Talk:Petrine Primacy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)
"Text has more impact than links. The farther people go down any web page, the less readers you generally have."
If that is true, then extending the length of this article with duplicated material is counterproductive and self-defeating. While the "massive" length of the Protestant additions (increased to 110% of the length of the text preceding them) tell only one side of the controversy (no text given to Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy under that additional section heading), the statement re the length of a web page suggests that few will bother to read them. I don't believe that. Persistence in submitting them seems to have been done in hope that the material preceding them with its weighted balance presenting all views will have less influence on the reader, producing an article with an overall argument weighted in favor of the particular point of view represented by the added material. Intended or not, the effect of a subtle "spin" of the whole of the argument toward one favored conclusion undermines Conservapedia:Commandments to avoid editorializing with an article. Links are important and do have impact—they can provide depth and balance with additional information, and more importantly supportive substantiation of statements made in an article, which expands understanding of the compact introductory encyclopedic material, which is the purpose of articles in an encyclopedia: answering questions honestly and factually and stimulating a desire to know more about the topic. "Inquiring minds want to know." Intelligent readers do not simply accept what they are told in articles about religion and philosophy, the Bible and Christianity, without investigating controverted claims of interpretation and weighing the integrity of various scholars and their evidence to see if in fact they can be trusted to provide more than specious reasoning, and students need to hear more than one side of a debate (half-truths, misrepresentation, polemic, and falsehood). Proverbs 18:17 1 Corinthians 8:2. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
1990sguy and I wanted to work with you to have all three positions represented adequately via sections for each. Instead, a completely unnecessary revert war started. Here is an example of an article on this topic featuring various sections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Peter
If you agree to not to edit the Protestant section and leave it intact and not create a monster size Catholic section in order to push the Protestant section way down, then I will unlock the article. I can have 1990sguy monitor the page as I will be attending to other matters. I don't have a lot of time to discuss this matter with you. If you are not amenable to this, then regrettably, I will just leave the article locked which is something I had wanted to avoid doing. Conservative (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
You can ask this user to help with the Eastern Orthodox section: https://www.conservapedia.com/User:EasternOrthodox Conservative (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
I just asked user https://www.conservapedia.com/User:EasternOrthodox to contribute to the article.Conservative (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
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 ignorant, and not polemical. 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! A "large rock, massive boulder" is not a "pebble" or "small stone". 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. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

I will unlock the article. Be sure to respect the work I put into the Protestant section. I don't want my work vaporized. We both agree now that I created something worthwhile via my research.Conservative (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

I can understand your need to get away from the controversy and your legitimate concern about preserving your contribution, which is an improvement. I do not expect to be continuing with Conservapedia much beyond spring of next year. I am only going through Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) one more time to see if it needs to be refined for improvement. After that I probably won't have the energy to do more. I'll be 73 years old in February, and am still recovering from last year's T.I.A. minor stroke in June-July. The controversy and dispute over this article exhausted me. It'll take me a couple days to recover from this, and then I will make the corrections I mentioned above.
That's all for now. I wish you well. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
I just now concluded my final edit on this piece. --Dataclarifier (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

I just came across the following very relevant online sources and wondered if these might be useful (?) in the Sections on the Protestant view and Eastern Orthodox view:

Protestant (perhaps a subsection called A Sola scriptura Bible study)
Eastern Orthodox

If you think any one or all of these links are good additions, brackets ( [ ] ) at the beginning and end of the URL link addresses are all that is needed.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

I have decided to insert them, based on a lack of negative response (no news is good news). The links can be removed if you think they are not appropriate. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2019 (EDT)
I have added substantial info to the article without touching "Protestant views of Petrine Primacy".
See the following diffs: 17-20 August and 20-23 August
--Dataclarifier (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Petrine_Primacy&oldid=1556027"