Talk:Concupiscence

message: NOTE: This article really needs review by a theologically educated Catholic, and a theologically educated Protestant. It could also do with a broader range of sources, some concrete examples, and information on the views of the Eastern Orthodox. User:Tagishsimon 19:37, 18 April 2004 
:...and when they've finished, could someone please provide a summary in English? :o)  I've read it twice and still don't understand it! (Comment from a Protestant reader...) EdJogg 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The article needs a lot of work.  It is unreadable in its current form.  It looks like a one-sided summary of a debate that some editors have had. patsw 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three and a half years later and it's still unreadable. Some passages are grammatical nonsense.PurpleChez (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreadable 

message: This article makes extremely broad generalizations in reference to "Catholicism" and "Protestantism". For example, my own views on man's sinful nature, which are Arminian, would be much more closely related to the author's definition of the "Catholic" view than to those held by Calvinist Protestants. Furthermore, there are varying interpretations within each subset of Protestantism and, to a lesser extent, Catholicism. 
That the Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian and Gnostic views are not mentioned at all is a joke, as is the omission of the Pelagian Controversy. This is a very complex issue and needs to be dealt with as such. --Mike 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete 

message: It is of no significance where SIN came from or for that matter where it's going! 
1 Corinthians 3:4 (King James Version) Public Domain
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
It becomes quite clear; that the preceding remarks are motivated from that carnality and not from the point of enlightenment. 
Which, I might add, always results in more confusion. The article in question was never meant as a theological dissertation on Catholicism Vs Protestantism. But it does what it was meant to do; and that is to give some insight to other views of what 
and where SIN came from.
It is good to see some exploration into this word.  I have only heard it used once, outside of the context of The Bible.  To say that it is a Catholic word is an interesting assertion, though I doubt accurate.  As I found it in each context, the word was used critically to incline us to prayer, commune with Elohim, or at least peace, rather than our own will, or lust.  Our preoccupation with making our way, filling our cup, or even trying to do what we think is correct, is perhaps not our highest occupation.  Many Eastern scholars, practitioners, as well as Western, express the importance of following rather than leading, and would cleave to this word.  It is a watchword, a harbinger of a better way.  The way is the way of Christ.  In the process of offering our service to His creation, and our will to The Father, we find our concupiscence stands in the way of listening, patiently waiting, or worse causes us to sin.  Not that sinning is difficult, exaggeration is a lie, and a sin.  Man's Truth is an offense, though not a sin.  Is sin bread of anything other than selfishness?  Perhaps concupiscence is the last selfishness to go. Iriecycle (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical Human Response 

message: The article should say what the latin means otherwise it is somewhat pointless to mention it has a latin root.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it myself. Honestly, not including in the first place was just lazy. I'd chide whoever put it in there the way it was, but who cares. Would have fixed it sooner myself, but I was trying to make a point about making sloppy additions. It is important to put the meaning of roots like that when they don't have the same meaning as the modern word. Especially with religious Latinate words which are almost always ambiguously used for stuff they don't really mean.--66.153.117.118 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  latin concupiscentia 

message: Over on the article for lust one Mr. Neelix suggested a merge,
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Concupiscence" and "lust" are synonyms; there is no encyclopedic difference between the two terms. There is no reason for these terms to have separate articles. The concupiscence article is so poorly written that it is unlikely that much information (if any) is salvageable, but the namespace should nonetheless redirect to lust.</BLOCKQUOTE>
To which I respond[ed], 
<BLOCKQUOTE>: Hi Neelix; I disagree; "Concupiscence" is an historically important theological term, and often encompasses more than the the narrow connotations of mere "lust" in English, and for that matter, in the way similar terms have been in use through time; having etymologically synonymous terms does not mean that the concepts those terms get applied to are synonymous. The WP:Merge guideline says "A merger is a non-automated process by which two similar or redundant pages are united on one page", but the term "lust" does not encompass the doctrinal concepts of "Concupiscence" in Historical or Doctrinal terms in-context of Christianity (as stated above). Hope that helps! </BLOCKQUOTE>tooMuchData 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against the Idea of a Merge 

message: Added a paragraph citing the underlying Greek translated "concupiscence" and provided New Testament references to all occurrences. Included other words used to translate the Greek. 
Louie Lagonza (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlying Greek 

message: IMHO The reason this article is difficult to read is because RC and P view concupiscence in VERY different ways. This should be no surprise.
I think the solution is to break the discussion into two, an RC discussion and a P discussion. It then becomes easier to understand the respective logical flows.
And, BTW, this seems to be a good fix for many theological issues viewed differently by RC and P.
The problem with doing so is that RC views itself as the only "true church" and desperately wants everything merged, for its own political reasons. Thus, Wikipedia cannot clearly represent theological issues without resisting this desire.
Also, BTW, this is called Ecumenism.     --StudiousReader (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability and Roman Catholicism vs Protestantism (aka Ecumenism) 

message: Several of the comments above have objected to specific issues with this term.  I think the use of this term is problematic altogether on this page.
The things that this article asserts about "Protestants" are true descriptions of the teachings of Luther, the teachings of Calvin, the beliefs of the various Lutheran and Calvinist confessional churches in the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, and the beliefs today of certain specific denominations (e.g., Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, L. C. Wisconsin Synod, Presbyterian Church of America).   However, many churches today that trace their ancestry to Luther or Calvin (e.g., Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Presbyterian Church USA, and nearly all the churches in Europe today) no longer typically hold these views, or hold variations of them that have significant differences.  And those Protestant churches that are not descended from Lutheran/Calvinist traditions (e.g., Methodists, Baptists) are not characterized by these views at all, even though some of their members may share them and others do not.
Perhaps the best solution is to rewrite this, focusing on the 16th century debate between the Catholic church and Luther, Calvin, and their churches.  It's easy to find reliable sources for this debate.  OPTIONALLY, at the end of this section, the page might make some very quick and general statements about how the current churches don't always share the views of their founders, or something like that.  This would avoid the use of the term "Protestant" as if it referred to a single school of thought, which today is absurd. — Lawrence King (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section essentially seems to be a straw man argument by someone who wants to present the Catholic view but draws an unnecessary comparison to "Protestantism" without a similar depth of understanding (or indeed, citations) for what that side of the argument may be. Someone needs to be bold and fix it, probably by dividing the section into Roman? Catholicism and perhaps "Other Christian Views." I'm probably not qualified as I'm not a Christian of any sort. --Cantabwarrior 14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with the term "Protestant" on this page 

message: The brief section on Islam seems out of place in an article on "concupiscence". There may be a similar concept in Islam of a tendency to pursue fleshly desires, but the 11th century work that has been cited does not use the word "concupiscence" or provide a similar definition, as far as I can tell. The work also does not discuss reconciling the irascible and concupiscible appetites ("appetite" would be an appropriate term, since humans have only one "soul", not two...)  I think this section ought to be eliminated from the article because concupiscence is a term of Christian theology belonging to Catholocism and then to Protestants because they took from Catholic teachings. If Islam has a similar concept that subdivides the tendency to sin into different categories, then it ought to be placed in a separate article under that specific term, not in an article on a Christian theological term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.228.100 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Concupiscence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Whidden2005":
From Baptism: 
From Christian views on sin: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Concupiscence]]