1,590
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 53:
Line 53: − + − + − +
→Edits to Virgin Birth: fix my indentation
::::::Calm down, Nate! According to the article as it stands now, it reads: "Many Protestants identify Catholics as worshippers of Mary. Catholics vigorously deny that they worship any being but God." which seems to present both the Protestant ''and'' the Catholic view equally. This phrase indicates that Protestants believe something about Catholics, and that Catholics deny that Protestant belief (in other words, they do not hold that belief to be true). What's the problem here? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:10, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::Calm down, Nate! According to the article as it stands now, it reads: "Many Protestants identify Catholics as worshippers of Mary. Catholics vigorously deny that they worship any being but God." which seems to present both the Protestant ''and'' the Catholic view equally. This phrase indicates that Protestants believe something about Catholics, and that Catholics deny that Protestant belief (in other words, they do not hold that belief to be true). What's the problem here? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:10, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::Stating flatly that Catholics worship Mary. It's false. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:22, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::Stating flatly that Catholics worship Mary. It's false. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:22, 31 December 2010 (EST)
The only thing that sentence states flatly is that Protestants ''identify'' Catholics as worshiping Mary. It's merely an attribution of a belief. Pardon my metaphor, but red-green colorblind people identify red as a grayish color, but stating that "People with red-green colorblindness identify red/green as gray" is ''clearly not'' stating flatly that red/green are the same color as gray. Does that make sense? The sentence appears very straightforward to me. If you still have a problem with it, what alternative do you propose? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:27, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::The only thing that sentence states flatly is that Protestants ''identify'' Catholics as worshiping Mary. It's merely an attribution of a belief. Pardon my metaphor, but red-green colorblind people identify red as a grayish color, but stating that "People with red-green colorblindness identify red/green as gray" is ''clearly not'' stating flatly that red/green are the same color as gray. Does that make sense? The sentence appears very straightforward to me. If you still have a problem with it, what alternative do you propose? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:27, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::I looked at the article. It's fair about the dispute Reform theology people have with Catholic faith. But the claim on this page that Catholics worship Mary is false. That's the only thing I was talking about. Honestly you really missed my point unless I was unclear about referring directly to the statement Wycliffe made on this page. The article is Ok and now that I see it I will make a note to work on it to include more material explaining the Catholic perspective. Thanks. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:28, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::"I looked at the article. It's fair about the dispute Reform theology people have with Catholic faith. But the claim on this page that Catholics worship Mary is false. That's the only thing I was talking about. Honestly you really missed my point unless I was unclear about referring directly to the statement Wycliffe made on this page. The article is Ok and now that I see it I will make a note to work on it to include more material explaining the Catholic perspective. Thanks. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:28, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::I assumed you would be referring to the article itself, since if a claim is made on a talk page ''but isn't presented in any way in the article'' (which you seem to agree that it's not) then it's irrelevant. Even on this page, Wycliffe states that it is still a point of dispute. Is there anything more you want? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:34, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::"I assumed you would be referring to the article itself, since if a claim is made on a talk page ''but isn't presented in any way in the article'' (which you seem to agree that it's not) then it's irrelevant. Even on this page, Wycliffe states that it is still a point of dispute. Is there anything more you want? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:34, 31 December 2010 (EST)