Talk:Transubstantiation
From Theopedia
Neither the articles or talk pages are soapboxes
If you want to debate, the best place is an internet forum, not here. Even if you convince us individuals to adopt Roman Catholic distinctive viewpoints, Theopedia remains driven by its Reformed statement of faith and Reformed writing guide. Everyone has my go-ahead permission to delete TALK comments that are irrelevant to discussion over what to include in the article--as it regards content or accuracy or conformity to the writing guide and statement of faith. -Aaronshaf 01:18, 12 March 2006 (EST)
- So then what exactly is the point of a TALK Page? To remain driven by Reform theology is one thing. To blatantly debase Roman Catholicism without even being willing to look at the facts is something else entirely. Theopedia could remain as Calvinist as it wants and still present a clear and unbiased view of each Christian denomination. The Roman Catholic page is definitely not unbiased. And I don't know if the Sproul audio is working or not...but I do know that Sproul is ardently anti Catholic. If you want to remain driven by the Reform, that's fine, but don't expect to get any points for openmindedness or academic integrity. The plain and simple fact is that the Roman Catholic church is the progenitor of all of our various Christianities, and without it, Christianity would have probably been persecuted out of existence ages ago. It's a fact...it's history. It's undeniable and to deny it is to flatly deny plain historical fact. Like saying the Earth is flat or something. We all know that History has proven that the Earth is round. Yeah, denying the Christianity of the Roman Catholic Church is kind of like that. I still maintain that you are having a hard time dealing with the facts that have been presented. So...a discission of how to make the Roman Catholic page more tolerant is in order. But we can't do that until I can convince you people that Catholics are Christians, can we? Therein lies the dilemma. Acedaroflebanon 04:54, 12 March 2006 (EST)
- Nick, I think what Aaron is getting at is that this "debate" has only gone on not even a week yet and that the TALK page was already super long. TALK pages are for discussion and disagreements, but larger debates like the one taking place is for email or another place. Theopedia definitely desires to be open-minded and keep its academic integrity, however, there are boundaries and I think that's what Aaron is touching on. Look for a new page called "forum" that will quite possibly be the place to discuss things like this. JordanBarrett (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2006 (EST)
Archives
A Forum
I think that would be an excellent idea. Since we are all frequenters of Theopedia, maybe we should figure out some sort of way to have three kinds of pages: 1. For the Aticles themselves 2. For the TALK to discuss appropriate article content, and, 3. For discussion of theological and doctrinal viewpoints as relates to the article.
Because, really, you can't call theopedia an "encyclopedia of biblical christianity" if you're only going to allow it to be supportive of Reformed Calvinist theology. It must needs be a tad more ecumenical than that.....of course, you could change it's title to "an encyclopedia of Reformed Calvinist Christianity." But then you might not be quite as popular.
What does everyone think about that?
Acedaroflebanon 17:17, 12 March 2006 (EST)
- http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_1 -Aaronshaf 17:52, 12 March 2006 (EST)
