User talk:Lostcaesar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Talk Archives: I — II


Contents

[edit] Bible

. I just want to express my thanks for your recent comments on the Bible talk page. You and I have disagreed in the past and we will probably disagree over other things in the future, but I respect and appreciate the clarity and sanity you are bringing to the discussion with Home Computer. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Transclusion example

Hi! There is nothing here yet. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Gnosticism

Point 1: That sentence was a direct summary of what Ehrman wrote in his book Lost Christianities. Here is the quote:

But how can Christ enter into this world of matter and not be tainted by it? This is one of the puzzles that Gnostics had to solve, and different Gnostic thingers did so in different ways. Some took the line we have already seen in Marcion and others, maintaining that Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood human being, but only appeaered to be so. These Gnostics took the words of the apostle Paul quite seriously: Christ cam "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3). As a phantom sent from the divine realm, he came to convey the gnosis neccessary for salvation, and when he was finished doing so, he returned to the Pleroma whence he came.
Most Gnostics, however, took another line, claiming that Christ was a divine emissary from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. For these Gnostics, Jesus himself was in fact a human, even though some thought that he was not made like the rest of us, so that he could receive the divine eimisarry; some, for example thought that he had a "soul-body" rather than a "fleshy-body". In any event, at the baptism, Christ entered into Jesus (in the form of a dove, as in the New TEstament Gospels); and at the end he left him to suffer his death alone. This is why Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (literally, "Why have you left me behind?") Or, as stated in the Gospel of Philip, "'My God, my god, why O lord have you forsaken me?' He spoke these words on the cross; for he had withdrawn from that place" (G. Phil. 64). According to one of the myths reported by Irenaeus, once Jesus had died, the Christ then came back and raised him from the dead (Against Heresies 1.30.13).

So, given the diversity of Gnosticism, it is probably safe to say that both your source and my source are correct. However, if Chadwick is trying to say that all Gnostics were docetics, then I believe that is an incorrect summary. As for the importance of the resurrection, there are at least 3 Gnostic texts that discuss this: Treatise on the Resurrection, Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, and Second Treatise of the Great Seth. (Irenaeus recounts an alleged Gnostic story where the Christ plays a trick and switches bodies with Simon and the wrong man gets crucified, 1.24.3) The moral of all of these Gnostic texts is that flesh and blood is easy to kill, but true spirit can escape death (and that those "in the know" have a chance of salvation/resurrection themselves). In Peter, the Savior seperates from the man during the crucifixion and is seen laughing above the cross. Etc. Regardless, I do not see a reason to change the text in this area, but I'm willing to listen to suggested changed. Point 2: My source doesn't make a comparison with classical philosophy. If your source does and you feel it is important to mention, then go right ahead (but keep in mind these passages are supposed to focus on Gnostic belief about Jesus, not Gnostic belief in general). Point 3: That is a good point. the NT wasn't canonized back then, and there were a large number of books that didn't make it into the NT. However, we are linking to Gnosticism and the New Testament. So maybe we can say "New Testament books, in addition to many extra canonical book" or something like that? I think the point is that Gnostics did use some books that made it into the NT, only with different interpretations. Regardless, the sentence could be improved. Point 4:I agree that a sentence or clause could be added to explain the disconnect (or alleged reconstruction), but since it doesn't have much to do with Jesus, I don't want to focus too much on describing the modern movement. Anyway, thanks for sharing your concerns.--Andrew c 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops on my part, too

It's slightly easier to highlight to the end of the paragraph, but if I'd remembered you were fixing up the references I would've been more careful. Now we've both got one revert less than we should. :^) A.J.A. 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

The Minor Barnstar
for your good work on the Christianity bibliography. Tom Harrison Talk 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine and the rise of superstition in the fourth century

See: Ramsay MacMullen, Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary, Chapter 10: Constantine and the Miraculous, Chapter 11: Distrust of the Mind in the Fourth Century, Princeton, 1990. To look deeper you may also want to see Enemies of the Roman Order Chapters: 2-4, Ramsay MacMullen, Princeton, 1966 User:Kazuba 28 Oct 2006 ```Enjoy! Ramsay MacMullen is difficult to read, but according to the Association of Ancient Historians he is the best. I fell in love with his work. You will learn a lot. User:Kazuba

[edit] Catholic scholarship

I want to say this now, in case discussions on Purgatory, etc., get heated and I'm in no mood to say it later. I've generally found that the best-informed Christians I debate with are Catholics, and you're no exception. Jonathan Tweet 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acts

LC-- just to let you know. Sometimes when people post to talk pages asking "What do people think?", they're really saying "So... why don't ya'll all agree with me, so I can revert this other guy". But in this case, I definitely was _NOT_ doing that, but instead was sincerely saying "Hmm. he makes a good point, but on the otherhand, 2-source-hypothesis is important, so maybe we should mention it. I dunnno--what do ya'll think."  :) Looking over it, I realize it probably just looked like one of those arguementative/rhetorical kind, not the genuinely openminded kind. :) --Alecmconroy 07:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul

I hope to do some more. I am not a Pauline scholar of any seriousness, but I would like, conflicts permitting, to allow some air into the article. It may be asking for trouble but something on current contgroversies would be useful. I have had a look at the archived discussion, but only briefly. Keep in touch Roger Arguile 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roger_Arguile"


My view on the textual analysis is that it needs to remain in the test on Paul. Otherwise reqders will get a false view of the inconsistencies which exist between the two acounts. I note that you have only justified your changes in a very short order. Roger Arguile 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You suggest that we should give the different scholars their voice and allow the reader to decide. You also want to separate the story from the controversies about which version is the truthful one. I can't follow either of those ideas for the following reasons.

To engage with the scholarly arguments requires not two voices but dozens;to give them each their own voice requires selective editing, which does not allow the development of sometimes complex arguments. An encyclopaedia cannot develop all the arguments: they are more like a tree with its roots rather than a seesaw. Secondly, I recognise that there are people who want an article to 'tell them what happened'. One can only satisfy that desire where there are genuine probablities which is simply not the case with the 'Council of Jerusalem'. Any version is POV (or will be alleged to be so by someone). One of our other editors thinks that by quoting the Catholic Encyclopaedia he can resolve the problem of how Paul decided to take a Nazirite vow when he returned from Jerusalem. We have a problem: either a man who wants to go back on what he said to the Galatians or a lack of credibility in the sources. A published encyclopaedia would let the contributor have his opinion. We suffer from deep divides. I also think that the Catholic Encyclopaedia is trying to square the circle. Finally, we suffer from the fact that few of us are scholars. We have high school kids, we have self-taught anoraks, we have lonely people who have found a hobby, we have educators of one sort or another with some background, we have even one or two retired academics. I am not a scholar either, though I engage is writing as part of my job. The amateurs and the professionals have only equal access.

But I shall try to improve the Council of Jerusalam if you will give me a bit of space and then come back to me. Roger Arguile 13:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I hve done some more work on it. Is it asking too much to ask that you voice your objections before setting down to edit it? I have tried to make it more accessible without misleadingly suggesting that there is any known way out of the conflict between Acts and the Letters. Roger Arguile 15:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my quotation and typos. I had copied it from the REB not the RSV but the latter, being an ecumenical translation (The Common Bible) is a preferable version. I'm sorry about the typo too. I'll look out the tag you mention when I get a minute. Thanks. I trust you had a good Christmas; we were very busy. \Here's to a wiki New Year. Roger Arguile 11:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanakh

It is incorrect to say the Old Testament has "more books some not Hebrew". That is only the case for the Catholic version. The Protestant Old Testament is identical to the Tanakh except that some books are merged into one book, and they are not in the same order. Wjhonson 13:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I've now changed the parenthetical wording to simply "see also", to imply not that they are necessarily identical, but that the article on Tanakh has at least the same power of information as the one on the Old Testament. "Old Testament" is considered a pejorative term by Jews (a put-down), by the way. Having both articles referenced, seems more neutral. Wjhonson 14:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I was the one who put in the Hebrew Bible link, I think that was there before. I might have reverted to it ;) I don't disagree about using the Old Testament link in place of the Hebrew Bible link. At any rate, the wording now is fine. As to whether the Tanakh should be linked in a paragraph that starts with "Christian views", you have to remember that every one of the first thousand or so "Christians" were Jews. It was only later, that Gentiles started to be preached to, and even then Christianity was only a movement, inside Judaism. It was later that the Jews started expelling the Christians from the synagogues. Wjhonson 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus as a nontrinitarian

LC, I don't imagine that certain other editors are going to let me add anything about Jesus portrayed as a nontrinitarian to the Christianity page. Would you please do me the kind favor of formulating a few sentences that are factually accurate and that inform the reader that this viewpoint is out there? I've tried over and over, and you can see for yourself where it's gotten me. As for the Jesus Seminar, while I don't think they live up to the hype, they at least represent a viewpoint that's common enough that Robert Funk was able to assemble over a hundred scholars that agreed with the seminar's premises.

As to your suggestion that I buy myself a good book on the topic instead of doing quick Internet searches, I could take that as a slight, except that, ha ha, said book had already been ordered and came the next day. Jonathan Tweet 14:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me. I was about to nudge you. Jonathan Tweet 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw your new version. It never addresses the fact that a substantial number of contemporary historians (alternatively, if you prefer, "fellows of the Jesus Seminar") portray Jesus as not teaching the Trinity himself. That's the viewpoint that I wanted to add. Do you think you could add such a reference in, or should I go back to pitching it myself? Jonathan Tweet 14:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate seeing this added: "The view that Jesus did not teach his own divinity has found agreement by the contemporary scholars of the JS [ref]" and here's the online reference: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm. I think it understates the case (because there are lots of scholars other the JS fellows who agree), but I'm happy to see it included. Personally, I prefer writing that's more direct, as in: "The contemporary scholars of the JS agree that Jesus did not teach his own divinity," but the sentence should fit the style of the rest of the paragraph, so suit yourself. And thanks. Jonathan Tweet 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages

Hi, the group is pretty informal and mostly serves as a way to announce new articles related to the middle ages. There are some discussion groups mostly where people announce things or ask questions but not very active. It's low noise to have on a watchlist to keep track of anything that comes up. Happy to answer any questions. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and Resurrection of Jesus article

Lost, you may be better than I am at some of the mechanics of WIKI. The footnotes for the article have a a problem. The format an editor was using causes inappropriate language to pop up and I corrected many of the references/links for scriptures in the article proper, but the footnotes are still in error. Any assistance would be appreciated. THanks. Storm Rider (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed the scripture links that I corrected. I think some may be uncomfortable with them given that they link to the KJV at an LDS site. It may be better to change them to another site; any suggestions? Storm Rider (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I am a little confused by your comment/question. LDS use the same KJV that is available to all other churches; it is not unique. There may be a confusion about with the Joseph Smith translation, which is owned and published by the Community of Christ church. Though we use it as a reference, the canon is the KJV. I am not aware of any significant differnces between the KJV and the NIV except for the use of common language. Storm Rider (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Joseph Smith translation actually "translated" several verses throughout the Bible; not just in Genesis. LDS use it as a reference just as we would use various commentaries. I have found it helpful in certain situations, mostly some New Testament verses; though none come immedately to mind.
Let's see how it goes and respond appropriately should someone raise a concern. I am partial to the KJV; it seems more like "home" to me. Thanks for the assist! Storm Rider (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thy words ring true and warmeth the heart of the pilgrim in these distant lands. Good Cheer to thee in all that thou doest. Tis a fair turn of the tongue, lol. Storm Rider (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul

I notice that you and an unregistered user have put back all my deletions. I know that you and I agree the article needs some improvement. I have to say that quoting the 1910 Catholic Encyclopaedia does not help. This is said to be a former good article. I have been trying to improve it. You ask whether Acts and Galatians are really inconsistent. I beg you to consider the huge volume of litereature on the subject. Balance is not achieved where a ton is on one side of the scale so one puts a small bag of feathers on the other side. Sticking all those references to a dozen editions is not scholarly. We don't do it with secular articles; why should we be doing it when bibles are more common than any other book?

If articles are to become credible then somebody had to know what the literature is in order to achieve a scholarly balance. My view is that what you and 75... have been doing has not added to the quality of the article very much. I am sorry to say that.Roger Arguile 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. There was a lot of activity yesterday. I confess I didn't check who had done what. Roger Arguile 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you removed a reference to the resurrection from 2 Corinthians. I am not sure why. I have reinserted it with modifications. You may want to comment. Roger Arguile 10:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your last comment, I am more co ncerned to record what St. Paul wrote and to note that he distinguishes quite clearly between a spiritual body and a physical body. Those are his words. How we interpret this, and how we understand the metaphor in 2 Corinthians is a POV matter. At least if we record his words we are in less danger of supplying our own interpretation. I could easily speculate, and do in my sermons, on the relationship between the two notions of body. If I were a Roman Catholic, rather than an Anglo-Catholic, and member of the Episcopal church, I might be more constrained than I am. But, as I have said before, the teachings of the magisterium may need to be recorded as the teaching of Holy Mother church, but given that there are others not in fealty to the Holy See, particular interpretations have to be held in check when presented with what Paul wrote. We could argue about bodily resurrection but that would be a long and detailed argument. I prefer, in an encyclopaedia, to advert to the words cited and to leave it to articles on the teaching of the Holy See to set forth the interpretation of the magisterium. I believe this distinction to be one which is not observed in many articles on the faith, and very often by members of all manner of Protestant sectaries, many of whom are sure that they understand St. Paul in a particular way. Tom Wright Bishop of Durham has it when he says that Luther's view and Calvin's view have to give way to the words of Scripture themselves, a view that both Calvin and Luther and the Holy Father would subscribe to. Roger Arguile 14:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help?

There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry for my late reply. I was waylaid by other concerns. It seems that mediation resolutions [1] are not followed. You might want to give comments. Thank you and God bless. Arturo Cruz 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OD: Thanks for your help

LC, thanks so much for your help at the OD. Most of your edits were absolutely stupendous. I think this has the makings of a FAC.

In particular, I thank you, and apologize, with regard to the 8 cites in the Hitler sentence. Your solution of putting interspersing them through the sentence is absolutely ideal, and I cringe when I think a reader might have thought all the sources were just about Hitler. It started out as just 3 cites, but then there was a request for more, and the result ultimatley looked like a reference bomb, although I totally didn't intend for it too.

I removed your addition of the phrase "penitential mortification". OD does not choose to call it "penitential mortification"-- their term is "corporal mortification", though it's often shortened to mortification. This as it turns out seems to be a pretty common misuderstanding. I had never really heard of OD much until about six months ago, and while I've learned a lot about them since, I still don't know as much as I'd like. Anyway, when learned the use of mortification was something real, my first thought was the same as yours-- that it was penitential.

But, when you really listen to the members of OD describe their very-limited use of mortification, it really doesn't come out that way. It doesn't seem to be done as a penance (and certainly not a punishment!) for specific sins. They liken it not so much to the Sacrament of Penance, but instead discuss it more as a way of kinship with Christ who also suffered. A way to achieve closeness with God and a way to offer their suffering up to God.

Similarly, the mention of the use of the metal cilice isn't actually at all controversial-- OD is rather open about it. Now, the images of a screaming albino monk, feriously pulling his cilice as it digs into his skin causing streams of blood -- that's pure, laughable nonsense. But it is true that OD members do make limited,safe use of the metal cilice. Mortification actually has a long history within The Church (and throughout other religions as a whole). It's just something the members of OD choose to do as a way to bring them closer to God, and it's not controversial of us to mention that the do choose to engage in the practice.

What is controversial, however, is to claim that OD's practice of mortification is somehow "wrong" or "bad". Certainly, that is the opinion of some, and while we must make a mention of that POV, we need not treat it as anything but an opinion.

Anyway, thank you very much for helping out on the page. With your help and everyone else's, hopefully we can all look at the Wikipedia frontpage one day and see Opus Dei on the front page, and that will be a day where a lot of people throughout the world will learn about OD and the teachings of St. Josemaria Escriva. This has been a tough page to get right-- we have a lot of editors who come to the page after reading the Da Vinci Code one too many times and are convinced OD is some nefarious, secret organization out for world domination. We've had 1-2 disgruntled former members or the family of members come and want the page to reflect that OD is some sort of a "cult". And we have a number of current members who have objected to any mention of criticims at all being directed at an organization that has had such an inspiring and uplifting effect on their lives. And the one thing all those groups have in common are very strong feelings that their POV is correct. So-- welcome to the circus, glad to have you on board. The more eyes, the merrier: I've tried hard to chuck out the "secret organization destined for world domination" stuff since it's not mentioned in any notable source. There are some criticism that do get mentioned a lot in the notables sources so we have to at least mention them, but I've tried to keep them to a brief mention and worked hard to keep those from "taking over the article" so that more of the discourse is about the criticism than the organization itself.

And again-- thank you for all the edits you made-- especially the hitler sentence. I know I'm nobody's perfect, but there are times you just have to shake your head and ask yourself "why didn't I see that?". --Alecmconroy 07:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Alec,I am glad I could help. Let me run through a few of your comments.
About the sentence on Hitler – that sort of thing just happens. A controversial sentence appears, and so people scramble for refs to back it up; eventually we end up with eight or so that may or may not match. Its just how it goes.
As for "penitential mortification", my experience with this is in its medieval form (I study medieval history), in which it was a penitential monastic practice. The most famous mortifier I know of is Radegund, though perhaps better known are the flagellants. I assumed that OD practiced the same (albeit a milder form) of this penitence – but I have never talked with anyone in OD about it. Perhaps it was a mistaken assumption. My apologies.
Now the cilice, this is a bit different. In medieval Latin cilicium means hairshirt. They were uncomfortable garments worn originally by Egyptian monks and brought to southern France and popularized by St. Martin's, Tours, very early in the Middle Ages. Its name derives from the Cicilian goat hair that they are made out of (Cilicia is in Asia Minor - where St. Paul was from). Maybe in a modern context it has come to mean any uncomfortable mortifying item, but I think we could use a source for this. As for the image, I still have some problems with it. It strikes me as using a picture of JFK's motorcade after the assassination from a group called "Oswald Innocence Organization". So I am still a bit uneasy about this. Some reliable sources all around would make be feel much better.
As for mortification in general, I think we can structurally improve this matter a bit in the article. At present, we say who mortifies under a list of positions on OD, but we don't introduce mortification until after. We should probably define something before we mention it, especially something easily misunderstood. Also, I wonder if it is really central to that section, since mortification is one pious act, and we don't mention any other pious acts that some members might do. So perhaps we could cut it from that section or, if not, then introduce mortification earlier.
Overall I think the article is doing well, despite the challenges of such a sensitive topic. Critical pov's are generally well handled in a proper section without too much weight given them, and I am glad the article does not cite fiction as fact. There are some areas to improve on. Most of the sources are Internet articles and, though fine, these could be better. For example, we cite an online book review a couple times concerning the content of the book, when the much better thing to do would be to cite the actual book. But this will clear up in time I hope.
I really appreciate that you took the time to look over my edits. Sometimes, when I clean up an article by moving a paragraph here or removing bullet points there, co-editors will see a lot of red and, without reading to notice that the content is the same, jump to the rv button. This conversely has been a nice experience of collegiality.
Cheers,
Lostcaesar 10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
THanks for the kind words. Yeah, OD mortification's is different for some reason. I usually think of it as exactly like what you said-- hairshirts and penitential. And, I mean, I'm sure that as a penance has to be part of it, but oddly enough they don't use the term. Your comment about the "Oswald Innocence Project" made me laugh-- I feel so sorry for all the admins who have to deal with all the nonsense that comes up at the 9/11 pages-- apparently everyone from "The Jews" to Bush to Opus Dei was 'really' responsible for it, but mean old Wikipedia just won't let them tell the world. lol. So yes, your skepticism of "ODAN" is most wise-- I know that if they were the only ones talk about metal cilices, I wouldn't believe it for a second.
I've been trying to find some better pictures for you-- I doubt we'll find a GFDLed one, but i have a couple from elsewhere. Part of the issue is that OD doesn't have much of a presence in the English speaking counties--- you get better luck if you look search for the word cilicio. Ones I have been able to dig up: From some japanase magazine, From some italian site, Some italian site, Argentian I think? I wish the History Channel and CNN broadcasts were downloadable! Cursed copyright.
About mortification-- no, we absolutely don't need to mention the mortification in the types of membership section. My main purpose in doing so had actually been to point out that the Supernumeraries, the bulk of the membership, do NOT practice it, but if you think it's having the opposite effect-- beating people over the head with the word mortification, absolutely-- cut it. :) We can just add a note in the mortification section specifying that Numeraries, Numerary Assistants, and Associates are the ones who practice it. --Alecmconroy 10:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I've struck oil. Check out Image:Cilice-CNN.jpg-- it's from a CNN broadcast. It's not free-license, so we can't use it in the article itself, but at least now we have someone other than ODAN's word for it. The full broadcast is available on YouTube here. --Alecmconroy 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for uncovering that weblink to the CNN article. That is the sort of source I was looking for. We still have some technical problems with the picture, but it seems less urgent now. I suppose if we end up without a picture we could still describe the item well enough. I have a few more points to make about the article. Concerning the controversy section. First, I think the bullet point is bad style for an encyclopedia article, and I think if you look at wikipedia good articles, you will be hard pressed to find such a presentation (bullet point of criticisms). I really think, stylistically, we should make this a paragraph. Also, I notice that you did not prefer my edit, which presented the material slightly differently. My attempt was to represent the sources properly. They were mostly from ODAN, and if not, then from new articles which vaguely said "critics", unnamed, and whatever the case had far fewer accusations than ODAN. I noticed in your edit commentary that you said that there were other critics besides ODAN. This may well be the case, but at present the article does not support its general claims with references. I understand if you need time to get more sorces, and I am willing to be patient. However, in the meantime it might be preferable to use the edit I made. We could preserve the older version on a userpage sandbox until it can be better referenced. Lastly, as to the section on mortification, I think some of the criticisms can be better handled in the criticism section, especially those made by ODAN, and we might was just a general sentence in the mort. section describing criticism. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, let's see. The image itself is fine-- just a minor case of copyright paranoia, hehehe. About the identities of the critics-- as luck would have it this old version of the Controversies article has a giant "yellow pages" of the most-vocal critics, as it were. ODAN is basically code for the DiNicolas, who are two, but only two of the critics. So far, I don't know of any criticism that is being made only by them-- in general, the criticisms predate them. Between the Hutchison book, the del Carmen Tapia, and the Walsh book, I think every single criticism is in there. So, no, no-- it's not just ODAN. If you want for the purposes of citation, I can look around try to find web-accessable citations of non-ODAN people making the specific criticisms, just for the sake of ironcladness, but let's definitely NOT say that ODAN is the only one making the criticims-- that would takes us from sentences that are true,cited, and possibly web-citable, and transform them into sentences that are false. lol.
About the bullett points list, I'm less sure of myself. I can read a book that tells me for a fact ODAN isn't the only one making a certain criticism-- finding a book telling me whether or not the section is better in bulletpoints is harder. heheh. Let's see what Bish, Doc, Baccyak and some of the others think. Bulletpoints are briefer, which I know was a big concern of the OD members. If we go to prose, we have to include topic sentences and explanatory sentences, and the like or else we'll sound schiziophrenic. On the other hand, the bullet points are style we don't use elsewhere in the article, so maybe we shouldn't use them here either. Let's see what they think.
What I'm really stymied about is the Controversies about Opus Dei. Right now there's basically no organizing scheme to the thing. I'm trying to decide whether it should be organized "by faction", "by topic" or "chronologically". If you have a chance to look it over, I'd majorly appreciate your suggestions on it! :) --Alecmconroy 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
First off-- cool! thanks for making that! that's helpful. But you see, it illustrates my point-- bullet points are allowed to be jumpy and totally change topics every sentence, but paragraphs can't--- they come of sound a tad schizoid, changing topics with each sentence. What you need to make paragraphs flow are topic sentences, concluding sentences, explainatory sentences. I could be done-- it's just not as easy as taking the text and deleteling the bullet points.
That said, there is a prose form that would sound okay and would convey the same content that we could make if people really don't like the bullet points. I'll do some askin' :) --Alecmconroy 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Side note-- GOOD JOB with this edit! I laughed out loud when I saw that we hadn't ever bothed to mention mortification is done on yourself! See, you look at something for so many hours and after a while you get where your eyes can't even see it anymore. --Alecmconroy 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want it to be a good article I think you need to drop the bullets; do some asking, I will work on the paragraph's prose. Lostcaesar 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See, yeah, I've got a sneaking suspicion you're right that. We're already a "Good Article", but we also want to be a good article-- FAC good. Just help me out if we have to verbositize it a hair-- the bulletpoints were a mediation compromise that let us convey things in an ultra-brief manner, and I expect to take a bit of flack on the length issue if we make them into readable prose. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, you're officially grüvy

So, when you got recruited by Arturo, accused me of misrepresenting sources and rebombing, I was worried that you might be an albino monk, sent here by special order of Prelate to sanitize the Opus Dei page and perhaps murder Tom Hanks in the process. I began to develop a good amount of skepticism after your pointing out the bulleted problem and telling us how to fix it, creating the ingenius Papal Response section, integrating the historical responses into the history, and fixing ten billion minor errors along the way. Now I've been sitting here worrying and worrying for five hours that I didn't know how to trim down the criticism section-- "Should I try to to substantially bulk up the replies? no, no-- the controversy section is big enough as is." "Should I maybe delete one or two of the criticisms? no, no-- they're important." And then all of a sudden, I get a compressed criticism section delivered to me, giftwrapped and all. At this point, I'm afraid I have no alternate but to declare you officially groovy and thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for making the page so much better!

This is what I adore about Wikipedia. Not being able to see the way, and then someone comes along and takes that things I've done and makes them infinitely better. So, thank you. Truly. I'm now convinced we'll get to FAC. There are a few places that still need just a hair of polishing, but we're so much closer than we were before you came here. --Alecmconroy 00:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If those things made you worry, you should have seen My Beliefs and Interests. It has been nice working with you Alec. I have butted heads with many editors, and am rather used to differing points of view, but generally so long as everyone is willing to be reasoned with things can move along nicely. There is still one part of the criticism section that makes me nervious. The supposed quote about Hitler, reported by "a certain priest" and hosted on two websites that I have no reason to trust — it just seems a little over the top. That aside, I think the article is getting much better and am glad you have contributed and been likewise willing to work with me. Cheers; Lostcaesar 09:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Your beliefs page is interesting-- we share quite a number, but I won't say whichs ones. As regards the hitler allegations-- that has worried me to that we leave that a little too "un-rebutted". I think what we say about it crticism is factual--- I'm pretty sure that it's undisputed that (1) the priest does make those claims about Escriva saying those two quotes. Similarly, I think it's undisputed that (2) the critics make so much mention of that issue (in the press and elsewhere), that the issue is notable. The biggie source for these two statements are the Hitchens book, but we have four different cites to back up those sentence (two are hidden). More cites could be obtained, but I said, I don't think anyone disputes those two assertions.
Because of that, I wouldn't want to just delete the quotes, for example, because they are a valid part of the dialog. Recognizing, however, as that the criticism isn't a very reliable assertion, I suspect we should add extra rebuttal to that particular issue. We already directly quote the Prelate's denial, but I would like more there, and will look for some.
As an aside, something that's bugged me is that the controversy article never makes the case that even if all the Franco/Hitler allegations _WERE_ true, that still doesn't necessarily makes Escriva/OD "bad". Here is my simple, totally original research thoughts on something that could be said on that issue:
It's claimed that Escriva supported the Fascists. If it's true--- Big deal! WWII was gave people a choice between Fascismm and Communism, and by and large, people chose to support whichever side wasn't actively trying to kill them. For Escriva, you have the Communists under Stalin-- already having total violations of any rights, already having genocidal campaigns. And you have the Fascists-- bad and totalitarian to be sure, but they weren't trying to abolish the church and murder the catholics.
I don't care who you are-- when you have to pick sides between a bad person actively trying to kill and a bad person actively trying to kill the person who wants to kill you--- your choice is clear. If Escriva's alleged support of Franco/Hitler seems shockings it's because we're looking at it through the lense of a post-war western power: where the choise is between democracy and totalitarianism. We equate Hitler with satan, but we do that because we already know what happened in the camps under his regime. For someone like Escriva-- they didn't have a choice between democracies and totalitarianism--- they only have a choice between fasciscm and communism. Simiilarly they didnt' have the benefit of hindsight-- while they could know about that stalinist purges, Hitler's holocaust was obviously something that people didn't firmly believe yet.
That may make Escriva guilty of being a bad historian or something, but the fact is, whole nations full of good people supported Hitler. We don't criticize all germans, and they DIRECTLY supported Hitler, even going so far as to fightt for him, whereas St. Josemaria is only accused of having expressed ambivalence about whether the things being said about Hitler were true. In short, the very worst we can say about Escriva on the issue is that he was a little too guilty of "Assuming Good Faith"-- not quite quick enough to recognize evil in other humans. But does that make Escriva a bad person, or a good one?
So, anyway, that's the way I tend to go about responding. So far it's just my OR, but I bet someone notable has thought the make the same points, and it's something we ought to mention if we ever get to the controversies article. People say he said the Hitler stuff, so we have to mention it, but we don't have to treat its like it's persuasive, and we can definitely add more rebuttal in. I'll work on it finding more sources and more rebuttal-- hopefully one online, but if nothing good poops up, I can alwways go to the print sources to find a nice reponse from OD's supporters on the hitlet stuff. I already know at leat one reply I can add. --Alecmconroy 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul on homosexuality

We may need to discuss this. I am perfectly prepared to accept that my version offends some people. It was, not however, rubbish. I don't know whether you are aware of the debate about 1Cor. 6:9; it exists. Your quotation could well be shortened, as it deals with a number of different matters. It is also true that what St. Paul is referring to in Rom. 1:26-7 refers primarily to lustful relationships. I realise - here we are again - that the Holy See has an attitude towards homosexual practice which is firm. You may be surprised to read that I take it seriously - how else could I not. But, back to the text, I did not draw conclusions about what St. Paul might have meant. We cannot place before his judgement the kind of relationships to which I referred. I raised a question which you think merely a fringe opinion. As to how many people hold it I do not know. I should, on reflection not have replaced your new version without communicating with you. I fear I was moved by the use of a word which fails to notice that there IS a debate going on. My temptation is to make an amendment which more marginally draws attentioin to this fact. Roger Arguile 11:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsay Macmullen

Has a new book out Voting about God in the Early Church. It sounds very interesting. Thought you might like to know about it. I'm getting one for Christmas. I see you and your friends get into the teachings of the Bible. Never forget this is the view of ancient persons thousands of years ago. They and their world no longer exists. Their world is not not today's world. They are a bit behind the times in just about everything. Be careful about assimilating their primitive beliefs and behavior. Notice the difference between the God of the Old Testament and New Testament. Time past and there were social and behavioral changes. Changes didn't stop two thousand years ago. User:Kazuba 4 Dec 2006

[edit] Historicity

Thanks for cleaning up that dab header, and the lead paragraph. It was a bit wordy, and a bit inaccurate to boot. I have made a very minor modification that I hope you don't mind. Just as saying Christians use "faith alone" is POV, it seems POV to say scholars use "historical methods alone", while Christians are blessed with additional, religious methods. (it doesn't say blessed, but that is the tone I got out of that sentence). So I removed "alone" and "additional". Seems neutral to me, but wanted to run it by you (and anyone else watching that page). And thanks again for cleaning up the lead.--Andrew c 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough situation, because there are obviously good Christian scholars. What this sentence is creating is a false dichotomy: that there is a historical Jesus, and a Jesus of faith, such that the former is a creation of historical methods and probabilities, and the latter is a literal and spiritual reading of a religious text. A problem rises from the large number of Christians that accept portions of both models, resulting in a semi-historical, semi-faith based Jesus. What really is being said is that it is impossible for historical methods to 'prove' certain things about Jesus (Ehrman and Meier both cover this topic in detail). And likewise, you will not be using faith-based, religious methods to say certain parts of the Gospel accounts are wrong or improbable or non-historical. I believe the current wording is fine because it isn't saying that the "Christ of faith" is identical with every single Christian's construction of Jesus. I guess the HJ and the CoF are just two extremes on a spectrum within Christian belief. My issue is that some historical methods conflict with religious methods (as opposed to compliment).--Andrew c 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Curious

I apologize if I have flooded you with information.

[edit] Quotes from scholars concerning miracles

B.D. Ehrman, Jesus p. 207-8

Here I must stress even more strongly than before that the problem confronting the historian when it comes to discussing miracles. Even if a miracle did happen, there is no way we can demonstrate it, by the very nature of the case (see my longer reflections in chapter 11). Historians try to determine what happened in the past. Since they can't prove the past, they can only establish what probably happened. But by their very nature, miracles are highly improbable occurrences. That is to say, the chances of a miracle happening are infinitesimally remove, as opposed to other weird things that happen in our world that are not in and of themselves so highly improbable that we'd call them "impossible." Thus, even if Jesus was raised from the dead--and many Christians historians personally believe he was, just as most other historians think he wasn't--there is no way we can demonstrate it using historical methods.

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew v.2.617

At long last we come to the miracles of Jesus as narrated in the Four Gospels. As I emphasized throughout Chapter 17, when it comes to the miracles of Jesus, the focus of my historical quest is--and must be--a narrow one. I do not claim to be able to decide the theological question of whether particular extraordinary deeds done by Jesus were actually miracles, i.e., direct acts of God accomplishing what no ordinary human being could accomplish. As I have indicated, I think that such a judgment ("that this particular act is a miracle performed directly by God") goes beyond what any historian can legitimately assert within the limits of his or her own discipline.
Rather, my quest seeks to remain within the realm of what, at least in principle, is verifiable by historical research. Hence I ask: Given the fact of the many miracle stories present in the Four Gospels, are there reasons for thinking that at least the core of some of these stories goes back to the time and ministry of Jesus himself? In other words, did the historical Jesus actually perform certain startling, extraordinary deeds (e.g., supposed healing or exorcisms) that were considered by himself and his audience to be miracles? Or did such reports come entirely from the creative imagination of the early church, as it remembered the deeds of Jesus in the light of such OT figures as Elijah and Elisha and it proclaimed these deeds in a highly competitive religious "marketplace" that extolled Jewish and pagan miracle-workers?

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew v.2.511

Can miracles happen? Do miracles happen? The problem of the possibility and actual occurrence of miracles is logically the first question any inquirer would raise in a discussion of the miracles of Jesus. I fear then that I will be disappointing almost all my readers with the answer I give. In my view, these wide ranging questions are legitimate in the arena of philosophy or theology. But they are illegitimate or at least unanswerable in a historical investigation that stubbornly restricts itself to empirical evidence and rational deductions or inferences from such evidence.
No sooner do I make this claim that I imagine both believers and nonbelievers crying "cop-out!" On the one side, staunch Christian believers--especially those of a conservative bent--will protest that I am once again giving the victory to agnostics by default: I am in effect saying that miracles are not real events in time and space. On the other side, nonbelievers, non-Christians, and even some Christians will no doubt detect covert Christian apologetics in what seems a refusal to bite the bullet. In their view, I am refusing to pursue a thoroughgoing critical approach to history, an approach that necessarily accepts the conclusions of modern science and philosophy: miracles cannot and therefore do not happen. In their eyes, I am trying to preserve a tiny acre of a bygone mythical world within the otherwise modern universe of historical research.

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew v.2.514

Hence it is my contention that a positive judgment that a miracle has taken place is always a philosophical or theological judgment. Of its nature it goes beyond any judgment that a historian operating precisely as a historian can make. What a historian--or a physician or a doctor-- may say in his or her professional capacity is that, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, one cannot find a reasonable cause or adequate explanation for a particular extraordinary event. The historian may also dully record the fact that a particular extraordinary event took place in a religious context and is claimed by some participants or observers to be a miracle, i.e., something directly caused by God. But to move beyond such affirmations and to reach the conclusion that God indeed has directly caused this inexplicable event is to cross the line separating the historian from the philosopher or theologian. The same person may make both types of judgments, but he or she does so in a different professional (or amateur) capacity and in a different realm of human knowledge.

[edit] Summary on miracles

Therefore, historians, using the same methods they use for anything else, can examine claimed miracles. And they can determine if it is a tradition that most likely dates back to the historical Jesus or not. They cannot say whether the event was actually supernatural. Some scholars attempt to posit alternative, naturalistic explanations for these miracles, but again these are just speculative and cannot be any more historically proven than divine intervention (without further evidence of course). It's like explaining a magic trick. I may be able to rationally hypothesize how a magician performs a trick. I may even be able to recreate the illusion. But without further evidence, I cannot say that magic trick X was performed using methods Y.

As for the resurrection in particular, scholars can examine the events historically. Some conclude that the evidence is weak, and most of the details do not date back to a historical Jesus. They also conclude that there isn't enough evidence to prove a physical, bodily resurrection. Only that claims by believers were made decades later. However, there are a handful of Christian apologists that claim the easter and post-easter events are historical, although I personally believe their arguments are more theological instead of historical. (see [2] for an example, a collection of apologetic essays written by not a single historian) Not surprisingly, there are anti-religious folk that claim the resurrection is impossible on theological grounds. Once again, not a historical argument. I think it is fair to say that well respected historians and Jesus scholars acknowledge this issue, and leave the supernatural considerations out of their empirical research (which is why I added what I added to the HJ article).

[edit] Responding to specifics

I would like to respond to a few of your points.

Thus we have determined the Luke is reliable, insofar as can be checked, and that is a reason to believe he is correct on the matters more difficult to check, like the burial to post-resurrection accounts.

This is a fallacy, faulty generalization. The exact same argument could be used for the Iliad. Scholars for a long time thought it was all mythological, until Heinrich Schliemann, using the Iliad as his guide, discovered a large number or archaeological sites. Now, we have established that the Iliad, for the most part, gets the historical setting correct. Does that mean we can assume the details are correct? Or that the supernatural/mythological events depicted in it actually happened? It would be a double standard to not view the works of Homer (or Dan Brown for the matter) in the same manner. Furthermore, extraordinary events need extraordinary proof, (like the Da Vinci code, just because a lot of it is historical, doesn't mean Jesus married Mary M.) Determining that a work can be 'reliable' is not enough to extend that reliability on absurd claims. On top of that, Luke isn't flawless in his history (such as the date of the census).

These would all be reasons to think that belief in Jesus' divinity was based on genuine personal experiences, or the testimony of those who had such.

People throughout history have been willing to die for their convictions. Look at the global conflicts today, and how many of them are theologically driven. Someone holding a strong belief is not evidence that the belief is true.

The apostles willingness to embarrass themselves personally when telling their experiences, again a reason to think their discourse genuine.

If something like that happened today, sure I could get on the internet and do some research, make some phone calls, even hop on a plane. But if you are a poor tradesman living in some small town in Asia Minor, hundreds of miles away from where these alleged events took place, decades after the alleged events took place, is it really feasible that someone could (or even would) be able to research the claims of a traveling evangelist? Christianity did better with the Gentiles then it did in Jerusalem, right? Who is to say that people didn't do this? It took centuries before Christianity became a major religion, and in the beginning it was a small sect. (Mormonism has grown at a much, much faster rate than Christianity historically did) It's not like you could just post on the internet that these guys were frauds. I also find this argument weak because it applies to many religious groups. There is nothing extraordinarily different about the Gospel accounts that would be any easier for an ancient public to debunk than say the claims of Apollonius. Even in this day and age, we see falsehood spread through the population, snopes.com is full of them (but at least we have the means to debunk a lot of this stuff today, imagine what it was like back then).

As for the Napoleon argument, the analogy is stretched pretty far. The difference between an Englishman and a Frenchman is about 200 km. The difference between a corpse and the resurrected corpse of God is much more significant. Also, the body of evidence is a lot different. We have physical evidence, artifacts and such for Napoleon, in addition to written sources, both favorable and unfavorable, from many different perspectives. All we have for Jesus is a handful of religious writings, and about 4 sentences from non-Christian sources about a century later. And all this amounts to is that with the evidence on hand, and the methods used by historians, we cannot say that the resurrection happened for sure. We can say things about the events leading up to it, and we can say things about the followers beliefs, but it is going outside of the realm of history to say anything else.

Anyway, thanks for starting the discussion and I hope I haven't overwhelmed you. I didn't have much else to do today until I go to work.-Andrew c 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

[edit] Good call on images

Good job noticing the image of Escriva teaching to men and the image of Rome instead of NY. I did right-justified one of them because I've found out that left-justify seems to inspire jihad in some editors. :) --Alecmconroy 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul

You ask for sources. Tell me what you want. I haven't put in footnotes as this does not seem to me to be encyclopedic - see Britannica. Footnotes are for learned articles and books. If you doubt anything that has been written, tell me. There are, after all, numerous references to scripture, which is a source (!). I shall not advert to the other references since you can read the article. I shall look at it again and see what statements seem to need support. I wold prefer to add reference works which I shall do. That is normally the way that encyclopedias work. Roger Arguile 10:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me: are you asking because you think some of the statements are at all dubious? Some of them are simply paraphrases of the text.I confess to getting frustated that more of the talk is about process and less about the substance of articles. But I will attempt to deal with your particular queries.Roger Arguile 10:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be boring. I have just noticed that the book by Raymond Brown 'The Churches the Apostles left behind'(whom you pronounced 'controversial) has the Nhil Obstat and Imprimatur. It is at least free from error. Roger Arguile 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that you know more than I. I am not now clear what then the Nihil Obstat is for but if what you say is true than I fear that you are substituting private judgment for the declarations of the magisterium. This is the great charge against protestants; and is indeed the most proper definition of the protestant. But in any case I have attempted to provide you with some citations. Roger Arguile 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

My respect for you has just shot up. If you ever need a favor, let me know. Jonathan Tweet 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ability and willingness to state fairly that which you don't personally believe is remarkable. I'm particularly grateful that you

took a stab at the Jesus Seminar on the Christianity page because you'd earlier said you wouldn't. Jonathan Tweet 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Thanks for your continuing interest in the article, "Roman Catholic Church." As you may have seen, I was trying to remove the "talking heads" type comment from the encyclopedic article. Too much "60 Minutes" for me. I'd rather the church define itself, as I've mentioned. I don't want to be changing something and by doing so, forcing you to change it back!

I was doing a section a day. I wanted to remove the statement which has no reference about the "criticism" that the Church destroyed Native American artifacts, most notably in Mexico. It very definitely did! But it needs a reference which I'm not going to furnish. I would think the author, who probably wasn't you, might say, "The church destroyed what it thought were pagan influences..." etc. Incidentally the church also destroyed a heck of a lot of Roman and Greek stuff, too! Too bad about that!  :) Anyway, just one little sentence!  :) Student7 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Catholic Teachings

Thank you for your thoughts. I think you will agree with the simple changes I just made and will make tomorrow. The section entitled "Controversial..." seems to be worded defensively. The content is okay, but I'd like to make the heading a little more positive. Maybe the section heading is defensive, as well. "The Church's Response to Modernism"? "...Response to Revisionists"? :) Maybe a bit too assertive!  :) Student7 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...I think I should take up something less controversial....like Medugorje!  :) Student7 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revelation, Paschal view, and the Eucharist

Since you were glad to see this view added to the Revelation article, perhaps if you ever get the time, you wouldn't mind adding a little about this to the Eucharist article to make up for the sentence I removed: The fullest interpretation of the Book of Revelations[sic] can be explained in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SV and the LEAD of John

I always thought "SV" was refering to a bible translation (maybe "Standard Version", as in ASV, ESV, or maybe RSV or AV) instead of sub verbo. I agree that sub verbo doesn't make sense in the LEAD.-Andrew c 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed additional. The sentence just doesn't make sense that way. We are drawing a dichotomy. Some people only believe in a historical Jesus, and some peoply only believe in a Christ of faith. Others mix the two. Maybe because you personally mix the two, or yo know of scholars/theologians that mix the two, are you trying to give credence to that view. I feel that we do not need to cover that position in the LEAD (but I wouldn't oppose introducing an additional clause clarifying the spectrum of belief). The fact is that there is a Christ figure described in religious texts that is not examined critically by many adherents (i.e. accepted on faith alone). This is not the same thing as the historical Jesus, which is a reconstruction using historical methods. This is a helpful dichotomy for what the article is trying to say. We aren't saying you are either in column A or column B because there is a spectrum of belief. There may be a way to work this section out, but adding "additional" isn't it. I'll tell you if I come up with anything, and please feel free to do something yourself. Good luck!--Andrew c 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think what I am focusing on here is the lay position. I mean, how many people put as much reseach into their religion as you? Would that apply to every single Catholic in the developing nations were literacy and access to scholarly research are serious issues? Just think about the US (where most Americans can't name a single supreme court justice), how many Christians do you think actually know that Aramaic was most likely the primary language of Jesus, let alone more complex historical issues? That's where I'm coming from when I desire to keep a contrast between the HJ and the Christ of faith.-Andrew c 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Editorial changes' on Paul

I have made some comments on your editorial changes some of which I have reverted. I have left an explanation on the talk page. It would be kind if you could look at it some time. Roger Arguile 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Now you've gotten too conservative about the article. I wasn't even all that bold for the most part. A.J.A. 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I just don't think I changed too much either. A.J.A. 09:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] key texts

"JT, your webpage would benefit by attending to Pope Eugene IV's Sicut Dudum (1435), Pope Paul III's Sublimis Deus (1537), and especially Pope Gregory XVI’s In Supremo (1839), among other key texts." Thanks for the tip. Good stuff there. Jonathan Tweet 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul,Nietsche and the resurrection

You may have noted the intervention of Mike Ely who wishes to see Jefferson et al. reinstated. You will have seen that I am resistent. I think he may have a point that there are a good many people, some more qualified than others, who feel that the Christ of the gospels is very different from Paul's Christ. We have the possibility of another edit war here. My intention is to reinstate a bit more Harnack, not because I have a huge sympathy for the German Protestant Scholars of the last two centuries; many of them are very strange. I might put a little more from Harnack in Alternative Views. See what you think.

On the resurreciton, one of the problems is the very unstable state of biblical translations of 2 Corinthians 6. I intend to get hold of some modern commentaries of various kinds. Would it help I I shared some ideas through this page? One does not always want things to be displayed to the cold light of public sight before reaching a sensible conclusion. Roger Arguile 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to have done anything about the Resurrection section. I was looking at the article on 'Pauline Christianity'. I don't see that you have done anything on that. You might care to look at it. I have, as usual arrived with hatchet in hand and have tried to make it a bit more sympathetic. But you have a sharp eye. You might want to have a go at it. The last section I think is hugely out of focus, but I don't know enough about the cultured despisers of Catholic Christianity to give them fair air time. Roger Arguile 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: MH

Hi--thanks for your message. I'm a student at Yale (though on year-long leave in Heidelberg at the moment). I thoroughly enjoy my studies, which center both on early medieval history, and paleography and diplomatics.

I see you're a Roman Catholic: I guess this explains your position on the Census of Quirinius and such. (I suspect we read very similar apologist textbooks in high school.) Do you study at York? ECKnibbs 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leeds Cathedral

Thanks for your message and interest in relation to the Leeds Cathedral stub I created. I would greatly appreciate any contributions you would like to make towards making this page something of real substance. The dominus 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll miss you

Editing WP isn't going to be as fun any more. Who's going to keep me honest? Have fun on the history pages. Jonathan Tweet 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources who complain about travel in Luke

Hi Lostcaesar,

I'll fear you may be sick of the topic by now, but I've been reading up on the matter, and I was wondering if you knew of any authors who complain that the requirement to travel to Bethlehem is an historical impossibility. A paragraph that I think you wrote in the Quirinius article seems devoted to refuting this position (as it should: of all the criticisms to make, this seems to be one of the most misguided). I've found more sources on travel required in Egypt, etc., during censuses (us. because of property ownership) and would like to add them--but I think it would be nicer if we could come up with a cited position to play them off of. "So and so have argued bla bla, but modern scholars believe bla bla bla." That sort of thing. Otherwise it's like punching the wind: readers won't know why this stuff is in the article.

nibbs ECKnibbs 11:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit reversions

Lostcaesar,

I am going to insist on the edits I made earlier, and it seemed only courteous to write and tell you so. I don't want an edit war with you, but I don't think you're really responding to my arguments or justifying your reversions. You advanced not a single specific point against the edit I made, and you reverted it with only a vague post on talk. If you want to alter the phrasing here and there, I would be thrilled. If you want to reinsert the passages I removed (please note that I did not remove any points entirely, just the passages listed), I am open to discussion on the matter, provided they meet OR standards and do not introduce redundancy. But I would ask you not to revert anymore: the edits I made are an attempt to respond to the point made by EALacey, and to clear up deficiencies in the article (for which cf. my newest post on talk).

I think you fear that I am biased and so regard my edits with suspicion. Doubtless some of my posts on talk have given you reason to think so. I am, in fact, quite biased, but maybe not in the direction you suspect.

nibbs ECKnibbs 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you cannot devote all of your attention to my posts on talk. I only ask why you revert my edits, if you have not had time to digest my points. ECKnibbs 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

Please b einformed that a request for comment regarding an editor with whom you had a dispute on Christianity has been started. Beit Or 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That dispute took place last fall, and it involved the issues of persecution of Christians by Muslims. You may refresh it in your memory by looking at the diffs provided in the RFC. Beit Or 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

I saw your move of Nicene Christianity. Next time, you may want to use the move tab instead of copy and pasting content. Using the move tab preserve the page history. More information can be found at WP:MOVE. I have requested help from an admin to fix the page histories.-Andrew c 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I realize that both pages are practically new, however comparing Special:Whatlinkshere/Nicene_Christianity with Special:Whatlinkshere/Late_Antique_Christianity made me reluctant to endorse a move without getting more input than just you and I. Can you cite some of those scholarly reference to the LAC term on Talk:Nicene Christianity now that it exists (you saw me make the page move comment before I'd actually gone to the talk page and started the discussion on moving it). I have no problem with moving it if that's where it should be, but wasn't sure myself. -- nae'blis 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christianity

I am glad to contribute although I find the current format a bit daunting and confusing. Some sections of the article are text and other sections are just a chronology.

I think your plan is to ultimately have each section have a "Key Dates" subsection that holds the chronology and then continue on with a prose narrative. Am I correct in my assumption?

I have done some extensive editing on the History of the Papacy article taking it from a couple of paragraphs into the full-blown article that it currently is. It still needs more work but I think it about 90% done now.

I think you will find the History of the Papacy article a useful resource especially the section on the 11th and 12th centuries which I think will fit in well with the section in History of Christianity called "The Papacy". I do think that section is badly named in that it suggests that the Papacy either only existed or was only of historical importance during those centuries. As History of the Papacy shows, the Papacy was an important influence on the Christian church throughout the last 2000 years. Even the history of Protestantism is defined in large part as opposition to the Catholic chuch and the Papacy in particular.

I would like to work with you in regularizing these four related articles: History of Christianity, [[3]],History of the Catholic Church and History of the Papacy as well as any other related articles that you may know of.

--Richard 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christianity task force

I have proposed a History task force on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General. I'm not sure how wide your interest is but I invite you to take a look at my proposal and consider joining.

--Richard 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communions

Thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. I actually enjoy discussions like this, in that it helps me form my own understanding of things. I like to learn and to teach, in other words. I know that real people who have strong feelings are involved, and it's sometimes too easy for me to forget that from the safe distance of cyberspace. So I hope that you, too, will take whatever I say in that spirit of mutual learning and teaching. I also have strong feelings about my own Communion's self-definition, and yet locally I'm very much involved in the ecumenical and multifaith movements, and count many Roman Catholic laypeople, clergy, and religious as friends and acquaintances. Cheers! Fishhead64 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, and for sharing your personal experiences - I was very touched. I am sorry that your grandmother was so rudely treated by a fellow congregant. There is no excuse for such behaviour, especially as people approach as one body to receive the Blessed Sacrament. I regret that it has soured her on the Church - sadly this sort of thing occurs far too often.
When it comes to the ordination of women and other matters, doctrinal development in Anglicanism has always been a messy affair. The great Anglican theolgian and Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, wrote that the credentials of Anglicanism "are its incompleteness, with the tension and the travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as 'the best type of Christianity,' but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died." I'm working on an article for my church's general synod on the question of doctrine as it pertains to the blessing of same-sex unions, so I'm rather steeped in the business at the moment. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this possible?

Wait, an Irish descent Skins fan who lives in the UK with an interest in all things early Xian/4th c. CE? Are you a lost twin?

Not only do I still get choked up when I watch Riggo stiff arm that schmoe, my research before moving fields was in Augustinian Christianity and late antiquity. Would be more than happy to throw you my thesis if I could ever find an electronic copy.

I disagree with the previous poster here, though. MacMillan dwells far too much on the dated idea of synchretism. He's too bitter Peter Brown is smarter than he. Though MacMillan's work on the earlier Empire is very good, obviously.

There seems to be need for less biased editing of the early Christian/historical Jesus articles. Any idea where a good jump in point is? Cheers,--Mrdarcey 08:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It isn't Campbell or Gibbs I worry about. At least since they remembered to tell Saunders they are a running team (though resigning Dockery would be a good idea). The whole defensive fiasco, however...ugh, don't get me started. Sean, you get paid to intimidate AND cover, dude. At least they finally have a kicker. Maybe he won't ruin himself by doing McDonald's commercials like Loehmiller did.
My research (I shudder to call it that. I was so young when I wrote it...) was on the origins of monasticism, and how late antique monasticism acted to preserve/spread romanitas to the remains of the Western Empire. It relied fairly heavily on textual interpretation (Cassian, Augustine, Gregory, Athanasius, Benedict, Martin, et al), an interpretation of Western holy men using Brown's descriptions of patroni, and an evaluation of the late antique Church as a subversively non-Imperial arbitor of power, following Civitatis Dei and secondary work like Mathew's refutation of Grabar's imperial iconography theory. I'll see if I can't find an electronic copy at some point. I fell in love with Brown's writing while reading Cult of the Saints. The passage you mention is his description of the Justinian mosaic at Ravenna, yeah?
Thanks for the heads-up. I just don't know how much time to invest here. I've been sort of gobsmacked at how such far fetched theories can hijack any sort of rational discourse. Months ago I read on the Gnosticism page that "Gnostics were a Christian sect." I know it's petty, but I keep wishing terrible things upon Dan Brown. The problem with those so-called scholars is that marginal viewpoints and by nature controversial, and in order to be published they have to be populist. It makes them far more accessible and eye catching than the vast majority of scholarship. Why bother reading difficult books that might challenge your viewpoint? When I was up at Oxford we would read Starhawk, Pagels and the Jesus Seminar for the laugh of it. We used to joke about trying to use them on finals papers. Discretion always won out, however, and if they were ever mentioned, it was a "look how silly people can be. I'm certainly not silly, sir!" I've honestly no idea how to get people to understand how irrelevant some authors are to actual academic discourse.
With whom are you studying at Leeds? That's a fascinating period, and one under-represented in the literature, from what I remember.
The weather reached a toasty -2 C today, by the way, with the wind making it feel -6 or so. Loverly. But I don't for a minute miss the seven hours of British winter sunlight. And now Rome is on...
Cheers,--Mrdarcey 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might say Wood. From what I remember, I found his text on the Merovingians amazingly useful. I won't pretend I found it as fun as Brown's stuff, but he is an outstanding historian. Preeminant, really, for your work I imagine. This newer text on the Missionary Life, which I haven't read, looks quite similar to my thesis. I'll have to pick it up. Did you ever read Richard Fletcher's 'The Barbarian Conversion', by the way? A very good popularised barnstorm of a thousand years of Church activity.
I think your analysis is spot on. There is a skeptic's urge to push all matters religious into neat, controlled and understandable boxes for whatever reason. But often I think skeptics miss the point: the kerygmatic word is a different sort of rationality, ontological and ethical, not epistemological. The recent Andrew Sullivan/Sam Harris dialogue has been a good example. In his need to qualify and debunk all things Christian, Harris ends up simply talking by Sullivan. Still, it is possible to talk about Jesus historically, responsibly and seperately from a faith statement. The argument that because someone is a Christian, he is disqualified from rational analysis is not only backwards, it is insulting. Backwards because it assumes faith proceeds and blinds knowledge, rather than knowledge advancing faith. Insulting because it homogenises the diversity of belief into the worst stereotypes. If I want to know about computers, I go to a computer scientist. If I want to learn about 1st century Judea, I go to an historian. Either might or might not be Christian. It simply doesn't affect the quality of the analysis. But I rant. And since I've already been somewhat pejoritively accused of being a "believer" for simply pointing out the marginal nature of the JS and Pagels, I think I might be a bit circumspect in where I enter. I'm not a specialist, and most of my books have been scattered from London to DC. I think I'll concentrate on finding one or two smaller articles and moving on from there. Is there still a raging controversy over the historical Jesus/jesus as myth thing?
Anyway, thanks for the input. And the Frerotte reminder. I'd managed to block the memory of that awful, awful game from my mind for some time, but that was a good laugh. Maybe because San Deigo just hired Turner to clean up after Marty. I actually feel for Tomlinson now.--Mrdarcey 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CC vs RCC issue in a nutshell and the history of "CC"

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

"1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.
2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.
3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.
4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.
5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.
6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)
7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. The lone way to achieve some type NPOV is by consensus non-Catholic POV 2 articles to Catholic POV 1..


Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?
The injustice is truly preposterous! "


Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.


Thank you very much for your support.Micael 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christianity

I haven't seen much editing from you (or anybody else for that matter) on the History of Christianity article in a few days. Are you done with it for now? If so, can I interest you in taking a look at History of Christian theology? It's a mess (yes, it's my fault, I created the article with my usual mish-mash style) and it could use the critical eye of someone like you. I would really appreciate it. --Richard 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippolytus

LC, you seem to have deleted referenced text of mine. Would you be so good as to retrieve that reference for me so I don't have to do it myself? It's the Hippolytus reference on purgatory. Could you paste it into talk:purgatory for me? Most editors would be too partisan to entertain such a request, but you seem to be a good sort of guy. Jonathan Tweet 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Aw, forget it. I would never have stumbled across Hippolytus and all these other wonderful early Christian resources if it weren't for your unrelenting defense of the purgatory page. Jonathan Tweet 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Your practice of deleting my referenced text has tried my patience, but not to the breaking point, and I appreciate the gesture. Jonathan Tweet 15:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a suggestion

My suggestion is, when you see only one side of a debate presented, try to find out the other side and add it, rather than delete - as long as the debate itself is on point and involving reliable respected sources.. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CC and RCC and Catholics in Mainland China

I wonder whether it would make sense to include in the article titled "Roman Catholic Church" reference to the fact that the Chinese Communist government outlawed the Catholic Church and established instead the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, as an acceptable institution free from foreign influence, i.e., from the Vatican.

Now there are perhaps millions of Catholics who are members of the state-sponsored Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, but are not in communion with Rome. And more millions of "underground" Catholics, living as best they can in communion with Rome, but subject to arrest and discrimination by the Chinese government.

One is struck by the parallels as one reads the history of the state-sponsored Churches in England from the 16th on, and in China during the 20th and 21st centuries: the state establishment of a religion; denunciation of "foreign" influence; state persecution of Catholics faithful to the Universal Church by way of arrests, forfeiture of property and position, and probably martyrdom (certainly in the case of England, and almost certainly in the case of China); the underground movement.

I would like to see the faithful, persecuted Catholics in China recognized in this article, and perhaps this could be done in a way that helps bring home the fact that union with the Vatican has been seen by Catholics throughout history, and the world over, as an element key to any truly Catholic identity.

Ivain 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salve, amice

Salve, amice, et gratias tibi pro verbis tuis!

Perhaps the point I raised is something to continue to ponder and work on . . . ad majorem gloriam Dei —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivain (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] documentary h.

Wellhausen and Kaumann are pretty clear that they think people wrote the Bible. JEPD refer to people or groups of people not different deities. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin texts

I agree fully with the omission of the supplementary information. If the three Councils are mentioned, it will be thought, unless the opposite is stated, that they listed the sacraments with exactly the same names and in the same order as the CCC. They did not. I think going into such details is neither necessary nor useful. I am at your disposal if I can help clear up something in this respect. Lima 10:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of the Councils differed from CCC in the names they gave to sacraments 2 and 5, and the other differed also in the order of the sacraments. Mentioning them could encourage "change(s) from time to time as per personal taste".
As for adding the Latin terms corresponding to the English names, again I do not think it either necessary or useful. Just as logical would be to give the Greek words from which the first three terms, whether in Latin or in English, are derived: Βαπτισμός, Χρίσμα and Εὐχαριστία. Lima 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synod of Whitby

It's really insulting to delete a section of criticism that several of us worked on for a while simply based on your own opinion. Don't you think? You're editing against the consensus we reached and you refuse to even discuss it on talk. Wjhonson 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. I jumped to conclusions. Wjhonson 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish is Catholic?

I don't usually comment on people's userboxes - diversity is one of Wikipedia's strengths, after all - but I was taken aback to see a userbox that says, "this user believes Irish is Catholic". Can you explain what you are implying by that? I feel very uncomfortable at seeing my country's flag attached to a statement that appears to be contrary to everything it represents. The symbolism of the flag is intended to be inclusive (the orange represents the Protestant community, the green the Catholic). I have seen the tragedy of recent Irish history too close to be casual about something like that; "Phrases make history here," as we say. Can I suggest you seriously consider removing this? Rbreen 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on my talk page. I understand what you are trying to say, and that's not what your wording currently says.
I don't think you have any idea of how politically explosive, within the Irish context, a statement like "Irish is Catholic" is. To anyone of my background and generation it very clearly implies, above everything else, that anyone who is not Catholic is not really Irish, in the same way that the phrase "Ulster is Protestant" was used to intimidate the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. I have friends and family members who would certainly interpret it that way, as an intimation that they do not really belong. This is a very real issue, even today, for some members of the Protestant and Jewish communities, and increasingly with the new ethnic minorities including Muslims and others.
This is not directly related to any one group - Sinn Fein would not subscribe to such a statement and Irish Republicanism has traditionally been inspired by the aim of Theobald Wolfe Tone to "to substitute the common name of Irishman, in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter" - a sentiment that is, officially at least, subscribed to both by the majority parties and the republican extremists. (The reality on the ground is not always so and there is clearly a violent sectarian element on both sides of the fence in Northern Ireland, and it is this I was referring to, and it is not that long ago that people were regularly being murdered for no other reason than they were Catholic or Protestant. You might like to read up on the Shankill Butchers to get an insight into what this means).
I can see that what you were actually trying to do was to speak against secularism and not in favour of sectarianism - but as you can see, it is very difficult to disentangle the two, in Ireland at least. We have had the experiment, from 1922, of a state that was clearly Catholic in character while attempting to encompass other faiths; this was not a success - not only was the result insular and restrictive (within living memory there was the absurd spectacle of the members of the government having to sit in their official cars outside the state funeral of a president (Douglas Hyde) because they were Catholic and he was a Protestant) and an economic disaster, but it contributed significantly to the situation in Northern Ireland. The constitutional statement that gave a special place to the Catholic Church was rejected by the people in a referendum in 1972, largely because it was a very obvious barrier to rapprochement with the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any clamour for its return.
I don't think any Irish historian would agree with your suggestion that "Ireland did not exist until after its Christianization" - that view seems to me simplistic, at least. Nor is it helpful to talk of 'forced protestantisation' since there was plenty of unforced conversion and settlement. If the adoption of Christianity allowed Ireland to have a wider influence, it was because it allowed access to a wider cultural arena, in the same way that accession to the European Union has done in our own time. I don't know how much you know about Irish history, especially modern Irish history - I am tempted to suggest that perhaps you have been seduced by the romantic notion of Ireland as a nation of 'Saints and Scholars' - but James Joyce expressed it well when he said "history is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake". Leaving history behind - and discovering a concept of Ireland that encompasses and welcomes diverse traditions and opinions - has been a painful but necessary part of the growing into maturity of the modern Irish state, recognising that the Catholic heritage has been only one facet of what it means to be Irish, and of what the flag represents.
I hadn't meant to write an essay here, and am not trying to start a debate. But it is important to understand both that words are weapons in Ireland, and that the view you have of Irish cultural identity is not shared by many people in Ireland itself, and that comes from bitter experience.
Rbreen 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] purfication and purgatory

The EOC says it has purification but not purgatory. Early Christians had purification before they had a segregated place for the punished elect (purgatory). Therefore purgatory is a take on purification. Purification is a broader concept of which purgatory is the RCC version. This perspective, of course, treats purgatory as a beliefs rather than as spiritual truth. Jonathan Tweet 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/s/User_talk%7ELostcaesar_fbf8.html"