images. Verbal chat 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please simply drop this entire discussion if it makes everyone feel better. I can honestly say that my own perspective on this is simply because I was wanting to link to the pages in question and I know of people who will be offended at the art. Are they conservative? Yes, ultra. Are they prude? The way the word is defined here, yes, absolutely. Do they find offense at nudity in artwork regardless of the era the artwork was created? Yes. Is that normal? For them, yes, for others probably not. Does that mean they should be restricted from relevant information on Wikipedia, even if that restriction is of their own making? I belive the answer is no, when it doesn't adversely affect the information being displayed. It seems I am in the minority on that.

If it makes everything easier, the discussion can just go away, I will find links (as I did) to the information I need from another source. I do regret that this experience has somewhat soured me on the ability to be involved in the process here. My motives have been questioned, I have been called strange and other pejoratives have been used. Sorry if my concerns over the usability of these pages created such a problem. I'm not sure in what way my approach was strange, although I will admit it was new and uneducated to the process. I also am not sure how I'm Rules Lawyering, but I suppose I am if those with better understanding of the definition say I am. I'm sorry if my opinion or actins have caused offense to anyone.Cajun tiger (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are still options available. This page gives instructions for blocking the display of images. You would have to have your readers set up accounts for some of the options it lists, but if they do not mind doing that they would be able to read without seeing images. While the majority consensus is that we will not remove images at request, there are enough problem images that people have set up ways around it. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When one reads Genesis, one learns that Adam and Eve walked around naked until they ate from the forbidden fruit: only then did they realize that they were naked. Using a picture of Adam and Eve naked shows the form that God intended for humankind, and is far less offensive than the fig-leaved/dressed version because that shows us at our sinful worst. No Christian who understands how important that it was to have been naked could ever complain about a picture of Adam and Eve naked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the implication of what you decided to post here after I asked for the discussion to be dropped was an accusation that I am lacking in understanding, I felt it necessary to respond. The simple fact that I understand that Adam and Eve were naked does not mean I want to look at a picture of them naked. Genesis also says that, in direct answer to a command of God, Adam "knew" his wife, Eve, and Eve conceived. Understanding that this was a response to God's command and a good thing doesn't mean I want to watch a video recreation of Adam and Eve in the act of intercourse. Pictures, videos, and the like of these items are different than a conservative verbal description.

I accept the way that Wikipedia works and because I was unable to get consesnus here, I accept that I need to find other means to address the issue readers of my blog might have. Given that you decided to post after I said as much, and in your post you felt it necessary to belittle the understanding of Christians who might have a problem with this (and although I can accept it, by implication me), I have to ask why you choose to make this a personal issue.

I might add that "when one reads Genesis" and "understands how important that it was to have been naked" then continues to read one would understand that after Adam and Eve fell into "our sinful worst" God Himself decided to clothe them and cover their nakedness. One might read further in Genesis and Exodus and see that God did not expect humans to remain naked, but wanted them to cover their nakedness because of this "sinful worst". I might add that, were I to try to detract from the discussion and turn the discussion to who has more Biblical understanding, but that isn't what this discussion is about, so forget I said anything.Cajun tiger (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing for you to learn about Wikipedia: you do not get to dictate when/if someone responds to something. Although I completely disagree with the timeframes of your interpretation (using Exodus to explain something in Genesis), I am not going to argue with your religious belief; one of the reasons that there are many faiths, AND manys sects within those faiths is all based on interpretation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this reminds me of the occasional brouhaha over the article on Muhammad displaying centuries-old artists' conceptions of Muhammad. It offends some Muslims at least as much as your pals would be offended by this Adam-and-Eve illustration. And wikipedia does not censor that either. As noted above, it's possible to disable illustrations. That way you can censor yourself without it affecting others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Biblical patriarchy

I've added Biblical patriarchy, but I'm not comfortable calling it a major position, a) because it has much fewer adherents, and b) because it is mostly a variation of Complementarianism. Any suggestions for how we could arrange the box? StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This template dominates individuals' pages, giving undue weight to this issue

This template is placed on the pages of a number of theologians and pastors with small articles so that it dominates their pages. Very few, if any, of these individuals are characterized primarily by their stance on this issue. Unless there is such an individual, or an individual who has a sizeable section on their views on this issue (something like the size of the template), placing the template on said pages dominates the rest of the content. I'm not sure UNDUE is the correct policy to cite, but it just seems unfair to have someone like Roger Nicole or Douglas Moo (his page doesn't even mention the issue!) with this thing saying "Part of a series on Christianity and Gender." --JFHutson (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think it can be removed from pretty much all the individuals' pages, except for, perhaps, Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's been three days without any more replies - I will go ahead and remove the templates. StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No censorship but

long religious rant collapsed

does that permit a completely irrelevant. crude, obscene, filthy, reprobate picture to be the picture for a CHRISTIAN template? A nude picture for a Christian template? That's like representing white with black. Genesis 1:1-21 - "1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." Why would Adam and Eve hide themselves if they weren't ashamed of their nakedness? They were ashamed of their nakedness! That's a contrast to Genesis 2:25 - "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." When Adam and Eve had sinned, their eyes were opened, they now felt ashamed to be naked. Being naked in public is a great shame to someone, no-one in their right mind would go around naked, so why is it okay on the internet? Wikipedia may not censor pages but don't people have enough sense and discretion to realise that pretty much anyone can see this crude image at the top? Imagine it, a little 9 year old boy or girl clicks "Random Article" and they see the nude and crude image which is supposedly of Adam and Eve; their innocence - destroyed. Just because some person who is so de-sensitised to nudity doesn't see a problem with it? How sickening is that? What does the Bible say about nakedness? Exodus 32:25 - "And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)" Leviticus 18:6 - "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD." Leviticus 20:17 - "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity." In Isaiah 20:1-6 - God gives an example of a prophesied slavery by getting one of his own servant, Isaiah the prophet to be naked and barefoot for three years. Nakedness is still a shame in the chapter. "1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; 2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. 3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; 4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. 5 And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory. 6 And the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?" Revelation 16:5 - "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." The Lord Jesus himself talks about nakedness as being a shame. This picture shames true Christians. Never mind the lukewarm professing Christians who wouldn't mind seeing this picture because they do not have the Holy Spirit of God in them. This "Adam and Eve" image is completely inappropriate and there are clearly better images to choose from. Please allow someone to remove the image and replace it or remove a picture altogether. Nevertheless let me give you some more scripture. Revelation 21:7-8 - "7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." God WILL judge you. 2 Peter 3:7 - "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." Don't be ungodly and permit to this image, for you will be judged. Philippians 2:10-11 - "10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." God is going to judge you for your actions and one day you will do what Philippians 2:10-11 says. You will bow at the name of Jesus. The things that you thought which were contrary to the Lord Jesus' standards will be rejected, don't be contrary to the Lord. I've shown you what the Bible says, the KJV, the perfect word of God says about nakedness and hopefully you will see my point and agree that nudity shouldn't be used to portray a Christian topic. Yes, Adam and Eve were naked and they weren't ashamed, but they sinned and became ashamed. We are still the seed of Adam, we should be ashamed too...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus is King of Kings (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 January 2014‎

You will not find consensus for that, I believe. Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm, the image is a Christian art portraying Adam and Eve, not pornography! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Jesus is King of Kings's comment demonstrates why the image is so appropriate for an article entitled Christianity and gender. Past that, WP:NOTCENSORED states "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content and Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Judaism and Islam prohibit the consumption of pork products. We have not erased Bacon because of this. The Amish faith (at least in some stripes) admonishes against use of electricity. We have not moved the servers on to an abacus. There is not any reason I can see to give one particular religion's admonition against one particular thing (nudity) special priority over all these and other religious tenets. If you do want to go and make Wikipedia compliant with every belief of every religion and every denomination thereof, please feel free to attempt that. This might be different if it depicted something that is unilaterally antithetical to Christianity itself, but the massive history of nudity in Christian art (such as the very image in question) demonstrates that opposing any depiction of nudity is even less paramount to Christianity than the aforementioned dogmas we have not acted upon. So this is not even about honoring the dogma of an entire religion, but of one particular group of people within it. I hope that explains sufficiently the ways in which this differs from, say, using an image of Hitler for pages about Judaism. - Vianello (Talk) 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bias

The list of notable people seems to consist almost entirely of English-speaking, contemporary, Reformed Protestants, even though they make up only a minority within Christianity (past and present). I'm going to see if there's anything I can do to rectify this apparent systemic bias. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Added two (1 Catholic and one Orthodox), but the list could use more. It's worth noting that Catholics and Orthodox, unlike Protestants, generally do not fit cleanly into any of the four basic perspectives (Feminism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism and Patriarchy). Mathewes-Green for instance self-identifies as a feminist, and is one in a lot of ways, but unlike Protestant feminists she accepts (with all Orthodox) that ordination should be male-only, which would be considered a Complementarian position in the Protestant world. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1 Timothy 2:12?

Why is 1 Timothy 2:12 given the privileged leading position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Kaihsu (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 November 2014

The theology section is in alphabetical order, so the number '1' puts it first. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)