Talk:Blessing

message: I don't know about what the Orthodox, Lutheran or Anglicans believe but in the Catholic faith only Priests and bishops can bless.
Deacons don't have the power to bless, they can ask God to bless but they cannot bless the person themselves.
I will try to find some proof to back me up. BennyK95 16:34, 21 September 2009
Got it! Since, then, blessings, in the sense in which they are being considered, are entirely of ecclesiastical institution, the Church has the power to determine who shall have the right and duty to confer them. This she has done by entrusting their administration to those who are in sacerdotal orders. The solitary case in which one inferior to a priest is empowered to bless, is where the deacon blesses the paschal candle in the ceremonies of Holy Saturday. This exception is more apparent than real. For in the instance referred to the deacon acts by way of a deputy and, moreover, employs the grains of incense already blessed by the celebrant. Priests, then, are the ordinary ministers of blessings, and this is only in the fitness of things since they are ordained.
 
Subscript text taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm
I am going to change the part on the page, I will make a new category BennyK95 16:45, 21 September 2009
Question on the blessings, marks bestowed by God. I have this simular markings on my hand.  Ojffej (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic blessing 

message: This seems more like a dictionary entry. —DIV 128.250.204.118 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary?

message: I've seen the second line written as such:  The Lord make his face to shine upon you. Does anyone know the proper wording?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.188.70 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord's Blessing Wording

message: I see some quality problems in the "Christianity" section, affecting the encyclopedic quality of this article as a whole. It is important for the text to deal with theological subjects without theological bias; therefore, generally, the text should not promote that certain theological ideas are better founded than others (or none at all). Instead the text should deal DISPASSIONATELY by explaining the basis for theological ideas. It should explain, when possible, the origin (ie: the person or movement or whatever) of such basis/justification, and go to great lengths not to promote that particular theological idea. 67.186.226.117 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity Section 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:BASIL.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The photograph shows that the thumbs being held next to the fore-fingers. This position is incorrect and in other illustrations of this kind there is always a gap made between the 2 thumbs and the first fingers. This applies to both hands which when spread. Held together it makes a total of 6 groups of fingers (and thumbs), which is a number which has several symbolic meanings both in the Bible and in Jewish mysticism. Macrocompassion (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect position of fingers in illustration  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180724/http://www.siddhayoga.org.in/glossary.html to http://www.siddhayoga.org.in/glossary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is clearly written from the perspective of a believer, where religious beliefs are declared as statements rather than opinions, and the existence of God, a highly controversial topic, is assumed as self-evident. One example is the sentence "Blessings therefore are directly associated with God and come from God" - and, in particular, the phrase "come from God", but there are many throughout the article. This clearly violates the WP:POV policy. I suggest the article be rewritten entirely.OlJa 18:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Oldstone James.  Just curious.  I have always been of the understanding, regardless of any belief or disbelief in any form of divinity or "all powerful concept", that a "blessing" by axiomatic definition comes from or is facilitated by such.  Hence, if a blessing does not "come from [a] god", where does it come from ?   Regards.  Eno Lirpa (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is true what you are saying, but I suggest the axiomatic nature of the article be made clearer; for example, instead of writing "come from God", we may write "are believed to come from God", or we may introduce the section with "in some Christian beliefs,...". Let's imagine the article on Santa Claus was written in the same manner: "Christmas presents are, therefore, directly associated with, and are delivered by, Santa Claus". How neutral would that sound? I do see your point, but I still think that the article is either actually biased or, as you suggest, comes across as such.OlJa 18:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a lot of the article is written from a contextual perspective, so it has a soft POV, but I do not believe it is pushing [a hard] POV.  I would support you being BOLD and just changing it accordingly as you suggest.  Eno Lirpa (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: PS You do need to be a bit careful about how you reword it, to not contextually POV the other way.  You presumably will believe Santa Claus delivers presents if you believe in Santa Claus.  But you can get presents if you do not believe in Santa Claus.  However, can you get a blessing if you do not believe in a god?  Regards.  Eno Lirpa (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is more of a philosophical discussion. What people believe are blessings may actually be (actually, most certainly are) placebos - and these can be very powerful if one passionately believes in, and always seeks to reassure themselves in the effect of, blessings. Anyway, I will just do as you suggested; it won't be anything crucial - just, perhaps, a couple of doubt words and a few "as it is believed" here and there. OlJa 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute 

message: Need help. Ojffej (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened.  It’s like some Me controlling my webpage.