Talk:Christianity/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions about Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

→

Particular Judgement

Rrand, I'm reverting your edit. Christians do not begin believing things when a bull defines it. Bulls and the like are issued because they are already widely believed. The wording of your edit is patently false, and you would be hard pressed to find a RS that supported what it actually says. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To help with the papal bull: Despite what you may think of Roman Catholic doctrine, the term papal bull actually refers to a solemn edict issued by the pope to grant privileges or make instructions known. The name "bull" comes from the bulla, a special lead seal that authenticated the document an official. At first the seal had only a written inscription reading "PAPA" on one side and "LEONIS" on the other, but later seals depicted a picture of the heads of Saints Peter and Paul. Papal bulls were always delivered open, with the seals attached to the bottom of the single sheet that was written on only on one side. Papal bulls descended from Roman Imperial documents, and thus were written in the Roman style on papyrus, until the 11th century, when parchment began to be used. Over the centuries an elaborate set of symbolic formatting developed for the bulls, which had special, carefully defined methods for recording the date and the pope's name and other information. Anathasius (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that whole line is unsourced. So it doesn't belong there. This is from Wikipedia, Particular Judgment:

In 1336, Pope Benedict XII (1334-1342) issued the Bull "Benedictus Deus" teaching that souls receive immediately after death their reward or punishment, without waiting for reunion with the body in the resurrection of the dead. This was in contrast to his predecessor, Pope John XXII (1316-1334), who had personally held, while stating that theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in the matter, a view similar to the usual understanding of particular judgment in the Eastern Orthodox Church.[11]

Are you positive it's unsupported?--Rrand (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. If you read the ref for what you got from Particular Judgment, you'll see that befor his death John XXII recanted of the former position, and at his death held that there is a beholding of the Beatific Vision before the general judgement. This was prior to Benedictus Deus. It is analogous to saying no-one believed in the Immaculate Conception until 1854. There is no basis in what you've provided for saying that after 1336 most Christians believed in the particular judgement. And it is such a specific statement, it would be rather hard to find a RS that says it point blank. Again, in conclusion, yes I am positive it's unsupported. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that when John XXII was alive most Christians views contradicted his? And by the way, can I get other opinions? Please see the recent reversion by Carl.bunderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrand (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back. Let me think on this a bit.--Rrand (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In Catholic terms, how do you say that this was widely believed, but became official doctrine in 1336, when Pope Benedict XII (1334-1342) issued the Bull "Benedictus Deus"?--Rrand (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"So what you're telling me is that when John XXII was alive most Christians views contradicted his?"

That's exactly what happened. When John voiced his opinion (not in a bull or encyclica but various sermons) that the beatific vision for the saints (i.e. humans who had died in the state of grace and with no more penance to do in purgatory) would be not come immediately but be delayed for a while - and that was what he said, not some general things about particular or universal judgement - it was a major scandal in the church. John's opponents (Spritualist Franciscans, Emperor Louis) used this heresy against him. Ultimately John recanted. But as the issue had flared up, his successor did confirm the Catholic faith on the matter once more in the bull you referred to. Maybe you should also read the references employed in the articles you cite. Or all of the article, as just two paragraphs above, the article attributes the view allegedly new in 1336 to the Summa Theologiae. Or note the views of Hippolytus, Tertullian and Augustinus.

Private opinions, even of scholars or popes, are not the same as the doctrine of the church. John did not even try to proclaim it as such, he merely tried to allow himself to hold that view - with little success however.

You cannot deduce from the fact that a random bull taught some doctrine that this was the first time this was taught. You only can deduce that probably someone contradicted it (but even that can be a fallacy, consider the thought of deducing from the present pope's first encyclica that some disputed the essentiality of love.)

Hence, Carl's revert was absolutely correct. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am moving this to a seprate section to focus the discussion on this very issue, untainted by the silly attacks made above. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it was a silly argument. :) I did read the references after Carl pointed them out. Forgive me, but I am not familiar with Catholic Doctrine. Unfortunately, due to the standards proposed on this Wikipedia entry, I am finding it an extremely complex matter to clarify even a simple uncited statement. I don't think that anybody intended to make it difficult, but it is. First there is the matter of starting with the Catholic views and then working our way out from there. That is difficult for someone who is not Catholic to do. Then there is the Wikipedia standard of adding material, but not deleting it. It may seem trivial, but I don't really understand the necessity that the line should read "Most Christians" instead of "Catholics" (or some variation), which in my opinion would be much clearer to the reader. As I'm in the minority on the matter, the only option I can think of is to add something Catholic to the statement. Do you see my dilemma? Can anybody help a WP noob out as to how to proceed?--Rrand (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Rrand, I am not sure I can help, but I will attempt to do so. The issue is understanding what is the majority position and as a minority not being discomforted being in the minority. Just because your position is not the majority opinion does not make it correct, it just means it is a minority position. I tend to lean away from identifying things as Catholic; I think the correct term would be catholic (small "c"), but if we did that we would confuse those who do not understand the distinction being made. We try to use terms like most, etc. to describe a majority position and then follow it with qualifications for significant minority positions. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rrand, if it is difficult, then please be more cautious in addin things.

It doesn't say "Catholics" because not merely Catholics believe that. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm, Please don't delve into orthography. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I think we should avoid words like 'most'. Who is 'most'? One has to do a complete inventory of the beliefs of everyone they know to find out they are in the minority. And then maybe they are in the majority but are ignorant of this one fact? Who knows? 'Who' is the question. If 'most' here implies catholics, then please say catholics, or those who follow catholic doctrines, etc. What I think you just said is that I am uncomfortable being in the minority. No I am not. I am in the lowest minority, as I don't follow any one church. I am probably a protestant who believes works are required. What I am trying to say is that one must know they are in the minority or majority before they can make sense of the questionable statement. In addition, if most Christians are catholic, and it is going to be used that way, then it should be said right from the onset of this article. "Most Christians are catholic and so the focus of this entry is on catholic doctrine (beliefs?), and as such we follow it with significant minority positions." I believe in full disclosure with the general public, not reader beware, and if I am in the minority on that viewpoint, I apologize. Sorry this is so long.--Rrand (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a logical proposal. Most will generally connote Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, all of the other catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and all others in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. If we named every group it would get pretty lengthy. It is difficult when separating between mainstream groups. It is easy when discussing the doctrines the differ between Catholics and Mormons or Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses, but becomes more cumbersome when it is between groups of Protestants that differ from Catholic doctrine. I am speaking as one with a minority position, so I think we are on the same side. Do you have a suggestion rather than attempting to identify all that have specific beliefs? One might be to reference those with differing ideas if it is a significant minority position.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Rrand, when you characterize the reasoning as "Most Christians are Catholic and hence we say "most" when we should be clear in saying in Catholics" - if merely Catholics believed that (like e.g. the Immaculate Conception of Mary) you'd be correct. But things aren't that way - most Christians, including a bulk of Catholics, believe in particular judgement and hence the article states this.

Most Christians means exactly what it says - most Christians. Catholics form the largest group of course but they alone would not justify saying "most Christians".

Storm, what's the "logical proposal" as I see none.

What we do in this article is relate the positions of most Christians, of mainstream Christianity. We also note notable (pardon the tautology) differences. But we cannot give the views of every group. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was stating, not very clearly, that using "most" is the best term. More importantly, I was advocating that we focus on the teachings of the majority. We also provide significant minority positions. To clarify further, by significant I meant that we cannot cover the fringes of the topic; there are just too many diverse teachings from very small groups. I think we are saying the same thing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My efforts to highlight that the Eastern Orthodox Church also shares the opinion of the Catholics is in vain, clearly. Its not just CatholicsTourskin (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Tourskin.

I can only strongly object to Ambrosius' proposed change: this article is about Christianity in general and aims at summarizing what Christians commonly believe. It also notes major disagreements but the starting point is the agreement of the Christian mainstream. Hence a passage about Catholic eschatology has no business in being placed where Ambrosius placed it, no matter how well sourced it is.

The passage that fits in that place is what "most Christians believe" - this cannot and will not be changed into what Catholics believe, especially since the Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants agree on the substantial note. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Most Christians believe

Most Christians believe (and other allegations) require verification. To argue, that Catholics + East Ortho = 66% = "most" is really not sufficient in this context. The proof of the pudding is verification, that they actually believe this. Maybe they are expected to believe, but that would to be verified as well. It is a quantum jump from the theology of the Catholic & Orthodox Churches to the actual beliefs of most Christians. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. We are incapable of stating what individuals believe and should always make statements about what churches teach or identify the doctrine of churches. In doing so we not only are able to easily reference the statements, but we more accurately state what is supported by RS. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank's I fully agree. It is theoretically possible to cite Gallup polls, but rewording is the better way. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that what churches teach is quite as relevant to article title tho. There are a lot of polls out there but many many are small polls. When it comes to creeds some of the beliefs are self defining but I agree on salvation universalism etc it ain't necessarily so. --BozMo talk 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that people are too stupid to know what "they are suppose to believe", which is in itself a fallacy and unverifiable. We can only assume that Catholics are Catholics, Protestants are Protestants. Now then, even if we did assume that a lot of Christians were ignorant, that would not mean that the Catholico-Orthodox view would somehow end up in the minority because I imagine Protestant Churches as well as Catholic and Orthodox Churches to suffer an equal percent ignorance in their flocks - and in the Middle East were Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is an overwhelming majority, people are far more connected with their religion. You are basically replacing one assumption for another, and I am refuting yours, but you have yet to refute mine. Tourskin (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what exactly do you think happens in a Catholic Church, other than for the Priest to highlight the connections between Christian life, the Bible and theology, as in all Churches, I imagine?Tourskin (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I will restrict myself here to the issue of whether we should say "most Christians believe".

Sure noone can look into anyone's heart or do polls about individuals but the assumption that a member of a church believes in that church's doctrinal points is not unreasonable.

"Most Christian churches" is problematic, as the most literal meaning of this is out all Christian churches (each counting as one) most churches teach ... But that places the RCC with a billion members en par with New Horizons Church with perhabs a few hundred. If we stick to the "churches teach" it must be reworded to make it clear that we are counting heads, not churches.

Finally, let me emphasize again that, though some editors used it as a short hand, the argument is not merely "Catholic + Orthodox = 66% = most". This equation is of course important but it is also true (though right now lacking a source) that many Protestants believe in particular judgement too, pushing this way beyong the 66% mark. In other words, most Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Str, do you have a suggestion. I think we all understand the need for references and I did not think of your point, which would abnormally skew the result when counting each church. Does anyone see an easy way to word this? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My first choice would be to say "Most Christians believe", possibly ammended into "Most Christians - Catholics, Orthodox and many (whatever qualification needed) Protestants - believe".

A lesser alternative would be to say something like "The bulk of Christian churches teach.

But I do favour the former suggestion. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prevalent among Christian belief is that..."Tourskin (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that too. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin's proposal would be the easiest to reference. Anyone else? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Str, "Most Christian churches" is a problem, unless a source specifically says that. I think "Prevalent among Christian belief..." is fine, but I think "Most Christians believe" has nothing wrong with it and is preferable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that people are too stupid to know what "they are suppose to believe", which is in itself a fallacy and unverifiable. We can only assume that Catholics are Catholics, Protestants are Protestants. It's not that easy, as the Catholic Church found out in its teachings on birth control.:-)) We should either name and reference the (major) churches, which hold this view or use "Prevalent among Christian teaching (or belief) is ... "with references of course. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's not that easy, as the Catholic Church found out in its teachings on birth control.:-))"

That's totally irrelevant. :-(

Without contrary evidence, we must assume that the bulk of church members agree with their church's doctrine. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I float "The majority of Christians are taught to believe" for consideration? This deals with Ambrosius's issue of people not believing what their churches tell them, doesn't make Str1977's assumption (Str's words) that they do, does the maths correctly (i.e. small churches are treated as such in the sums, not equated with big ones), and more accurately reflects what we actually know (i.e. we know what the majority of the world's Christians arew taught to believe, but we don't know what they actually believe ... except where we do, of course, as a result of polls etc., but in those cases we CAN use "Most Christians believe" with a clean conscience). SP-KP (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable as it is needlessly complicated and sneaks in POVs of their own kind. Also, the majority is of no consequence here, where we deal with Christianity in general, i.e. with the large bulk of Christians. And of course, it is what Christians believe that matters. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, I don't disagree with you that what Christians believe is important, and where we can find reliable sources which tell us what Christian's believe, we can use those to make statements about this with authority - I don't think anyone is disputing this. What's being discussed here are those situations where we don't know what (the majority of / most / generally) Christians believe, because there just isn't the information available. It would be a shame not to be able to say anything in those situations, or to overstate the case and say "... Christians believe" when we don't know that to be the case. Can you tell me a bit more anout why you think this option is "unnecessarily complicated" and what the POVs that it "sneaks in" are? I'm not sure I understand your second sentence - I thought we WERE talking about what the what "the majority of / most / in general" Christians believe - can you have another go at explaining the point you're trying to make in that sentence? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"because there just isn't the information available."

But there is enough information avaiable. We know the various churches' doctrinal positions on this matter and in contrast to other issues we have nothing about a supposed, hypothetical non-acceptance by the believers. Particular judgement happens to be one of the most widely held beliefs, even among theologically "liberal" Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's not that easy, as the Catholic Church found out in its teachings on birth control.:-))"

That's totally irrelevant. :-( Without contrary evidence, we must assume that the bulkof church members agree with their church's doctrine. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What a contradiction! More than 75% of U.S. Catholics disagree with Church doctrine on birth control and want change according to a recent Gallup poll ^[1] what contrary evidence is needed to show that Church members do not automatically agree with their Church's doctrine?

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You can say anything you want, as long as you back it up. It's easy to verify, what Churches teach. It is difficult to verify, what a majority of Christians believe. Should you be able to, good for you! That's the only issue here --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Every Catholic is required to believe and assent to every teaching of the Catholic Church and this includes all of it's doctrines.Anathasius (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No.

Rather Every Catholic is "required" to believe and assent to every dogma of the Roman Catholic Church--

and only part of its doctrine is also dogma,

and for that matter, only part of its "teaching" is also doctrine.

Even if they are "required" to believe a dogma, it would still need to be shown that they do actually believe that dogma.

For starters, many a Catholic will not even know any given dogma-- even if they are "required" to believe it.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. We are not talking about birth control but about particular judgement! Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply word it specifically, writing that "the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox churches teach that..." This way, you avoid the pitfall of having to interpret what "most Christians" actually means, both individually and collectively. fishhead64 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not what this article is all about. We can specify that "most christians" here means Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants", but the main thrust of the entire article is what most Christians believe. That has already been explained and it would be profitable if people actually read the discussion before posting the same stuff over and over again. Solutions are never simple. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the relevance of US Catholic's opinion on the Church's teaching on contraception has limited relevance. It provides an example of where Catholics do not believe what the Church has taught them is the path of Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, it cannot be used to extrapolate what Catholics believe in particular judgment because particular judgement is a far less controversial doctrine than is contraception - you see, contraception views of the RCC stop people from having sex everyday, but particular judgment is an issue of theology, of the afterlife, not of the life on earth. I believe that many Protestants with their own varied opinions on contraception and abortion do not agree with their church's stances, whatever those stances are. You only have to look at Anglican Protestant views on gay priests, married priests, woman priests, married gay priests and woman bishops to find out that there is very little common ground in which a majority of Protestants agree on these issues. I can go on and on but you see the stupidity of talking about earthly issues in comparison with theological issues? Tourskin (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, there is evidence that most Christians belong to a denomination of Christianity that believes in particular judgment. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that these Christians do not accept the theology of their Church. They may not accept contraception views, or views on gay priests or married ga priests, but as I have shown already, sexual matters are a far off topic from theological matters.

Listing every Church would be tiresome, because I imagine that Catholics and Orthodox are not alone in their belief. Tourskin (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, as I said before, we could amend "most Christians" by "Catholics, Orthodox and many/most Protestants" - but the risk is that after that a "many Protestants" discussion would ensue.

I appreciate this issue getting some consideration here. As I have not been a regular editor, naturally I will defer my opinion to whatever you experts decide. However, I would like to reintroduce the idea of full disclosure on the policies that are used to create this page. Mainly, that there are so many beliefs that it was deemed necessary to make it Catholic-centric as the Church makes up the majority of Christians and have the richest history. That those views are then followed by prevalent challenging or contradictory views. It can certainly be carefully worded so as not to invoke criticism. Then maybe people will have a firm context to draw upon when they come across these types of generalized statements. Just a thought.--Rrand (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not Catholic-centric (apart maybe from the history, which is western centric and hence prior to 1500 exclusively Catholic) hence the whole argument falls apart. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts are more than appreciated Rrand, as is your courtesy. I have suggested the wording "Prevalent among Christians is the belief in Particular judgment", which avoids the "most" issue. Tourskin (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "Prevalent among Christians is the the beleif...", but to play devil's advocate...how does it avoid the "most" issue? The words mean substantially the same thing. If something prevails, it is what "wins", or what is in the majority, is it not? Carl.bunderson 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all because Wikipedia is a semantic argument masquerading as an encyclopedia :) fishhead64 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it goes to show that such a pseudo-acceptance of a similar statement means that it is not the verifiability of the content but the wording that my opponents are worried about. I continue to receive no solid argument against the words "most christians", yet now people refuse accept this compromise, despite a lack of a non-fallacious response from the other end? It has yet to be dis-proven that most Christians believe in particular judgment. Choose the poison pill: "most" or "prevalent" - either way, it is more verifiable than not, and relevant to this article. Tourskin (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my argument above, which I thought was pretty solid, was that some people reading it won't know who "most" is. What good is a word if people don't know what it means? On top of that, when people think of "most Christians" I think they look at most of the Christians they are surrounded by. (Yes, I know it's wrong and they shouldn't think that way.) Statistics don't automatically come to mind. But like I said, I'll leave it up to you guys. The strange thing is, I googled "Most Christians are Catholic" hoping to cite a reference but there's only 8 unreliable sources. So probably the best thing to do is to just cite Lazarus and Dives which says "Most Christians believe in Particular Judgment..." and be done with it. :-) --Rrand (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rrand, you don't need a citation - basic math is all - there 1.1 billion Catholics, there are 0.25 billion Orthodox. There are 1.35 billion Catholico-Orthodox Christians. There are 2.1 billion Christians tota.

1.35 billion

2.1 billion total

1.35 out of 2.1 is 64%. Tourskin (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't get a RS for "Most Christians are Catholic" because it happens to be inaccurate. There are basically one billion Catholics out of two billion Christians, hence 50% which is not "most" but merely a majority. But that doesn't need to concern us here.

50% of Catholics is most of the Christians. Why because there is not another Christian Church that even comes close to the amount of Catholics in the world. In the USA the second biggest church is Catholics that don't go to Mass any more. After this comes the Southern Baptists. Quite a bit down the line. Yes, Catholics is the "most".Anathasius (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We know which churches believe in particular judgement: RCC, EOC and many Protestant denominations. And then we can do the maths. The result is that most Christians believe in particular judgement. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual matters are a far off topic from theological matters

Not really! The Catholic Church teaches thatmatrimony is a sacrament, and that in the act of marriage, the persons involved form a partnership with God in the creation of new life. (Husband and wife create the material basis and God the soul of the new person. This is the very basis for Catholic teachings on sexual behavior. Is this really far off from theological matters? The point being that many do not share or even understand this theology. Bean-counting does not tell us, what people actually believe. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What has the Catholic conception of matrimony got to do with this anyway? Contraception is a sexual thing, the afterlife is not a sexual thing. Ambrosius, you are taking too many tangents with this argument, making illogical connections between loosely related material to prove yet another irrelevant point. Basically, your whole argument against using "most christians" is underpinned by:

the belief that because 75% of Catholics in the US (not Catholics in developing countries which experience pop. growth), that because 55 million Catholics in the US do not agree with contraception views, that we must then doubt whether or not all the remaining 1.34 billion Catholics and Orthodox agree with Church theology, just because of this tenuous link:

contraception -> sex -> marriage -> matrimony -> theology - so then using a contraception example is suppose to be valid by these connections? To everyone else, are we done tearing apart Ambrosius' argument, and begin implementing the agreed edits? As far as I am hearing, "prevalent" is a more favorable word despite its similarities with "most". Tourskin (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, whilst owning your argument is fun, it is getting tiring. What makes me laugh is what you said, "Bean-counting does not tell us, what people actually believe. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" - by listing the numbers 75% you are the one doing bean counting too. Exactly what part of your argument that most Christians do not believe in particular judgment is verifiable? The assumption that Christians believe in the Church that they belong to is far more verifiable than the assumption that they do not. Otherwise, if Catholics do not buy into their theology, why should Christians of non-Catholico-Orthodox origin do so? Tourskin (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin stated Sexual matters are a far off topic from theological matters, and the opposite is true. This was only one example. If you ever take a course in sociology of religion or read Gallup and other polls, you quickly find out that there are gaps, what Churches teach and what people actually believe in. You can say what you please, as long as it is not based on assumptions but verifications. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That is Wikipedia policy, which we intend to uphold here!nothing else matters. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, you can of course now chose to pick on Tourskin's words and criticize the alleged claim that "sexual matters" and "theological matters" are distinct. Of course that is wrong because there is an overlap, when theology discusses sex. But that was not Tourskin's point at all. Fact is you cannot use dissent with the RCC (or parts of it) on one matter to claim there is dissent on another matter. There theoretically might be dissent but in order to claim dissent on one particular matter you would have to provide evidence for that dissent, not evidence for dissent on another matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of your points does not earn your extra logical points. To some extent sexual matters are far off topic. I believe that 100% of Catholics will tell you that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, in the US or otherwise, regardless of what they think sex is about. Finally, as I have said your argument that there are gaps is unverifiable as well. The status quo before this was that "most Christians believe in particular judgment". Do not place the burden of evidence against this statement on me. If you want to prove this statement wrong, by all means lets see some verifiable sources. Otherwise, I have already by amply clear math demonstrated that particular judgment is at the least the prevailing if not majority view and all other users seem to be in agreement with one of the above compromises except you. Tourskin (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add one more point - when people talk about death, they talk about whether thy are going to heaven or hell immediately afterward - people say, "I'm sure shes watching over us from heave" or "I'm sure they've moved on to a better place". You cannot deny the cliches I have just mentioned and this further weakens the argument that particular judgment is not the majority view. Tourskin (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, "particular judgement" (with the emphasis on particular) is probably by far the most widely held Christian belief, far surpassing anything about the divinity of Christ and going beyond the boundaries of Christianity. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Verify this, end of story --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we ar under no obligation to verify anything - you are the one who is demanding to change the status quo of the article. Therefore, if you know anything about logic, you are committing a fallacy by placing the burden of evidence on us. If you wish to disprove this, then you must find evidence for the contrary. There are two reasons why we cannot cite this directly, 1) Few people are willing to survey such a widely held opinion. 2)More interesting to surveyors is whether people believe they will be judged, not when. You are proving to be a pain. You will not be satisfied with our logical arguments, with our mathematics, with our cliche's proving the prevalence of particular judgment. You are basically approaching the point in which you are no longer able to function as a beneficial user in this discussion. Anything we present to you, you refuse to acknowledge or listen to. Since we have been unable to attain a consensus with your vote, we shall do so without it. Since everyone else except you has issues with it, we win by consensus. Tourskin (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, please do not put my statement in bold and italics.

We have to verify statements put into the article, not statements made on the talk page. It is you who wants to change the article's wording, so you have something to verify too.

But I agree that we still need refs for the Orthodox and the many Protestants. But there is no reason to doubt that the statements are true. Hence the "citation needed" tags are in order.

As for the rest, I agree with what Tourskin wrote above. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As this topic is generating much more heat than light, I think the discussion would benefit from some outside input, hence the RFC below. I'm happy to contribute in an "outsider" capacity myself, but from past experience here one person's outside input doesn't usually seem to be enough. Hopefully a few more minds on the case will help us arrive at a position we can all agree on. SP-KP (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of my previous statement, it would be hypocritical if I did not agree to your proposal - so I do. Tourskin (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion follows: I think when some people say things like "I'm sure shes watching over us from heaven" as Tourskin wrote above, it is really a matter of wishful thinking, comforting others, and drawing conclusions from unreliable sources like movies and songs and conventional wisdom. I think if you asked them to be honest and critical about their beliefs many (not most) would have a more difficult time supporting it. In any case, it sounds like omnipresence to me, which I think only applies to God. I admit to having said this a few times for the aforementioned reasons.--Rrand (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I found this statement on Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles:

"When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be inadequate to force editors to provide a reliable source for every claim." I guess the only matter is determining if this is fact and received opinion. I can only add to my opinion that this matter "Most Christians believe" creates a burden of Original Research on the reader that should be avoided if possible. But apparently it is an acceptable statement for Wikipedia.--Rrand (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by it "puts a burden of Original Research on the reader"?

I certainly disagree that we can disregard people's views because someone thinkgs they are merely "wishful thinking" and uncritical. And "Reliable sources" is a wiki-term. Please don't transplant wikirules into the real world, where it is fortunately much more about truth than about verifiabiltiy. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to Wikipedia policy, the following comment was deleted yesterday by STR1977:

"Particular judgement" (with the emphasis on particular) is by far the most widely held Christian belief, far surpassing anything about the divinity of Christ and going beyond the boundaries of Christianity. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC

Verify this, end of story --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Verification is the only issue here. (Kindly abstain from erasing or modyfying statements of other contributors) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And would you kindly abstain from spamming the request, which has already been answered (and NOT DELETED), all over the talk page. It has nothing to do with this RfC (which is why I am moving it to the section above. But I will not reply further because I have already done so. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

The Greek Orthodox Church, the prime Church in Eastern Orthodoxy, defines it as "temporary judgment", which is exactly the same as the Particular judgment notion - the word temporary emphasizing the Catholic and other Protestant belief that the final judgment is the real deal.

Here is a greater clarification: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/about-prayer-for-the-dead.html

However, it must be noted that Orthodox and Catholic views on differ from some Protestant views, in that according to the above link, the former two believe in a final judgment afterwards, whilst the latter believe that particular judgment afterward is eternal and there is no further judgment. We must clarify this difference in the article.

Tourskin (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The situation in the Catholic Church is somewhat complicated on this issue. Particular Judgment is a teaching but not a formal dogma. Therefore the faithful have no obligation to believe in it. Nor do they expect any sanctions, if they do not. There has been no formal Particular Judgment definition by the Church. In terms of its truth, it is not divine revelation or infallible teaching, but Sententia fidei proxima, a teaching which most theologians consider to be true but the Church has not officially ruled on it. ^[2] On the other hand it is a part of several catechisms and a theological precondition for other beliefs of the Chuch (Saints)--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for returning to normal discussion again. However, I unfortunately have to disagree with you on this: it is the nature of Ott's book that he in a very detailed way distinguishes between things to be held "de fide", Sententia fideai proxima" etc. He is very good at that. The problem is that you make defined dogmata the norm of what the faithful (as faithful, not as strays) believe. But that is another matter. "De fide" means that a Catholic is absolutely required to believe something. But that doesn't mean that is all there is, or that this is all that Catholics believe. All the stuff contained in Ott is believed by Catholics. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I am only saying that Catholics face no Church sanctions if they do not believe in Particular Judgment. I honestly do not know how many of them believe what. You write:

All the stuff contained in Ott is believed by Catholics. That would be nice! But I am afraid, some recent popes, complaining about the lack of religious knowledge among the faithful, strongly disagree with you.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof: Dantes Comedy. Read it and you will know.Tourskin (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, as explained before, this is about what Catholics as Catholics believe. Of course, there is a lot of dissent even within the church but in order for dissent on a specific point to be reliably sources, you would have to provide references for that particular issue. Also note that your last item would (if applicable) destroy not only my take but yours as well. Lac of "religious knowledge" does not merely affect Sententia fidei proxima but also things to be held de fide. Also historically, the reason why certain doctrines are held de fide, why they are defined as dogma is that they were in some way or another challenged. No one has challenged particular judgement in particular, whence it was not defined as dogma. Finally, regarding religious knowledge failing - even the most liberal Catholics I know think about "going to heaven (less so hell)" immediately after death. When they have a problem with it, it is with the notion of "judgement" but the focus of our passage is on the particular part. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)