Talk:Jesus bloodline

protected

I have protected this page for 2 days. Please discuss edits and controversial citation tags here on the talk page first, rather than putting up questionable tags, or reverting them as vandalism and leaving vandalism warnings on editor talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dogmatic

The use of the word dogmatic in relation to the Jesus Bloodline should be used in the same way that the word is used in relation to Christianity. The objection to the usage of the word can only be made by those who are sympathetic to the Jesus Bloodline as a historical fact. This is quite obvious. The removal of the word is unwarranted. Please do not alter this heading and integrate it into another discussion thread. It will otherwise be reverted. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You know for someone waging a campaign against New Age dogmatism, do you realize you sound dogmatic? Let me repeat myself: Although I am will to entertain the notion that Jesus was married to a woman, I'm NOT sympathetic to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. The term "dogmatic" has a strong pejorative connotation because it is almost universally used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument. In light of the fact that there are some "adherents of the bloodline" who are not dogmatic in the sense that they don't hold rigid beliefs about the Jesus bloodline hypothesis and are open to rational argument against such a hypothesis, it is unfair and inaccurate to paint all "adherents of the bloodline" as dogmatic. Furthermore, you need to cite a reliable source that describes some or all "adherents of the bloodline" as dogmatic otherwise you are engaging in prejudiced POV-based original research. That being said, the only reason why you originally wanted to use the word "dogmatic" to describe the devotion of "adherents of the bloodline" is because of my previous use of the word to describe mainstream Christian refusal to adopt the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. However, I've deleted my use of the word in relation to Christianity so why do you insist in still using it in relation to the "adherents of the bloodline"? --Loremaster (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, will the following edit satisfy you: "In reaction to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Da Vinci Code, and other controversial books on the same theme, a significant number of individuals of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have adhered to a Jesus bloodline hypothesis despite its lack of substantiation." --Loremaster (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to resolve this dispute as soon as possible in order to nominate Jesus bloodline as a good article candidate after finding a good image to add to it. --Loremaster (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will oppose the nomination on the grounds of lack of common sense and breaking Wikipedia Policy on the grounds of the article being the work of a sole editor and not being a collaboration. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Since all your arguments lacked any sense, my edits have greatly expanded and improved the article, and I have made numerous compromises, your opposition will not be taken seriously by any reasonable person. --Loremaster (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting all this acrimony aside, is the compromise above acceptable to you? If not, please explain to us why while taking into account everything I've said in this thread. --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've further expanded the first paragraph of the Adherence section to "hammer the point" you wanted to make. --Loremaster (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

unprotected

I've unprotected the page. If edit warring starts up again I'll be likely to lock it for a week. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of User:Wfgh66's attitude and behavior, I think it would be wiser to temporarily block him from Wikipedia rather than locking the article which is improving nicely. --Loremaster (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About the terms "New Age", "New Ager" and "New Age movement"

The term "New Age" is a misnomer and is generally used by fundamentalists as a catch-all rubric for any idea, belief, activity or group that is not Trinitarian Christian. By their lights, anything that is not Christian is by definition actively and willfully anti-Christian. The implication is that these independent and sometimes contradictory schools of philosophy and belief are all part of a monolithic whole. This is logically and empirically false, and rationally simplistic. Accordingly I have replaced it with the less controversial and more pertinent term "esoteric Christian". --Loremaster (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorant rubbish. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why "esoteric Christians" is a "colossal inappropriate phrase". --Loremaster (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If there is no reliable, independent source to be had which directly links a term such as New Age with commentary/criticism on Jesus bloodline, the term can be taken out of the article as original research. If there is such a source, use of the term can be limited only to the commentary/criticism linked with that term which is carried by the source Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Common sense thrown out the window. The only category of people that can be defined as accepting the Jesus Bloodline fantasy are the New Age. And if you can think of any other category of people name them. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You express these rigid beliefs about adherents of the bloodline while being closed to any common-sense argument. Please explain to us 1) why only New Agers would accept the Jesus bloodline hypothesis and 2) what is wrong with "esoteric Christian" as a category to name some of these people. --Loremaster (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you provide us with a good answer to the second question, I'll simply delete the term "esoteric Christian" and not replace it with anything else. --Loremaster (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the term "New Age" as a category for adherents of the bloodline is that it excludes a large number of people who have adhered to a Jesus bloodline hypothesis, regardless of how uncritical they may be, without embracing the beliefs of the so-called New Age movement. As anecdotal evidence, I've met numerous nominal Catholics and hardcore atheists who, after the reading The Da Vinci Code or seeing the film based on it, said to me: "Even though I read that the link to the Merovingian dynasty is non-sense, I'm willing to buy the idea that a Jesus bloodline existed and may even still exist. It doesn't change my life whether or not it's true or not but it's still a cool idea." Does that automatically make them New Agers? Of course not. --Loremaster (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen. --Loremaster (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are full of rubbish. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize hurling insults without provocation proves my case that you have an histrionic personality, right? --Loremaster (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)