Montalban is quite right - I have supported the inclusion of opposition arguments in this article, particularly from an Orthodox perspective.  And quite a body of material has been gathered that meets that objective. However, from a readability viewpoint, the article had become cumbersome to the point of unuseability. I have repeatedly requested Montalban to recognise this fact and to take measures to address it that would retain the arguments while improving the reading experience. It is for that reason that I have refrained from comment in this article for a long time now in the hope that this holy peace would bear fruit. I have been disappointed in this hope. With the creation of the other article, the imperative to have all the material in this particular article became less obvious. Given Montalban's obduracy, I finally lent my suport to a radical solution - the wholesale transport of sections to that other article. I'm prepared to see the ongoing presence of the core of the Orthodox argument in this article on the understanding that most of the heavy lifting should continue to be done by the "See main" to the other article. This assumes tat other editors will nt litter the remaining skeleton aerguments with "references" or "says who" flag requests. A more reasonable, less absolutist position by Montalban might have moved me to less radical surgury.