Talk:Petrine Primacy

I spent time researching as far as finding leading Protestant ministries who provided high quality content on the subject at hand. My work was promptly pretty much deleted and buried in the midst of links at the bottom of the page. This is unacceptable. In the Western World, we live in a pluralistic society when it comes to the various groups who claim to be a part of Christendom.

In addition, the USA is very pro-Israel and Jewish people face little anti-semitism compared to many countries.

Even American atheists admit they face very little discrimination in the USA despite it being a religious country compared to many Western nations (see: Persecution of atheists).

In short, in the West we pretty live in a society where the various religious camps attempt to compete on merit and not via censorship (with the exception of evolutionism being pushed in the public schools, etc.).

The reason I don't say we live in a completely pluralistic society when it comes to religion, is that a lot of Americans/Europeans don't want Muslim immigrants post 9/11, the Paris terrorist attacks, etc.

I locked the article due to my material being pretty much deleted and I don't want to get into an edit war.Conservative (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

If find it interesting that only the Protestant view was deleted, while the RCC view (which is even more massive) went untouched. There are many evangelical Protestant editors here, and religious content, thus, shouldn't be biased one way or another (unlike what I've seen here and in other articles). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

As a gesture of goodwill, I removed the lock on the article.Conservative (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

Appreciate that, Conservative. As the original contributor I will answer the complaint that only the Protestant view was deleted, leaving only a "massive" RCC content. In the originally composed Section on Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18 which compactly reviews and summarizes contradictory and conflicting interpretations (exegesis) there was, and is again, abundant representation of Protestant views and conflicting linguistic scholarship which I eagerly included in my original contribution of this article for "balanced reporting"—Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Strong's Greek Dictionary, experts in linguistics, Christian history, pro and con apologetists' points, now explicitly highlighted with boldface. Those points were drawn from the "massive" list of Protestant and Orthodox links under External links along with the Catholic links. Moreover, it is rare that whole articles, unabridged, are imported into articles on Conservapedia, as was done here with Matt Slick's CARM article and the article from Ligonier Ministries; and yet the Section on Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy posted at the same time featured only an external link to Primacy and Unity in Orthodox ecclesiology, not the text itself copied whole, an article which was already linked under External links. I have seen plenty of articles on various topics which have headings and only external links posted under them in place of whole content or summarization of content of topic, which made access to the material convenient. The copy and pasting of the two whole Protestant articles entire only repeated info that was already covered in the article, making the whole text of them an unnecessary redundancy. It wasn't buried. So I adapted the utility of explicitly citing the Protestant articles in particular under the Protestant view of Petrine Primacy, already listed in the External links, emphasizing their titles with boldface; and did the same for Orthodoxy articles. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

1990's guy — After my discussion immediately above I checked the article and found the same redundant material posted again. I reverted the reverting change with the edit summary explanation "I read both the Matt Slick Carm article and the Ligonier Ministries article - unless Conservative is in fact Matt Slick and the contributor of the Ligonier Ministries article, he did not write them, they were merely copied and pasted into this article." --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

Text has more impact than links. The farther people go down any web page, the less readers you generally have.Conservative (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

I said I was not going to get into an edit war. Yet, one erupted even though I gave fair warning. The page is locked now. Conservative (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

The only whole article I quoted was the short two paragraph article at Bible.org. For the other articles I quoted, I did enough quoting to get the main point across, but no more.Conservative (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

And given that I just created an article on Bible.org and linked to it from Conservapedia's Bible article, I am guessing I will bring them plenty of traffic in return for quoting their entire 2 paragraph article. That is a pretty good deal for Bible.org.Conservative (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2019 (EDT)