This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saint article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Saints was copied or moved into Catholic Church with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Should it be mentioned in the Anglican section that the Church of England formally canonized St. Charles Stuart? I also was thinking of mentioning the Anglican Rosary, Our Lady of Walsingham, etc. Objections? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the article concering Saint William of Vercelli and Saint William of Maleval are conflicting. They may be discussing the same person under different names as both refrence the Catholic Encyclopedia which has a tendancy to do just that. Both claim that these Saints founded the congregation of Mount Vergine or the Williamites. Furthermore when trying to access the page on Mount Vergine or the Williamites it disambiguates while the page on the Williamites states that Albert (No Surname) founded the order. Sovereignlance ( talk) 02:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article almost completely lacks it and needs more. The original venerated saints were called martyrs because they were martyrs, not because the term changed meanings. When and under what justification did other Confessors' veneration become accepted? Until 1056, the Orthodox and Catholic churches were united. What was the practice (/were the practices) regarding saints at that time? Similarly the current Catholic policy involved for 'recognizing' saints (that theology could use a gloss of its own) has not been the historical practice at all. Previous to the High Middle Ages, canonization was administered by local bishops; the pope gradually expropriated that authority from them; but various cults have continued to be recognized on the basis of their 'antiquity' despite falling outside the guidelines. We could use some details here about how all of this has happened. - 114.91.66.18 ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The article should maybe explain the relationship between sainthood and justification. The traditional belief on the subject is that saints are the ones who have received a very favourable particular judgement upon their death, and who will remain in the presence of God until judgement day. People who are not saints will not remain in the presence of God and will wander the Earth until Christ decides that it is time for the world to come to an end. Hence, only the saints have really been justified ahead of their time. ADM ( talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is written from a religious point of view, Since there is no evidence for the existence of God it should be written from an atheistic point of view 219.90.233.80 ( talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The article on capitalism should also be written from a Marxist point of view. Carlo ( talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In order to maintain the neutrality of Wikipedia, the article should not be biased toward the Roman Catholic view.
The Bible clearly does not say that some are saints because they were elected, and Paul's writings clearly imply that all true believers are saints.
To check me on this, do a search on the word "saint" at http://www.biblegateway.com, NASB, King James, and NIV.
Also: http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html Anotherviewkhh ( talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help me as I am new to all this. Can you show me in the article where it says something like: Many or some or all Protestants believe the Bible says all true believers are saints.
Also, by the way, I am not saying anybody does or does not read the Bible, I was only trying to explain my argument for my position. Anotherviewkhh ( talk) 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I found it Anotherviewkhh ( talk) 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a good reason why Buddhism and, even more perplexing, Islam are covered under the "Hinduism" section? To some this would probably amount to slander. -- MQDuck ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly very strange to put Sikh, Buddhist, and Muslim references in the section on Hinduism. I would suggest removing the Muslim reference and (for the short term) retitling as "India". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.79.115 ( talk) 06:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged a few sections which are totally without reliable sources. This makes most of the article look like a personal essay or, at best, original research WP:OR which, of course, has no place in Wikipedia. If anyone is serious about making this stuff encyclopedic, now is the time to get to work on it, otherwise the unsourced staff can and must be immediately deleted. I also tried to clean up some of the citations which do exist, eg, in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sections. Alas, the ones I saw were not very authoritative, coming from American religious promotional sites, like Catholic Online. Oh, dear. . . They need to be replaced with something a bit better and more neutral. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 16:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was going to specify that a person had to be dead to be a saint in the Anglican tradition, but then I became unsure if this is so. If living people may legitimately be called saints in Anglicanism, that should be made clear in the article. Where living people are sometimes referred to as saints, it should be made clear if this is simply a figure of speech, or if there is more to it than that.
There are a quite a number of other points I think need clarification, including the difference between "intercession" and "mediation". Myles325a ( talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I saved this question before, so if it's a duplicate my apologies. My question is, why are Anglicans listed at the same outline level as Protestants, incorrectly implying that they are not Protestants themselves? Additionally, shouldn't the short general statement about some Protestant groups be put under "Protestantism" rather than "Other Christian Groups"? I would make these edits myself, but I'm rather new to Wikipedia, and when it comes to changing the organization of an article itself (as opposed to simple correction of factual errors), I'd rather defer to more experienced editors. Saffi Anne ( talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mormons have been included under "Other Christian groups;" I fixed this, and then it was switched back. Frankly, I find that offensive.
Although Mormons claim to be Christian (indeed, to be the only Christians; all others are "anathema," according to their leaders), they are very far in their beliefs from Christianity as it has been understood for the last two millennia. Their decidedly non-Christian teachings include the beliefs that men can become gods with their own planets (which makes them polytheists); that these gods are just "organizers" of worlds, not creators as understood by Christians; that our God was once a man; that he has a harem of wives with whom he has sex to create "spirit children"; that the Mormon god of this earth had sex with the Virgin Mary, from which Jesus Christ was born; that Jesus and Satan are physical brothers; that there are different heavens for different groups of people; that men - not God - decide whether or not their wives can be resurrected; and much more that is not remotely Christian.
Christians disagree on a lot of things, but there are some basics, basics which the Mormons deny.
Mormonism may be accepted in Wikipedia under "Christians," but I submit that it is due only to intense pressure from its LDS contributors, who refuse to allow corrections of any kind (even the most factual) to articles about their religion. It would be helpful if an impartial jury were to weigh the claims and beliefs of traditional Christianity with Mormonism and then make an honest decision, instead of just accepting the Mormons' word for it.
RossweisseSTL ( talk) 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Should Afro-American Religion be considered a sect of Christianity/offshoot of Christianity or not? I know it includes tribal African rituals and beliefs, but it has combined them with Christian (particularly Catholic) beliefs. This could be seen as Christianity in a form of Henotheism. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For example, the Loa of Haitian Vodou are also saints.. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 01:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Some Lutherans actually venerate and pray to Mary and the saints in the same way Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics do, according to the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church's website [1] -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Originally the term "Saint" comes from Latin and was exclusively used by the Catholic Church; then later other Christian churches. There emerged a disconnect when its use was extended to other religions, and another when the word is used as a calque and shoved back to the countries that still primarily maintain the Judeo-Christian use.
The Japanese have a different concept of gods and of their servants, and their story-telling practices are patterned on this unconscious paradigm. Japanese gods are supernatural immortals who do not have absolute power over a domain of nature such as Neptune purportedly had over the sea (and horses and earthquakes); their servants have super-powers and battle demons and each other similarly as in the Chinese WUXIA martial-arts movies (running up the sides of buildings and jumping from roof to roof). The proper term for these combatants is "heroes"; they're actually demigods like the literal hero Hercules, who do things like the twelve labors of Hercules; they're not role-models or persons to pray to.
Thus one Japanese anime literally was given the name Saint Seiya and the officials of various European countries (France, Italy) could not stand the immediate word-for-word translation and had to call this "Knights of Olympus". 4.154.252.159 ( talk) 16:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the exact alphabetical order is a good idea. "Other Christian Beliefs" should be at the end of the list. Also, Lutheranism and Methodism (and debatebly Anglicanism) should fall under the "Protestantism" headline. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The creator doubtless meant well. But this collection of old images from Wikimedia has a clumsy layout. There is no key to identify who's who. With maybe one or two exceptions the artists had no idea what the saints looked like, and were just drawing from imagination or a model. The image just doesn't have any informational value. If folks want more pictures I suggest using photographs or paintings from life of saints. There have been enough saints in the past 200 years that there are no lack of actual images. Anyway, I'm deleting the collage as a usel ess decoration. Will Beback talk 09:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Can any one please clarify ?
I'm starting to wonder if this article should even be titled "saint". Dictionary.com defines a saint as such:
saint [seynt] Show IPA noun 1. any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, especially by canonization. 2. a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence. 3. a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization. 4. (in certain religious groups) a designation applied by the members to themselves.
��–( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/saint)
This article defines a saint as "a holy person, who becomes a religious hero by exemplifying a virtue or virtues of his or her religion". This definition is extremely broad and is closest in meaning to dictionary.com's second definition but in a religious context. This is misleading, because I'm certainly not the only one who thinks of a saint as either a Christian saint or as someone who is very virtuous NOT in a Christian (or any other religious) context.
I think this article should be split or its title revised to maintain neutrality and avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article quotes the Christian Bible as saying: "They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the Lord." Though this is true, the translation itself is misleading. The original (Hebrew) text reads: 'ויקנאו למשה במחנה לאהרן קדוש ה, meaning, "They envied Moses in the camp and Aaron the holy one of the Lord." This merely refers to Aaron being the High Priest, not, as this translation may, in the context of this article, lead people to believe, to him being someone deemed a saint by the Church or someone often referred to as a saint, neither of which he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed in almost every article on Wikipedia about a saint (exs: Thomas Aquinas, Anthony of Padua, Patrick of Ireland) the title of the article does not use the designation "Saint" or "St." I know it was (sort of) discussed on Talk:Thomas Aquinas, but I never found a resolution to the discussion. Is giving the title "Saint" to someone really that big a deal? We don't ask people on the page Buddha to rename it Siddhartha Gautama, even though Buddha is also an honorific title; yet because it is the name by which people know Siddhartha, we retain the name Buddha. A lot of these saints are always referred to as Saint Francis of Assisi, or Saint Augustine; and never by just their names alone. Isn't it odd that we consider it POV just to use the common title of these people? Or (sort of related to the topic) referring to "Mahatma" Gandhi as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; why on earth would we not just use Mahatma, the title everyone has heard of? Does it mean "Great Soul"? Yes. Does that technically give the title a POV? Yes, but does that mean we should avoid the common usage? I would say no. If anyone could direct me to the debate about this, it would be much appreciated. Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 17:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideon.judges7 ( talk • contribs)
Nevermind, found the answer at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). No discussion about it on the talk page though. Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Gideon.judges7
The Albanian word "Shaint"-"saint" which is usually called "shenje", it means "sign, symbol or mark" ,and it reflect a moral model of persons, "holy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by FadilPaloja ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see some comments on sainthood in Quan Yin meditation. MaynardClark ( talk) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Saint which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bguru\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
Hi Cyberbot II administrator. In reading the above explanation, I find it difficult to understand why this site (om-guru.com) is on the Local Blacklist. I searched the various Wiki local and global blacklist files and could not find the site listed in any of them. Cyberbot II is back box to us users and does not provide reasons for the blacklisting. Additional explanations would be most helpful here. It seems making a request that it be white-listed without understanding why it was blacklisted in the first place is premature. Jjdd11 ( talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Wondering if this article's status should be upgraded? I did see there are still about 6 tags for "citation needed" or "verification needed". Do those need to be cleared before an upgrade? Overall this article looks to be well written and fairly complete. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Saint. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
If anyone desires, I'm willing to breeze through this article and flag the many instances of unsupported claims, weak attributions, and outright overreach. Some areas are overexplained in a manner that is more textbook than encyclopedia; others are skimmed lightly past.
An apparent example of the latter: The remains of saints are called holy relics and are usually used in churches. This seems to be saying "when a saint dies, his body is carved up (or dehydrated or something) and passed around the various parishes because it's full of magic," correct? If so, then it should be stated so plainly rather than weaselling around it.
And when they are not "used in churches," does that mean they're properly buried, or put in a file cabinet, or maybe "used" when defined as? in shopping malls?
Let's not overlook the Eurocentrism inherent in the lede, which sets up the case "saints are a Christian thing." It should be rewritten from scratch.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please inform the reader that the Catholic Church does not venerate Saints in a Cult form in any way. In the Catholic Church I believe a Saint has to create 3 miracles. And I believe a Saint follows Jesus Christ only (e.g. not the State or Church) People want Cures and Redemption. That is the only reason why people would follow the Saints. Though it is not the Saints area to do this; many have followed them in faith, hope, love, and contrition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:7028:B91:0:0:0:BD93 ( talk) 01:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
If Catholics believed all their dead become saints, as this definition states, then why would there be a canonization process? This definition is wrong and misleading. 74.74.155.17 ( talk) 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saint article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Saints was copied or moved into Catholic Church with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Should it be mentioned in the Anglican section that the Church of England formally canonized St. Charles Stuart? I also was thinking of mentioning the Anglican Rosary, Our Lady of Walsingham, etc. Objections? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the article concering Saint William of Vercelli and Saint William of Maleval are conflicting. They may be discussing the same person under different names as both refrence the Catholic Encyclopedia which has a tendancy to do just that. Both claim that these Saints founded the congregation of Mount Vergine or the Williamites. Furthermore when trying to access the page on Mount Vergine or the Williamites it disambiguates while the page on the Williamites states that Albert (No Surname) founded the order. Sovereignlance ( talk) 02:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article almost completely lacks it and needs more. The original venerated saints were called martyrs because they were martyrs, not because the term changed meanings. When and under what justification did other Confessors' veneration become accepted? Until 1056, the Orthodox and Catholic churches were united. What was the practice (/were the practices) regarding saints at that time? Similarly the current Catholic policy involved for 'recognizing' saints (that theology could use a gloss of its own) has not been the historical practice at all. Previous to the High Middle Ages, canonization was administered by local bishops; the pope gradually expropriated that authority from them; but various cults have continued to be recognized on the basis of their 'antiquity' despite falling outside the guidelines. We could use some details here about how all of this has happened. - 114.91.66.18 ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The article should maybe explain the relationship between sainthood and justification. The traditional belief on the subject is that saints are the ones who have received a very favourable particular judgement upon their death, and who will remain in the presence of God until judgement day. People who are not saints will not remain in the presence of God and will wander the Earth until Christ decides that it is time for the world to come to an end. Hence, only the saints have really been justified ahead of their time. ADM ( talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is written from a religious point of view, Since there is no evidence for the existence of God it should be written from an atheistic point of view 219.90.233.80 ( talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The article on capitalism should also be written from a Marxist point of view. Carlo ( talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In order to maintain the neutrality of Wikipedia, the article should not be biased toward the Roman Catholic view.
The Bible clearly does not say that some are saints because they were elected, and Paul's writings clearly imply that all true believers are saints.
To check me on this, do a search on the word "saint" at http://www.biblegateway.com, NASB, King James, and NIV.
Also: http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html Anotherviewkhh ( talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help me as I am new to all this. Can you show me in the article where it says something like: Many or some or all Protestants believe the Bible says all true believers are saints.
Also, by the way, I am not saying anybody does or does not read the Bible, I was only trying to explain my argument for my position. Anotherviewkhh ( talk) 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I found it Anotherviewkhh ( talk) 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a good reason why Buddhism and, even more perplexing, Islam are covered under the "Hinduism" section? To some this would probably amount to slander. -- MQDuck ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly very strange to put Sikh, Buddhist, and Muslim references in the section on Hinduism. I would suggest removing the Muslim reference and (for the short term) retitling as "India". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.79.115 ( talk) 06:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged a few sections which are totally without reliable sources. This makes most of the article look like a personal essay or, at best, original research WP:OR which, of course, has no place in Wikipedia. If anyone is serious about making this stuff encyclopedic, now is the time to get to work on it, otherwise the unsourced staff can and must be immediately deleted. I also tried to clean up some of the citations which do exist, eg, in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sections. Alas, the ones I saw were not very authoritative, coming from American religious promotional sites, like Catholic Online. Oh, dear. . . They need to be replaced with something a bit better and more neutral. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 16:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was going to specify that a person had to be dead to be a saint in the Anglican tradition, but then I became unsure if this is so. If living people may legitimately be called saints in Anglicanism, that should be made clear in the article. Where living people are sometimes referred to as saints, it should be made clear if this is simply a figure of speech, or if there is more to it than that.
There are a quite a number of other points I think need clarification, including the difference between "intercession" and "mediation". Myles325a ( talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I saved this question before, so if it's a duplicate my apologies. My question is, why are Anglicans listed at the same outline level as Protestants, incorrectly implying that they are not Protestants themselves? Additionally, shouldn't the short general statement about some Protestant groups be put under "Protestantism" rather than "Other Christian Groups"? I would make these edits myself, but I'm rather new to Wikipedia, and when it comes to changing the organization of an article itself (as opposed to simple correction of factual errors), I'd rather defer to more experienced editors. Saffi Anne ( talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mormons have been included under "Other Christian groups;" I fixed this, and then it was switched back. Frankly, I find that offensive.
Although Mormons claim to be Christian (indeed, to be the only Christians; all others are "anathema," according to their leaders), they are very far in their beliefs from Christianity as it has been understood for the last two millennia. Their decidedly non-Christian teachings include the beliefs that men can become gods with their own planets (which makes them polytheists); that these gods are just "organizers" of worlds, not creators as understood by Christians; that our God was once a man; that he has a harem of wives with whom he has sex to create "spirit children"; that the Mormon god of this earth had sex with the Virgin Mary, from which Jesus Christ was born; that Jesus and Satan are physical brothers; that there are different heavens for different groups of people; that men - not God - decide whether or not their wives can be resurrected; and much more that is not remotely Christian.
Christians disagree on a lot of things, but there are some basics, basics which the Mormons deny.
Mormonism may be accepted in Wikipedia under "Christians," but I submit that it is due only to intense pressure from its LDS contributors, who refuse to allow corrections of any kind (even the most factual) to articles about their religion. It would be helpful if an impartial jury were to weigh the claims and beliefs of traditional Christianity with Mormonism and then make an honest decision, instead of just accepting the Mormons' word for it.
RossweisseSTL ( talk) 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Should Afro-American Religion be considered a sect of Christianity/offshoot of Christianity or not? I know it includes tribal African rituals and beliefs, but it has combined them with Christian (particularly Catholic) beliefs. This could be seen as Christianity in a form of Henotheism. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For example, the Loa of Haitian Vodou are also saints.. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 01:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Some Lutherans actually venerate and pray to Mary and the saints in the same way Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics do, according to the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church's website [1] -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Originally the term "Saint" comes from Latin and was exclusively used by the Catholic Church; then later other Christian churches. There emerged a disconnect when its use was extended to other religions, and another when the word is used as a calque and shoved back to the countries that still primarily maintain the Judeo-Christian use.
The Japanese have a different concept of gods and of their servants, and their story-telling practices are patterned on this unconscious paradigm. Japanese gods are supernatural immortals who do not have absolute power over a domain of nature such as Neptune purportedly had over the sea (and horses and earthquakes); their servants have super-powers and battle demons and each other similarly as in the Chinese WUXIA martial-arts movies (running up the sides of buildings and jumping from roof to roof). The proper term for these combatants is "heroes"; they're actually demigods like the literal hero Hercules, who do things like the twelve labors of Hercules; they're not role-models or persons to pray to.
Thus one Japanese anime literally was given the name Saint Seiya and the officials of various European countries (France, Italy) could not stand the immediate word-for-word translation and had to call this "Knights of Olympus". 4.154.252.159 ( talk) 16:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the exact alphabetical order is a good idea. "Other Christian Beliefs" should be at the end of the list. Also, Lutheranism and Methodism (and debatebly Anglicanism) should fall under the "Protestantism" headline. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The creator doubtless meant well. But this collection of old images from Wikimedia has a clumsy layout. There is no key to identify who's who. With maybe one or two exceptions the artists had no idea what the saints looked like, and were just drawing from imagination or a model. The image just doesn't have any informational value. If folks want more pictures I suggest using photographs or paintings from life of saints. There have been enough saints in the past 200 years that there are no lack of actual images. Anyway, I'm deleting the collage as a usel ess decoration. Will Beback talk 09:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Can any one please clarify ?
I'm starting to wonder if this article should even be titled "saint". Dictionary.com defines a saint as such:
saint [seynt] Show IPA noun 1. any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, especially by canonization. 2. a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence. 3. a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization. 4. (in certain religious groups) a designation applied by the members to themselves.
��–( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/saint)
This article defines a saint as "a holy person, who becomes a religious hero by exemplifying a virtue or virtues of his or her religion". This definition is extremely broad and is closest in meaning to dictionary.com's second definition but in a religious context. This is misleading, because I'm certainly not the only one who thinks of a saint as either a Christian saint or as someone who is very virtuous NOT in a Christian (or any other religious) context.
I think this article should be split or its title revised to maintain neutrality and avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article quotes the Christian Bible as saying: "They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the Lord." Though this is true, the translation itself is misleading. The original (Hebrew) text reads: 'ויקנאו למשה במחנה לאהרן קדוש ה, meaning, "They envied Moses in the camp and Aaron the holy one of the Lord." This merely refers to Aaron being the High Priest, not, as this translation may, in the context of this article, lead people to believe, to him being someone deemed a saint by the Church or someone often referred to as a saint, neither of which he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed in almost every article on Wikipedia about a saint (exs: Thomas Aquinas, Anthony of Padua, Patrick of Ireland) the title of the article does not use the designation "Saint" or "St." I know it was (sort of) discussed on Talk:Thomas Aquinas, but I never found a resolution to the discussion. Is giving the title "Saint" to someone really that big a deal? We don't ask people on the page Buddha to rename it Siddhartha Gautama, even though Buddha is also an honorific title; yet because it is the name by which people know Siddhartha, we retain the name Buddha. A lot of these saints are always referred to as Saint Francis of Assisi, or Saint Augustine; and never by just their names alone. Isn't it odd that we consider it POV just to use the common title of these people? Or (sort of related to the topic) referring to "Mahatma" Gandhi as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; why on earth would we not just use Mahatma, the title everyone has heard of? Does it mean "Great Soul"? Yes. Does that technically give the title a POV? Yes, but does that mean we should avoid the common usage? I would say no. If anyone could direct me to the debate about this, it would be much appreciated. Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 17:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideon.judges7 ( talk • contribs)
Nevermind, found the answer at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). No discussion about it on the talk page though. Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Gideon.judges7
The Albanian word "Shaint"-"saint" which is usually called "shenje", it means "sign, symbol or mark" ,and it reflect a moral model of persons, "holy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by FadilPaloja ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see some comments on sainthood in Quan Yin meditation. MaynardClark ( talk) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Saint which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bguru\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
Hi Cyberbot II administrator. In reading the above explanation, I find it difficult to understand why this site (om-guru.com) is on the Local Blacklist. I searched the various Wiki local and global blacklist files and could not find the site listed in any of them. Cyberbot II is back box to us users and does not provide reasons for the blacklisting. Additional explanations would be most helpful here. It seems making a request that it be white-listed without understanding why it was blacklisted in the first place is premature. Jjdd11 ( talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Wondering if this article's status should be upgraded? I did see there are still about 6 tags for "citation needed" or "verification needed". Do those need to be cleared before an upgrade? Overall this article looks to be well written and fairly complete. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Saint. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
If anyone desires, I'm willing to breeze through this article and flag the many instances of unsupported claims, weak attributions, and outright overreach. Some areas are overexplained in a manner that is more textbook than encyclopedia; others are skimmed lightly past.
An apparent example of the latter: The remains of saints are called holy relics and are usually used in churches. This seems to be saying "when a saint dies, his body is carved up (or dehydrated or something) and passed around the various parishes because it's full of magic," correct? If so, then it should be stated so plainly rather than weaselling around it.
And when they are not "used in churches," does that mean they're properly buried, or put in a file cabinet, or maybe "used" when defined as? in shopping malls?
Let's not overlook the Eurocentrism inherent in the lede, which sets up the case "saints are a Christian thing." It should be rewritten from scratch.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please inform the reader that the Catholic Church does not venerate Saints in a Cult form in any way. In the Catholic Church I believe a Saint has to create 3 miracles. And I believe a Saint follows Jesus Christ only (e.g. not the State or Church) People want Cures and Redemption. That is the only reason why people would follow the Saints. Though it is not the Saints area to do this; many have followed them in faith, hope, love, and contrition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:7028:B91:0:0:0:BD93 ( talk) 01:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
If Catholics believed all their dead become saints, as this definition states, then why would there be a canonization process? This definition is wrong and misleading. 74.74.155.17 ( talk) 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)