Talk:Christianity/Archive 47

message: Whats the difference between protestants an catholics?
:Although your questions is appreciated, the discussion page is focused on how to improve the topic of the article. However, the answer is easily understood by reading this article and the Roman Catholic Church, History of Protestantism and the Reformation. All will help you understand the subtle and major differences. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant and Catholics 

message: I was reviewing an edit today and noticed that scriptures were being used to support interpretations; this fails to meet the Wikipedia policy. All scripture references should be replaced with secondary sources that support the statements being made. Even though some of the statements appear to be clearly supported by the scriptures, I think they still fail to meet policy as outlined in WP:OR.  Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think scripture references are fine in many cases. If the reference's interpretation is uncontroversial amongst the majority of Christians, then I don't see a problem. rossnixon 01:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't interpret the english language (Which is what these particular scripture verses are written in) when using references, then we can't interpret any references which are written in English for anything. I might be able to read some references written at an elementary spanish level if you can find any though... Homestarmy 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources and references

message: The Christianity article is criticized for being too long, and I agree. There is a great deal of redundancy created by topics that have separate articles. Much if not most of the information presented in considerable detail in this article is duplicated in the Main Article on that topic. Examples: agape Trinity Scripture and others. I propose that these topics, though very appropriate for the article, each be shortened here to an overview paragraph and the reader be referred to the Main Article on that topic. Opinions please. Thanks. Afaprof01 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you here. I'm going to propose a serious overhaul outlined below. Signaj90 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: If someone hasnt already noticed, there is an out of place first-person comment in section 2.1.1 Christian Love (Agape) Section. As I have just joined Wikipedia today i cant edit this article. is it locked? would someone mind if they reformmated or deleted the said comment?
thanks - Darthpotterbob 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Love (Agape) Section 

message: Why is the origin of the word Messiah assumed to be from Mashiakh (meaning Annointed) rather than in the more similar sounding Mashia (meaning savior). Greek has a kh sound but no 'sh'. It seems more likely to me that Messiah is simply helenized Mashia (as it's an exact transliteration) rather than mashiakh, which would necessitate them mysteriously dropping the kh sound, though it exists in their language too. Thoughts? Basejumper2 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no assumption at play here. First, as for pronounciation, no serious scholar presumes to know how a word used to be said. Further along that line, Jews no longer spoke Hebrew in Jesus' day. They spoke Aramaic. Messiah came to Greek through Aramaic from Hebrew - messing up the pronounciation would be expected. Finally for now, the Hebrew for 'messiah' occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and given the prophetic use of "messiah", we have every reason to think that the Greek use of "messiah" corresponded to the Prophetic use of it, since the Gospel writers understood themselves to be speaking of the Messiah promised in the OT. If you'd like me to go further, just say the word.  Signaj90 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Word messiah 

message: I would like to make an edit to this page.  It says it's semi-protected, but I can't edit it even after I've created an account. OneQuickEdit 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: When did that get in the lead? I haven't payed too much close attention to this article, but that seems like a rather vauge statement, even if referenced. And what's with the random quote? I don't even know what its talking about. Homestarmy 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gradually developing itself"?

message: The page begins with two generalizations that are subject to huge dispute, namely that Christianity is monotheistic and has been developing for four thousand, nee two thousand years.
Christian monotheism is significantly less pure than Muslim or Jewish versions, lending one to question if monotheistic is a definitive, let alone completely accurate, description of the Christian religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christian denominations range from a seeing a pure unity to, as Richard Swinburne has suggested "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods." (See the Trinity page.) Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that Christianity is not monotheistic, but it certainly isn't "monotheistic enough" to treat the issue as a. an inarguable fact b. a definitive, introductory part of the Christianity article.
Not a single human being two thousand years ago, let alone four thousand years ago (!) referred to themselves as a Christian. Traveling back in time, you would fail to meet a single person who could even have a hint of understanding to what you refer. To claim that Christianity has been evolving for four thousand years is, at least without further justification, quite strange. I assume the implication by saying four thousand years is that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. This however, is itself a controversial claim, from within and without Christian groups.
These are HUGE errors, no?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.226 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe enough to describe Christianity as monotheist - there may be a few exceptions, but then again there are some Christian atheists, too - but I agree with the points of the last two commenters about the 'gradually developing itself' bit. A close look at the reference for this point, and the quote that goes with it, shows that it is from a book published in 1835 - hardly an up to date perspective. The four thousand year time scale seems arbitrary and the other points seem to represent a particular viewpoint. I propose to delete this, unless anyone has strong objections or wants to reword it. Rbreen 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement for monotheism is increadibly well-referenced. However, the weird thing about gradually developing itself, as I noted in the previous section, does seem very unusual, so I agree with the proposel to delete it. Homestarmy 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is the Christian goddess Sophia, although she seems to have been mostly marginalized or forgotten.  (Haven't met a Christian who knew they had a goddess)  I think the article should make a note that the line between monotheism and polytheism is signficantly blurred when dealing particularly with gnostic areas of the religion.--Shadowlink1014 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnosticism isn't Christian at all, and if it was important to the question of Christianity being monotheistic, surely the sources we have so far would have mentioned it. Homestarmy 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly when it comes to monotheism Christianity is a special case -- not that we aren't but get a pass as if we were, but that, in spite of precisely fitting the dictionary definition (which has been posted in the archives), we still aren't. Either someone changes the definition of "monotheism", or makes himself a judge of purity, or gives us another deity which we now "have" without our even knowing it.  A.J.A. 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to flatly contradict the claims of the initial post here directly. I refer the objector to  Acts 11:26,  Acts 26:28, and  1 Peter 4:16 as Biblical texts which speak of the title "Christian", and the latest credible dating of these texts places them at a mimimum of 1900 years old, give or take a few decades. Second, with respect to Shadowlink's sophia and gnosticism, as a seminary student who can reference any number of ancient writings (Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril, Agustine, Athanasius, etc) on this topic, the concept of sophia as a god of Christianity betrays a near complete lack of understanding of the available textual evidence we have concerning historic Christianity. One week's study of the most basic of ancient Christian documents show that gnostics were nearly unanimously dismissed by Christians. Third, as for the four thousand year statement, I'll concede that discussion can happen here. This flows from the Christian claim that it is in continuity with the Pre-Christ Jewish faith. Fourth, with respect to questioning Christianity's monotheism, I refer you to the Athanasian creed, accepted by all but Nestorian churches, which requires monotheism. Historic Christianity has never formally sacrificed Monotheism, though individual Christians and theologians may have. Final conclusions: The time comment and the monotheistic comment can be a springboard for the nuancing of the article, but don't delete either. (PS: sorry about the many edits to my post. This has been my first post ever, so I was sloppy.  Signaj90 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the issue of the montheisticness of Christianity in concern to the Holy Trinity is as follows...The Holy Trinity is meant to describe 3 parts of the only God "whose name is The Lord." The Father is the creator and king of the universe, the Son is Jesus the Christ, who is God's presence on Earth in flesh and blood, and the Holy Spirit is is the divinity of God (the last one is the one in shich I possess the least understanding).  To say that Christianity is a non-monotheistic religion is innacurate, for it is taught that there is one God, portrayed through 3 parts. 1Shank1
The "gradually developed for 4,000 years" is eclectic nonsense. You might just as well claim Christianity has "gradually developed" for 40,000 or 400,000 years. It's arbitrary. Regarding monotheism, it's true, Christian theology has always struggled to remain monotheistic. The emphasis here is on struggled. It has taken them some 600 years to somehow get to grips with Christology. The question didn't suddenly make sense in the 7th century, but people just let it be because it was simply impossible to say anything new or interesting on it at that point: "God is triple and yet single, don't ask us, we've quibbled about this for six centuries, let's just say it is a matter of belief". dab (𒁳) 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct.  It doesn't make any sense to say that Christianity has gradually developed over 4,000 years because it didn't even exist before common era.  Now, you could certainly say that the Jewish theology from which it's based has developed over a long period of time, and indeed, has been polytheist in the past, but not Christianity.--Shadowlink1014 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Shadowlink and dab on the word "struggled" to describe Christianity's monotheism, though I'd prefer it if any changed language imply basic success with that struggle. Regarding 4,000 years, I think the emphasis of the phrase is not the time spent, but the fact that gradual development or evolution has been happening - it isn't a static religion (though it retains it's historical tenants of faith). Formal suggestion: Let's get rid of the number 4,000, replace the time reference with something generalized, like "over the course of its history", and think about changing the description of it's "development". Could this be a consensus opinion?Signaj90 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's all I'm saying: (a) the "4,000 years" is arbitrary nonsense,  (b) Christology is a complicated topic and should be summarized by people who know what they are talking about, avoiding polemics, (c) the 1st century origins of (proto-)Chistianity are discussed at origins of Christianity. What passes for Christianity-as-we-know-it-today originates in the 4th century. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: dab is right, Christianity as we know it today has its development roots in the First Council of Nicaea and Council of Chalcedon. — Superman 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, I don't agree with your view of Christianity's development. However, we agree on the choice of words, so it seems that we can go forward with the change. Signaj90 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Four Thousand years" "a Monotheistic religion" 

message: Bwildasi made a needed change, but the coding isn't finished - it needs to be changed so that the refererences can be links to the actual Bible texts trying to be referenced. Can someone do that for me since I can't do that myself? See line 8, in "Beliefs", reference numbers 14and 15 at present. Signaj90 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bwildasi's Reference Modification 

message: There is no bullet for the 'And Reformed' churches
Four main divisions:
-Roman Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodox (/Oriental Orthodox)
-Protestantism
And Reformed
:Sign your posts please!
:I want to contest the entire discussion of the Protestant and Reformed section of this part of the page. 
::1. All groups who split away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation era are considered to be Protestant by the majority of the literature. This false distinction needs to be dropped. 
::2. The implied similarity of Anglicans and Lutherans is incorrect. Anglicans try to find a middle way between Reformed and Catholic theology and practice. They derive nothing from the Lutheran tradition historically. As the text reads, it implies that they belong with the Lutherans and not the Reformed, and is wrong to do so.
::3. Melancthon was Luther's friend and helper, and he penned the Augsburg confession - the primary document of the Lutheran tradition. As such, he is improperly placed with the Reformed, though his later and more Reformed way of thinking leaves this point open to dialogue.
::4. The inclusion of the Anabaptists in the Reformed camp NEEDS to be changed. The Reformed (and Lutheran and Catholic) churches persecuted, imprisoned, killed, and treated them as a dangerously different kind of Christian! Their thinking is independant of Luther and Calvin and, at points, is quite opposed to them. If Protestant and Reformed are to be distinguished from one another, the Anabaptists get their own, because they come from neither Luther nor Calvin.
::5. The Protestant section states that it's defining characteristic is more traditional aspects of services and the Reformed's characteristic is Calvin's thought. This seems accurate for the Reformed, but the defining characteristic of Lutherans and Anglicans is not their style of worship.
::6. The wording of the entire Reformed section needs to be edited. I propose the following sentences: 
:::"Reformed churches are groups which generally follow the teachings of John Calvin together with those of the other Reformers, [insert names here] . These churches are [insert names here]"
:It's a lot - I know. I could say more, but I want to wait for conversation first. Comments? Signaj90 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would add a fifth division, Restorationism, which can be viewed as a branch of Protestantism historically, but doctrinally, Restoration groups are all over the map and really have no connection with each other, other than they feel thay have restored truth, rather than reforming existing institutions or protesting them.  Also, the reference to the "four divisions" found here actually only lists three:  Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.  Either find a different reference, or clean up that part of the article. Bytebear 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll grant you the presence of Restorationism within the general category of Protestantism (along with Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist groups) so long as their ambiguous Christian affiliation is also included. You're right in bringing them up, because they are at least cousins of the three groups, and deserve mention as such, even if they are finally rejected as Christian.Signaj90 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Main Divisions

message: Greetings all. I wish to propose two major overhauls of information in this article. As a matter of practicality, I am going to split this up into two discussion sections.
Concerning the overhaul of the structure of this article, my ideas are put forward solely to address the issue of redundancy within the article. I want to hear if people see merit in this or if they think that the issue of redundancy should be addressed differently.
Proposals:
:1. That Jesus the Christ and Jesus' death and resurrection both be integrated into one section that is no longer than one of the present sections.
:2. That Catholic beliefs, Protestant beliefs, History and Origins, and Christian divisions be brought together into one continuous section whose structure is as follows. The logic of this is that these sections are all highly redundant, and bringing them together  will make this so clear that people will be able to remove redundancies easer.
Proposed 2nd section:
2. History 
:2.1 Early to Medieval History (Present History and Origins)
:2.2 The Era of Reformation 
::2.2.1 Protestant Beliefs (Protestant beliefs and Christian Divisions and Ecumenicism, both summarized greatly)
:::2.2.1.1 Protestant Denominations Past and Present
::2.2.2 Roman Catholic Beliefs
Again, for context, this is taking sections 2, 3, 5, and 6, and making them one continuous section for the purpose of making clear and eliminating redundancy as well as excessive length. 
Comments? Signaj90 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul of Organization Proposal 

message: This article needs a lead image to be consistent with the other religions. I will propose a few below (please feel free to add). Yahel Guhan 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: these are all illustrating Roman Catholicism. Your best bet will be a medieval or ancient symbol such as 9, 10, or 11. From the 14th century, Christianity had become too fragmented to be represented by any single image. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea.  I like #1 out of the options above.  #7 is a little "busy", and someone not very familiar with Christianity may be a bit overwhelmed, or not know the relative importance of the countless images in the picture.  I disagree that Christianity is too fragmented to be represented by a single image, and the three alternatives listed above are a bit too obscure in my opinion.  Some of the original 7 are too Catholic for this general article, but the simplicity of #1 may be appropriate.  --Anietor (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Praying hands doesn't seem like a very Christian symbol.  Other faith traditions use that hand position for prayer.  Let's not water it down to the point where it's meaningless.  I think adding more images to choose from is a good idea, though, so I hope to see some more suggestions.  But it seems like a cross or crucifix would be common denominator symbol for Christianity.  --Anietor (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if only Christians are the only ones who pray as in 12, it doesn't really say Christianity to me. The lead picture should "scream" Christianity. 12 just doesn't do that, in my opinion. With the additions, I think 9 is good. Having said that, 1 [or another image of a cross] would be the best solution. The chi-rho, while explicitly Christian, isn't well-enough known. From my own experience, more Catholics than Protestants are familiar with it, and even many Catholics wouldn't recognize it. So I vote for a simple cross. But that could change as new options are presented. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Carl above.  Praying hands seems a bit too tangential (and pc), and while I don't know that we need a picture that "screams" Christianity, the hands picture is barely a whisper.  The story behind Albrecht's praying hands is a beautiful one, but a bit too obscure for those not familiar with it.  The cross is probably the symbol most associated with Christianity.  While the chi-rho certainly has strong historical credentials, it, too, is a bit obscure to those outside the faith.  --Anietor (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well maybe we should just leave it, cause I think a cross is the ideal image for Christianity. Basically anything that would make a Protestant start an edit war because its "Catholic"--so I would say crucifixes are definitely out. I see no reason not to use a Resurrection painting, though. I mean I'm Catholic, I personally would love to see a crucifix at the head of this article; but it has to be something that can't be claimed as being associated with one group of Christians to the exclusion of others, because its the article on all of Christianity, not just one group within the religion. And if you feel strongly about 12, I'm not really against it. I just don't think its overtly Christian enough. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also would lean more towards a resurrection picture of Christ. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's start over any Ressurecton suggestions? -- SECisek (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #13 is one off the page Resurrection of Jesus. There are a few more on there. If we could find one showing the wounds in his hands I think it would be better as overtly Resurrection. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this one, but didn't think the quality was good enough for a lead image. LotR 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lead image

message: Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?
Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "biblical" or "Biblical"?

message: Wikipedia generally does not attach honorific epithets to names. For instance we refer to "the Pope", not to "His Holiness the Pope"; likewise we refer to "the Qur'an" and not to "the Noble Qur'an". The word "Holy" in "Holy Bible" is an epithet of this sort, and as such, we should not use it when normally referring to the work in question. The work is commonly known as the Bible -- by believers, scholars, and everyone else -- and this expression should be used, sans epithets. --FOo (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid epithets 

message: I removed the following paragraph because it is not relevant to this article.  All it does is expound on Islamic criticism of a particular Christian doctrine, which seems about as relevant to an explanatory article about Christianity as the objections of a Hindu or an atheist.  If this paragraph is to be in the article, why not another saying that the Christian belief in salvation is incompatible with the Hindu belief in reincarnation?
::Muslims believe that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism, and they reject the Christian teaching that Jesus is the Son of God, though they affirm the virgin birth and view him as a prophet preceding Muhammad.Gary Miller, A concise reply to Christianity. The Qur'an also uses the title "Messiah," though with a different meaning.The Holy Qur'an, 3:46.Mike Tabish, What does the Qur'an say about Isa (Jesus)? Muslims also dispute the historical occurrence of the crucifixion of Jesus, believing that while a crucifixion occurred, it was not of Jesus(see docetism).
OneQuickEdit 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that last revert, I see how it's out of place.  I reverted because the edit was made by a brand new user and removed cited content, thus I assumed vandalism. --Strothra 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section about Muslim objections to Trinitarianism

message: The quote from the Second Helvetic Confession, contains the following:
: The writings of the Church Fathers, and decisions of Ecumenical Councils, though "not despise[d]," were not authoritative and could be rejected.
but these seems to be a comment by someone quoting the Confession. This should be fixed. Str1977 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Helvetic Confession

message: 12/15/2007
The article is far too complex, too lengthy, too heady and omits a simple definition of Christianity which can be done in a single sentence. Each of the factions should have a one sentence description in simple terms that a 5th grader can understand. While I am not asking for removal of complex or lengthy portions, I am asking that TOC portions be added that point to simple one sentence definitions.
Simply Defined
   Catholic
   Protestant
   Eastern Orthodox
Why loose the subject in a pile of high-ended speech and block younger less educated from understanding this topic?
Jesus didn't mean for Christianity to become a political chess game filled with a whole new vocabulary. 
Put simply, Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that he alone has the power to save people from sin and death guranteeing resurrection and eternal life in Heaven with God. 
No one should be required to have earned a PHD to understand a Wikipedia topic that was meant to be simple.
:No, that is for what the simple English WP is meant. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on Christianity at the Simple English wikipedia: here.  Pastordavid (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Holy cow!  I didn't even know about the Simple Wikipedia article.  I think a link would be a good idea.  Are there any guidelines about such links, in favor or against?  --Anietor (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already linked at the top with the parallel articles in other languages' WPs. I'm pretty sure this is standard procedure, as I've seen it done that way before. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a Simple Definition for Young Readers

message: The discsussion currently taking place here and here. Abtract (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You may be interested in

message: There doesn't seem to be a section "Criticisms" linking to Criticism of Christianity. Surely that is an oversight? Abtract (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's included in the template at the bottom of the page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen, Yale University Press,2006
This book should be added to further reading, as this historical study tells of how Jesus, a son of God, a divine hero, became Jesus the ONE and only BEGOTTEN Son of God. This is a story all to itself and a central part of the doctine of the ancient Christian church. This did not happen over night as is commonly thought. It was decreed, but still was not accepted by all early peoples who called themselves Christians, Arianism Kazuba (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your description is right the only thing notable here is the Yale University Press publishing trash.  A.J.A. (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading

message: I think there is a fundamental issue with the layout of the section on Persecutions. The first paragraph seems well suited to the issue of persecution of Christians in history. I would actually argue that it should be close to the first paragraph in the history section (though that is outside my current proposal). However, since this purports to be a section on the basic history of Christianity, this seems remarkably like an in depth analysis of an intriguing aside. Such a detail ought not be in this article, which is supposed to be very summary in nature. 
Bottom line proposal: Edit out needless detail about the French revolution and pagan temples, put them and the references to Judaism into another section of this or another page, and put the early church persecution at the beginning of the history section, since it came before the beginning of the items which kick off the history section.
--Signaj90 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Signaj90 in that the article is getting way too long; it is beginning to look like the chapter on Christianity in Parrinder's World Religions.  There are many things that really need to spun off into separate articles as not all Christian hold to all the beliefs presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue in Section 5.2: Persecutions