User talk:Archola/Jesus Christ!/1

Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this page since, now I'm working on outlining the various Jesus articles. archola 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Archie, I'm trying to work from the top down in this article and walked into a firestorm. (as you know) I've put a new section into the talk page to see if I can bring resolution to this paragraph, so that I can get into a fight with other Christians over "accept Jesus" 8-)

Seriously, please weigh in. If we can get a good consensus established, we can set guard over it and move on. -- Bob --CTSWyneken 14:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about my doing preemptive strikes. I don't find it useful. I will first try to find the discussion over the paragraph, see what's going on and then make suggestions. I don't mind the Nicene Creed mention (all thought it doesn't get to how individuals receive salvation), since I believe it is the border line between Christian and non-Christian faiths. What I will suggest is changing "accept" to "believe" Lutherans and others really do not believe that humans have any role at all in salvation. We believe that even faith which receives salvation is a gift from God. The trick is to find language that covers our view and those of our Evangelical brethren. --CTSWyneken 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

jesus comment

Fair enough - but, there has to be a way to comment without screwing up the numbering, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moving the Jesus article along

I understand the need to appease people like Robsteadman in order to avoid yet another edit war, but too much prominence is being given to fringe views that in any other article would either be mentioned only in passing or not at all. While a number of people may doubt the divinity of Jesus, very few people (and no notable historians to my knowledge) claim Jesus never existed. I honestly think we shouldn't give Rob with his anti-Religion and anti-Christian agenda the time of day. His motives are clear. We've already tried the appeasement route, adding such a caveat to the scholarly-view paragraph that continues to grow. It's gone from simple lack of documents to now mentioning "similarities with various mythological figures." Based on WP:NPOV, we, by policy, are not even obligated to mention these small minority views, at least not in such a prominent place as the introduction in a biographical article. —Aiden 18:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My view of limited would be something like "However, a small minority of Biblical scholars, academics, and others question the historicity of Jesus." —Aiden 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And there it is

When he gets painted into the corner, he refuses to address the issues, accuses others of being "abusive" (whatever he thinks that means) twisting his words, attacking, bullying, trolling etc. and then threatens to "report" (whatever that means)... Was waiting for it to happen again to someone else (you're at least the third person by my count) and there it is. Why bother anymore....Gator (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See e-mail.Gator (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob

Well, we're on record, with evidence on the Jesus talk page. NO need to respond to anything he says that's a repeat. When the paragraph goes into effect, we will just revert any changes and refer to this page. In the mean time, we can move on. --CTSWyneken 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

When he confirms that he wants to delete "historians" I'll point out it stays in because there are historians on that list -- Paul L. Maier for one, and others such as Michael Grant to come. I also think we'll have no trouble beyond Rob for "large" majority. Again, I've demonstrated it in the footnote. --CTSWyneken 20:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He may be an historian but he is also "vice-President of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod" - so clearly totally unboased - NOT! Robsteadman 18:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to commend you personally on your boldness in standing up to Rob. I have been dying to, but right now, my life is been so hectic that I just have no possible mental ability to take on such a rhetorical vampire ("Bite, suck, kill. Bite, suck, kill."). I think you have handled yourself very well, and I would go so far as to say that you have done more to forward this process than any other member. If you ever need a helping hand on any WikiProject or other collaboration, please look me up. I'd love to work with you further. (P.S. What do you think the odds are of Rob actually sitting down and shutting up now that he's essentially been told to by at least 15 Wikipedians? =P ) --Avery W. Krouse 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

When you say 15 WPs do you mean the little cabal out of protect the article as POV? Robsteadman 18:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And I thank you for my first barnstar. Arch O. La 07:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tried and I've failed. There is only one thing left to do. --Avery W. Krouse 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message re: Jesus page

Thank you for the message re: the Jesus page. Being a Lutheran pastor I have done some study on the subject, and I look forward to contributing. drboisclair 11:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship and Consensus

I tell my college students the the good news about the internet is that anyone can publish on it and the bad news is that anyone can publish on it! 8-) This is especially true of the wikipedia.

I do not believe we are censoring when we revert people who shoot first and ask questions later. As long as we politely point people to the talk page, ask them to read the discussion and then add their two cents to the talk page, we're fine. They can say anything they want. It is the open internet and indexed by google. No one is telling them they can't say anything they want.

As long as we are distinct people, we have a perfect right on the wiki to revert things for good reason. This paragraph has been debated over every conceivable angle I can think of. It is likely that any edits will be done for reasons we debated. We've achieved an overwhelming majority in favor of the current text. We do not need to rehash the same arguments (in fact, if we'd resist, everyone, answering the same objections, there wouldn't be much fuel for Rob's fire. Even at two reverts a day, we have ten to Rob's two. We can ignore the same arguments.

Now, if someone, even Rob, brings something new, we can hear it out and debate it and come to a new consensus and adopt it.

The only freedom we curtail is for someone to edit without doing their homework. No self-respecting internet forum would allow this. An encyclopia should even less.

Remember, this recent round happened because I did just that. Until I added references to the text of the paragraph, I did not alter a single word of the paragraph until there was consensus about it. --CTSWyneken 03:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why a very gentle edit summary upon revert, plus a nice, encouraging comment on the user talk page of the poor person that wanders into our hornet's nest goes a long way. --CTSWyneken 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob

All the more reason to not engage him on old saws. Just revert anything contrary to consensus with a polite reference to previous discussion. --CTSWyneken 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated, and, yes, Rob has tried to put religion on trial, unsuccessfully. I'd hate to see us engage in the same kind of trial, even though it's not our intention. All I'm saying is...step carefully. Read these words. Thanks...KHM03 19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. I'm afraid my days as an old-fashioned listserv moderator are taking over. I -- will -- not -- be -- ASSIMILATED! There! That's better. Sorry for being so heavy handed. --CTSWyneken 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Switching analogies... I prefer the Lt. Colombo approach. Ask questions and let the other guy convince me. I've been playing at moderator for a few days. It seems to work somewhat -- if I could just get "my" side to play ball. --CTSWyneken 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Was he blocked or just warned? I thought the latter. --CTSWyneken 00:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words re: Steadman and Jesus to me

I am sorry if I jumped into this with both feet. You guys were just getting this thing nailed down. I have to confess that I am just as worked up about this as he is. He is probably a likeable chap with a big chip on his shoulder. I do object to formulating the article with the lead line being: "Jesus . . . held to exist by the opinion of most historians" or something like that. If I am getting too personal re: Mr. Steadman, let me know. I have a hot German temper, and I know I have some Irish in me. drboisclair 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to your kind messages on my talk page here. I think that I have upset Mr. Steadman too much. I will let him cool down a bit. As a scholar he is being put through the mill. I find that he is much like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. BTW, I think that I have a book written in the 1930s entitled Jesus: A Myth. So the Revisionist Jesus-Mythers have been around for a long time. "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9). Cheers, and remember that you are a peacemaker--very admirable and blessed as JESUS said.drboisclair 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Try not to clobber me

Arch, I have made a new motion for a vote on the helpful addition to the second sentence of the second paragraph. I feel that this is an important matter as we are all devoted to NPOV. KHM03's addition makes this second paragraph NPOV. Please, don't clobber me: I know my friend CTSWyneken has counseled us to have no more votes.drboisclair 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate

Please don't withdraw. I guess it is easy to get burned out on it. I think that you have the impartiality to arbitrate and mediate. Your presence is kindly and encouraging. BTW, I have made a revision to the Jesus-Myth page putting in historical revisionistic before concept. I'm sure that we will see fireworks on that!!! drboisclair 00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Drboisclair:

Thanks for the compliment! But, as I told CTSWynekan, sometimes the trouble with striving for the center is that you get caught in the middle. I'm not withdrawing to the degree that Avery Krause did; just enough to clear my head and strengthen my impartiality. ;) Arch O. La 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That will make you even more fresh and helpful for the sake of accuracy and truth. I am glad that I met you through this website. BTW, I used to pass Pekin, IL many times to and from Milwaukee, Wisconsin and St. Louis, MO. I presently live in St. Louis, but I am a Wisconsin native, a cheesehead. Illinoians are sometimes called "flatlanders" but Illinois is the great Prairie State, the Land of Lincoln. drboisclair 00:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect so. That's why this was a reminder, not a plea. 8-) --CTSWyneken 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Exit, Stage Left!

Hey there. I'm going to take a note from you and depart this debate for a while. I'm going to remove all pages related to this from my watchlist, so would you be ever so kind as to alert me if my name gets dregged up again or if the removal of Rob from Wikipedia for any duration longer than 2 days occurs? Thanks! Good luck! --Avery W. Krouse 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. I wish that folks would just stick to the rules and move on. We'll see what happens. --CTSWyneken 10:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That lasted a long time! lol, I've actually returned to the frey with a very, I hope, good suggestion. A final, end-all-be-all vote. Please stop by and vote. Also, if you'd like to chat me up about it, my AIM screenname is on my user profile. --Avery W. Krouse 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure, at the end of the day, it would be better to just end the strife and move on to something different (which will probably end up being yet another strife) as opposed to be continually stalemated on this one line. --Avery W. Krouse 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it will. The biggest problem with all the votes is that they had no structure. "Okay guys, let's vote now ... um ... okay ... now what...?" The way I have it set up, we have a definite start and end and a definite method of selecting the final choice. I am actually going to go revise the section to reflect an agreement to concensus. --Avery W. Krouse 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

We've reached a place where we might just have a vote that will stick. Please drop by and vote. --CTSWyneken 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. The same one as Groundhog Day, I suppose. --CTSWyneken 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I post the below because Talk:Jesus seems to be locked. Comment on the voting:

• I've made my votes in the past. I feel that further voting may be polarizing, hence I choose to abstain. Beyond that, many should learn to respect others' points of view. After all, we do not experience another's subjectivity, so we cannot directly judge another's subjectivity. The real issue is that there are various points of view that should be explained accurately, fairly and while respecting NPOV.Arch O. La 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The page has been unlocked, so I will post. Arch O. La 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your labors for peace and consensus are legendary as all of us hope that you continue to take an active role in this. Part of the problem is the lack of respect that might be present among editors. If I have contributed to this, I am sincerely sorry. I wish there were a way that we could all assure one another of our committment to WP:NPOV. You have done well in trying to do this. Cordially, drboisclair 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I honestly don't believe it matters. Try as I have, no one follows directions, and no one will be satisfied unless their side wins. For all I care, this whole darn vote can be chucked in the can. I'm sick and tired of it. To be quite frank, nothing on that page will get better until the trolls depart, and that won't happen until people get the cahoneys to take them to ArbCom. So to Hell with the vote, I'll be there at 11:00 tonight to clear out the whole mess, and we'll be no farther along than we were to start with. People whine about having to vote. Well, we wouldn't have to if certain people weren't standing in the way. (Not referring to you, I mean. You're actually trying.) --Avery W. Krouse 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Christianity singled out for POV flags

Why must this persist? If someone would put a POV flag on the article of another faith like Judaism or Buddhism they would be summarily censured. I am going to complain about this. drboisclair 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have appealed to User:MONGO to consider the discrimination that this affords. This is simply not fair in light of the fact that all of us are careful to be NPOV. However, despite all of our efforts we cannot free ourselves from POV no matter how we try. It must be understood that POV is not an evil thing, just all POVs need to be represented to make something NPOV, and NPOV means "neutral point of view" not "no point of view." That, at least, is my understanding of it. drboisclair 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Point taken. KHM03 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Five Armies

I wonder if you will be our white wizard to lead us in the defense of Minas Tirith in Return of the King. I fear Mordor threatens the consensus of elves, hobbits, dwarves, and men. drboisclair 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I said Bilbo, not Gandalf! One book at a time! Arch O. La 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bilbo and Frodo are snoring in my front room (my dogs). Gandalf (my cat) keeps stepping on my keyboard. Gimli the dwarf (rabbit) is asleep too. I knew we had alot in common! SOPHIA 23:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your style

Amidst all the seriousness of defining the world you add the joyous touch of humor to it all! Thank you for telling me about your newly applied Star Wars allegory. The Force will be with you always. drboisclair 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion for the Metaphysical Poker Game: Ante up! --Avery W. Krouse 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cabal

I learned what a kah-BAHL is by listening to "Conspiracy Theory" tapes from the John Birch Society when I was a sophomore in High School. I am now a happy Missouri Democrat (moderate politically but conservative religiously). The honorable Mr. Rob Steadman, the maestro, accuses us of conspiring together to edge him out of editing this article. He kind of got the idea for this by the messages that all of us have on our talk pages. "Vote". I'm thinking that I came on too hard with them by those paragraphs about them being in denial and advocates of crack-pot scholarship. Maybe I stirred up the pot, and there is no way of turning over a new leaf. He is ignoring me with my concilatory messages that you can see for yourself on his talk page. For an Englishman I am surprized that he doesn't see to it that he spells better. drboisclair 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was the capitol of Afghanistan! ;-)

Seriously, I decided to ply my moderation skills, learned as a listserv moderator these past 14 years. --CTSWyneken 19:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On self-examination: we conservative Lutherans are strange creatures to Protestants. Our theology is the original Protestant theology, but it culture we look like catholics! --CTSWyneken 19:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about the LCMS rejecting the Joint Declaration between the ELCA and the Catholic Church (so did one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger!) We have always stood with Luther on salvation by grace alone. So, as I said above, theologically we are the original Protestants. But, unlike the reformed tradition, we retained the ancient liturgy of the church, its art, music, calendar, etc. So we're (in the view of many non-Lutherans) protestants that LOOK like Catholics. ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not engage J-M folks unless it is about new issues. I probably dropped a bomb with the "in denial" and "crack-pot" posts I made to their article: Talk:Jesus-Myth. Should not have been so disdainful of them. drboisclair 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are hereby invited by the Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse to announce your membership in the Wikipedia Christian Cabal! Please add your name to the members list. If userboxes are your thing, you may add {{User:Averykrouse/Christian Cabal Box}} to your userpage to declare your allegiance! The Grand Poobah salutes you! --Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse

I think if you'll take a look at the page, you'll see that it is a clear parody. In fact, I'll mention the parody aspect on there as well. --Avery W. Krouse 06:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a disclaimer. I think we all need to lighten up, especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Steadtrina. Take a moment to examine the destinations for the links in there. After all, even Lithuanians need Jesus. --Avery W. Krouse 06:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I put down my marker

Archie:

I've put down my marker on the talk:Jesus page. Enough of this. --CTSWyneken 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll join in...we should make a good centrist team...something both this article and Wiki needs. Jim62sch 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, I think both theism and atheism are illogical, because what they support or oppose are neither provable nor disprovable.  ;) Jim62sch 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And what you said is OK too, just a matter of perspective. For me, the bottom line has always been how one deals with others, not what one espouses verbally. Jim62sch 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take an honest agnostic any time! --CTSWyneken 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not fully bothered. I'm just trying to get us focused. It's an old moderator's trick from 14 yrs. of listserv moderating. It sometimes works. Here you have to be an admin to really make it work. I'm curious too, but, once we're unblocked, I need to focus on inforcing the vote and finishing the documentation that you think folks would be eager to do. It's the fun part of this exercise. --CTSWyneken 02:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doherty

Do we know from where the BA comes? --CTSWyneken 12:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

historic

I explained on the discussion page. Jim62sch 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

John 3:16, Catholics and Greeks

Since we both seem to be talking with Jim over this, what do you know about Catholicism in relation to John 3:16? I think we might need to find hard numbers and citations over this eventually, I know you said you might want it in the bottom somewhere along with what Jim was saying, but what are your views over all this? I don't understand how saying that Catholicism "might" state that John 3:16 is not necessary in all instances automatically translates to they don't think it's true at all. Homestarmy 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page. --CTSWyneken 03:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We can easily cite info that most do. But I'm not done with the first and second paragraph. Can't everyone just let it go and help? *sigh* --CTSWyneken 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Greek to be square

Ah, much better -- the problemn was in the diacritical marks. Wiki does not disple the rough or soft breathing marks (see the extra mark on the omega in ωςτε) -- BTW: those marks equal the presense of (rough) or lack of (soft) an english H. The biggest problem is that monogene (μονογενη) is debated as to its meaning -- mono doesn't really mean "only" in Greek.

I'm working on the German, but as I noted, it's a very high level of German, and if you note my user page, I noted DE-2, in other words, I can read it reasonably well, but hardly with the facility with which I can read Latin, Spanish, Portuguese and French. Jim62sch 17:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's going better than expected (I think I was just tired yesterday, and fighhting bronchitis doesn't help -- robbed my brain of oxygen ;). Besides, I didn't come unarmed -- I have one of the best German-English dictionaries on the planet, the 1400 page Cassel's German Dictionary. As soon as I get done the second section, I'm going to start posting it on a separate page of my user space (unless you think I should wait just to heighten the anticipation.  :)

Oh, BTW, can you send me the site you got the Greek version from? My version has no diacriticals, and they are very important to the meaning of the word. Jim62sch 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go check and see if there's a cite for the site. As far as I know I have the newest version of IE explorer -- in fact I just upgraded it two weeks ago to allow for tabbing (it allows you to open multiple pages within one IE launch, rather than launching another copy of IE to get a second or third page). Maybe it's something in my settings. Jim62sch 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm too busy translaing to hit the talk page, but the Wiki Jogn 3:16 page includes this, which would have benefited part of last nights conversation with Jim Wie: "The various translations differ on whether this is a direct quote of Jesus or a comment of the narrator of the Gospel."

Sadly, the difference in meaning is not gone into. Jim62sch 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd Paragraph

Sounds fine for now. More later, if I see the light of day today. --CTSWyneken 10:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Virgin birth, salvation, and John 3:16

1. Because Jim contests something doesn't make it not a majority view. 2. Good point. 3. The article is meant to provide easy-to-understand information to a lay person. This verse does that better than most any other verse. —Aiden 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree we have to avoid the slipperly slope into a Christianity article, but I think the fact that John 3:16 focuses solely on Jesus as Saviour makes it completely relevant. "For God so love the world he gave his only begotten Son..." I honestly fail to see why someone would object to mentioning this verse, attributed as a direct quote from Jesus. —Aiden 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But why are we even having this discussion? Why is the verse being objected to? Really it seems to be to be a nonissue. —Aiden

I see your point, but the verse is in no way linked as if it provides a complete account of Christianity. It is located as a (see this) link immediately following the sentence on Jesus as Savior, and demonstrates very generally how he saves one, that a person will not perish by have everlasting life. I know of no majority Christian group that would disagree with this verse and find deleting it quite superfluous. It seems as if people have no real objections other than that they have a personal preference for another verse. If someone will show me what Christian groups in the majority deny the correctness of John 3:16, then by all means remove it. But frankly I believe there are none and people are making an issue where there clearly is not one. Really it seems to me that the ulterior motive here is to remove a verse on the grounds some feel is proselytizing or supporting trinitarianism where it clearly is not. Secondly, see my above response about the salvation sentence. —Aiden 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, this pretty much just confirmed the above for me. Jim is clearly a nontrinitarian and is going to do everything he can to prevent us from representing the trinitarian view fully. —Aiden 17:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Does acceptance provide salvation?

But predestination is really irrelevent to this debate. If one is predestined to attain salvation, he would be predestined to accept it. —Aiden 18:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, predestination comes before acceptance. Acceptance comes before salvation. —Aiden 22:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK good point, but I think that reflects more on the limitations of the English language than the theology. The sentence itself says acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation. Now, I personally vehemently disagree with the doctrine of predestination, but nonetheless was taught in a Lutheran school as a child and have many Calvinist friends, so I'm exposed to a wide variety of views concerning the subject. That said, God may have predestined someone to be saved, and yes the gift is offered then accepted, but one cannot attain salvation, the gift, without first accepting it, correct? The sentence does not say one must accept salvation to be offered it! —Aiden 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see an alternative salvation sentence I adapted from the Christianity article here. —Aiden 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Archives

Do you mind archiving some of the stagnant discussions on the Jesus page? I've been doing a lot of research on the Catholic views of salvation, particularly in relation to whether or not the current 2nd paragraph's sentence, "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation" is in compliance with Catholic teachings on salvation. I'd like to post this but I'm OCD'ing about the disarrary of the talk page. —Aiden 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)