From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png


I have updated the following article to correct:

  • The nailing of The 95 Thesis occurred in 1517 not 1514.
  • Protestant and Protestantism is not a denomination.
  • Removed Episcopal as a denomination. All most Episcopalians are in the Anglican Communion and Anglican is their denomination.
  • Created a list of denominations.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chemnitz (talk) approx. 17th March 2007

Why was the following information about the beginnings of Protestantism removed?
The founding of Protestantism has its origins in the European Reformation and its rejection of the false doctrines and malpractices within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of indulgences, the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic corruption, which even reached to the position of the Pope, devotion to Mary and the saints rather than true Christianity which is a matter of inward devotion to faith and God rather than outward symbols of ceremony and ritual, rejection of the authority of the Pope because the only true authority is the Bible which Protestants made available to all by publication of the Bible in the common language and universal education. The unnatural mandatory celibacy of the clergy (including monasticism) was also rejected.
I know we encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts. But surely that was overdoing it? WKirkwood 21:04, 6 January 2008 (EST)
It was a bit over the top with attacking Catholicism (although personally I agree with what you said). I've redone it, toning it down somewhat. I also removed a phrase that didn't flow well (there were two "rather than"s in the one thought), and broke the last bit off. I hope I haven't changed the meaning too much. And your edit comment ("copyedit") was somewhat incorrect. Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)