249
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + +
Talk:Essay:Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical (view source)
Revision as of 22:55, January 9, 2017
, 22:55, January 9, 2017On the source, ''The Two Babylons''
::I decided to address the issue with an historically informed article instead, treating the ''source'' of the contributing author's criticism, Alexander Hislop's ''The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife'' (1853,1858,1916). See [[''The Two Babylons'']]. Charging the Catholic Church with being Unbiblical is a legitimate representation of the position of all anti-Catholic churches and groups. The move you suggest is probably unnecessary, and moreover it would seriously misrepresent the original contributor's intention, since it is the ''whole'' of the Catholic Church that is the topic here, and not simply the several individual elements of its doctrine which are presented here as [[Evidence|evidential]] indications or marks of the character of the whole. See my article [[Great Apostasy]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (EST)
::I decided to address the issue with an historically informed article instead, treating the ''source'' of the contributing author's criticism, Alexander Hislop's ''The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife'' (1853,1858,1916). See [[''The Two Babylons'']]. Charging the Catholic Church with being Unbiblical is a legitimate representation of the position of all anti-Catholic churches and groups. The move you suggest is probably unnecessary, and moreover it would seriously misrepresent the original contributor's intention, since it is the ''whole'' of the Catholic Church that is the topic here, and not simply the several individual elements of its doctrine which are presented here as [[Evidence|evidential]] indications or marks of the character of the whole. See my article [[Great Apostasy]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (EST)
It does seem that ''The Two Babylons'' is, at best, unreliable. I read the article rebutting it, and it has convinced me of this. I'm sure the book must contain some degree of truth, however. It is very unlikely that everything in it is completely false. Note, for example, how the CRI article disproves the shape of the Eucharist cookie as a disk, but not that such a practice was done, or that transubstantiation was believed, or anything else about the point, for that matter. I do not know the accuracy of these. I have emailed Chick Publications, which not only sells the book, but uses it as a source for many of its claims. We'll see what they have to say. Rather than removing points based on the book entirely, I've noted in the footnotes that I cannot guarantee, and that I doubt, the accuracy of anything from the book. If anybody thinks this is still bad, they may remove the point entirely. I'm still working on adding sources to all points that require sources. --[[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 17:55, 9 January 2017 (EST)