Changes

::::::Curiously enough I had come back to propose what you have suggested above. The revised Protestant section is a great improvement as it now stands, over what was contributed before. I read it. It's much better balanced. As far as I am concerned regarding balance it reads overall very satisfactory. Orthodox info was covered in the first portion of the article, but the separate section at the bottom could include more—particularly, I suggest, if it includes the historical phases (episodes) of each of the significant, increasing steps of claims of jurisdictional and doctrinal authority barely touched upon by me at the beginning, under the table of contents.

::::::Curiously enough I had come back to propose what you have suggested above. The revised Protestant section is a great improvement as it now stands, over what was contributed before. I read it. It's much better balanced. As far as I am concerned regarding balance it reads overall very satisfactory. Orthodox info was covered in the first portion of the article, but the separate section at the bottom could include more—particularly, I suggest, if it includes the historical phases (episodes) of each of the significant, increasing steps of claims of jurisdictional and doctrinal authority barely touched upon by me at the beginning, under the table of contents.

::::::I am somewhat taken aback by your statement "not create a monster sized Catholic section". I am not a Catholic apologist. I have a fundamentalist background which includes evaluating doctrines per ''sola scriptura'' and I have never lost respect for that approach. If I am anything here on Conservapedia, I am an apologist for whole scripture context. Where discussions of doctrine come up, as especially in this article, I critique doctrinal positions on how closely they compare with the whole (Protestant canon) of the Bible itself. Where there are contradictions of scripture, I point them out. Where commentaries and apologists, ''and especially '''translations''''',  contradict the original languages and grammar, I emphatically point that out. And where they contradict themselves, I point that out. If on this basis a denominational stand is fundamentally at odds with the Bible and its historically consistent documented Christian interpretation of over more than a thousand years—especially when that ancient lineage of interpretation goes back all the way unchanged to the second century—I will point that out. That's why I have sometimes included the statement, "It is better to adjust our understanding to the scriptures, than to adjust the scriptures to our understanding". People leave churches and denominations when they find their church's doctrine as preached from the pulpit and set forth in their literature is not supported by the Bible. (For example, as stated in the ''Conservpedia'' article [[Cafeteria Christianity]].) My knowledge of history and of the Bible and my belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and salvation through Him alone prompted me to become Catholic. But I am not a Catholic apologist. If anything, I support Christian apologetics, those articles and literature that are well-informed, not riddled with [[specious reasoning]], are not academically [[Ignorance|ignorant]], and not [[polemic]]al. Where they have "blind spots" because of [[confirmation bias]], and their material is relevant to the discussion in an article as being a "howling" error, I will point that out, usually indirectly, by citing contrasting sources, and allowing the readers themselves to see the obvious inconsistency without any editorializing from me. That is usually enough. In some cases I point out that there is a discrepancy, and with few very justified exceptions, will state unequivocally that it makes no sense and that it clearly violates the Bible as a whole and will even go to the trouble of listing an abundance of passages which demonstrate the consistent biblical doctrine being contradicted, and spend a lot of energy getting the links to those passages and checking them.

::::::I am somewhat taken aback by your statement "not create a monster sized Catholic section". I am not a Catholic apologist. I have a fundamentalist background which includes evaluating doctrines per ''sola scriptura'' and I have never lost respect for that approach. If I am anything here on Conservapedia, I am an apologist for whole scripture context. Where discussions of doctrine come up, as especially in this article, I critique doctrinal positions on how closely they compare with the whole (Protestant canon) of the Bible itself. Where there are contradictions of scripture, I point them out. Where commentaries and apologists, ''and especially '''translations''''',  contradict the original languages and grammar, I emphatically point that out. And where they contradict themselves, I point that out. If on this basis a denominational stand is fundamentally at odds with the Bible and its historically consistent documented Christian interpretation of over more than a thousand years—especially when that ancient lineage of interpretation goes back all the way unchanged to the second century—I will point that out. That's why I have sometimes included the statement, "It is better to adjust our understanding to the scriptures, than to adjust the scriptures to our understanding". People leave churches and denominations when they find their church's doctrine as preached from the pulpit and set forth in their literature is not supported by the Bible. (For example, as stated in the ''Conservpedia'' article [[Cafeteria Christianity]].) My knowledge of history and of the Bible and my belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and salvation through Him alone prompted me to become Catholic. But I am not a Catholic apologist. If anything, I support Christian apologetics, those articles and literature that are well-informed, not riddled with [[specious reasoning]], are not academically [[Ignorance|ignorant]], and not [[polemic]]al. Where they have "blind spots" because of [[confirmation bias]], and their material is relevant to the discussion in an article as being a "howling" error, I will point that out, usually indirectly, by citing contrasting sources, and allowing the readers themselves to see the obvious inconsistency without any editorializing from me. That is usually enough. In some cases (as with [[Calvinism]]) I point out that there is a discrepancy, and with a few, very justifiable, exceptions, I will state unequivocally that it makes no sense and that it clearly violates the Bible as a whole and will even go to the trouble of listing an abundance of passages which demonstrate the consistent biblical doctrine being contradicted, and spend a lot of energy getting the links to those passages and checking them.

:::::Which brings me to the fact that when the disruption originally arose I had not yet gotten around to finally checking all the links I had put in this article. Turns out that the definition of '''auctoritas''' I thought would be found on two online dictionary sites did not exist. I need to find another resource explaining its meaning. Second, and finally, I had intended to include the inconsistent contradiction of the biblehub.com article on Strong's number G4074 Πέτρος, in particular the fact that on the same page that says that "Petros" is a large rock, boulder, massive rock equal to G4073 "petra", a large rock, boulder, cliff, ''on the same page'' the scholar Abbot-Smith is cited, one of the erroneous sources that state that Petros is a "pebble" or small rock along a pathway that can be picked up and thrown by hand. I have found (as did some of the sources quoted by Conservative in the article) that this contradicts the expertise of established Greek linguists over the past 2 centuries! I wanted to emphasize that this error has been cited by apologists who oppose Petrine Primacy, and that they cannot successfully use this error as a supportive factor in defense of their apologetic against Catholicism. They can in fact use other legitimate factors in their interpretive argument—its just that this one has no substance. It is in fact a [[falsehood]], even if the apologist never intended to [[lie]] (and I don't normally believe they do, since almost all of them are devout Christians, its just that they are simply unaware of an error they thought was a reliable fact). I can only finish making these corrections if the article is unlocked. I "promise to be a good boy" and not "ruin" the Protestant section, with 1990's guy refereeing the game, if it is left unlocked. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:56, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

::::::Which brings me to the fact that when the disruption originally arose I had not yet gotten around to finally checking all the links I had put in this article. Turns out that the definition of '''auctoritas''' I thought would be found on two online dictionary sites did not exist. I need to find another resource explaining its meaning. Second, and finally, I had intended to include the inconsistent contradiction of the biblehub.com article on Strong's number G4074 Πέτρος, in particular the fact that on the same page that says that "Petros" is a large rock, boulder, massive rock equal to G4073 "petra", a large rock, boulder, cliff, ''on the same page'' the scholar Abbot-Smith is cited, one of the erroneous sources that state that Petros is a "pebble" or small rock along a pathway that can be picked up and thrown by hand. I have found (as did some of the sources quoted by Conservative in the article) that this contradicts the expertise of established Greek linguists over the past 2 centuries! I wanted to emphasize that this error has been cited by apologists who oppose Petrine Primacy, and that they cannot successfully use this error as a supportive factor in defense of their apologetic against Catholicism. They can in fact use other legitimate factors in their interpretive argument—its just that this one has no substance. It is in fact a [[falsehood]], even if the apologist never intended to [[lie]] (and I don't normally believe they do, since almost all of them are devout Christians, its just that they are simply unaware of an error they thought was a reliable fact). I can only finish making these corrections if the article is unlocked. I "promise to be a good boy" and not "ruin" the Protestant section, with 1990's guy refereeing the game, if it is left unlocked. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:56, 15 August 2019 (EDT)