Talk:Saint

Anglicanism

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)

Conflicting Articles

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)

Historical Process

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)

Saints and justification

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)

The article cannot explain the relationship between sainthood and justification, simply because both concepts which fail the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. Belief, faith etc are no substitute for verifiability. Cite the verifiable sources for justification, the existence of saints, God, favorable judgement etc. and then all of this can be included. Otherwise it is just speculation. Faith is fine at a personal level but not in an encyclopedia which hopes to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.27.49 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to literally verify if saints are actually justified before God in paradise, that would be practically impossible, I'm just requesting additional material from existing theological documentation, such as holy writ and sacred tradition. ADM (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ADM states above: "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": Is there a source for this claim? It does seem a bit speculative. I'm not sure that "traditional belief" counts for much here; the article needs authoritative, verifiable sources. --TraceyR (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ADM, please do add this material, but when you do so remember (1) to discuss it as theology rather than fact and (2) to reference authoritative sources discussing the belief. "Traditional" really doesn't cut it for something that has been redefined so many times even within one faith. Ideally, find the theologian(s) responsible for the origination of the doctrine. Even if it is The Truth, it generally takes man quite a while to figure out what that is. =) -114.91.66.18 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

... and of course always remember that Wikipedia's main criterion is not the truth but verifiability. --TraceyR (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of view

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)

The article is of course written, at least in part, from a religious point of view, considering the subject is a religious one, dealing with a specifically religious point of view, that being the naming of individuals as saints. It would be possibly be counterproductive to write it from an atheistic point of view, if a specific atheistic point of view could be decided upon, as doing so would very likely make it harder to understand the subject. However, if there are sufficient notable and verifiable sources regarding the subject of saints from an atheistic point of view, I can well imagine that material could be added regarding that. I would urge the IP editor in question to indicate what sources he would use for that purposes, if he wants such material to be included. John Carter (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

atheists dont necessarily believe there are no saints, just that there is no god. many atheists would say that holiness resides ENTIRELY in fellow man, not in some power above. so a section on atheism and sainthood would be a complex topic, not addressed in a single line. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which might be why you can't do it. There is no single thing called "atheism" anymore than there is a single thing called "theism." It really isn't a category for this sort of article at all. If you wanted to discuss the subject as approached by non-theistic Buddhists or secular humanists (assuming they have such an approach), that might make some sense. But most atheists probably don't even belong to ANY definable group. And if belief (or non-belief) groups simply ignore the subject entirely - which I think is the case with MOST atheists - there is really simply nothing to say.

And in addition there is also the problem that atheists are not a religion at all. I don't know if they can be "not a religion" and still treated as a defined group when discussing religions. Carlo (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the guy was trying to make a point, and he made it poorly. His point is that the article is written from a religious point of view, and this is a bad thing because articles are meant to be factual only, and they are not meant to be written from the point of view of a belief system. His assertion that it should be written from "an atheistic point of view" is clearly invalid, as atheism is also a belief system.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that his initial point is valid: the article should not be written from the point of view that the Christian god (or Hindu gods, in the Hindu section) exist.

Having said that, I personally don't think the article is too bad. And I'm an atheist, too. The only real flaw I could see was that there is an assumption at the top of the article that saints are Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.30 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"The only real flaw I could see was that there is an assumption at the top of the article that saints are Christian."

I don't see where that's assumed. Could you be specific?

"However, we should not lose sight of the fact that his initial point is valid: the article should not be written from the point of view that the Christian god (or Hindu gods, in the Hindu section) exist."

Well, it does just say "God" without qualification. But what else would you have? That everytime it says "God" it should say, "God (whose existence not everyone believes in)"? I mean, there is a wikilink. Carlo (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through one section flagging statements which require sources to verify them. The whole article needs this treatment. I see no valid reason for excluding religious articles from the standard Wikipedia requirement for verifiability. In this sense I disagree with the original request that the article should be written from an atheistic point of view. Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View, currently lacking here. Since one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god (or more than one), the article needs simply to be objective and cite sources to back up its claims. Just like any other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.26.32 (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the Christian perspective there is a process to raise a common man or women as Saint to the Alter of God. This process includes receiving consensus from Atheist too. There is no such process in other religion, so that today's Saints are Christians. However, any human born can become a Saint by living a holy life. I strongly believe that there are many unknown Saints in other religion too. They are not revealed as there is no such process to proclaim them as Saints in their religion. God wants every human to become Saints on His Holy Alter. Melquirrajan (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All Christians are saints

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)

The Catholic (and Orthodox, incidentally) practice of declaring some individuals to be "saints" does not mean that others are not. "Saint" is really an adjective - it means "holy." "Hagios" in Greek. That it can be used as a title and a proper noun does not mean that it has no use as a common noun. Like many words, it has more than a single meaning. The fact that Catholics choose to refer to (say) Paul the Apostle as "The Holy Paul" or "Saint Paul" (Hagios Paulos) does not mean that the word "holy" cannot also be applied, less formally, to all of the sanctified.

By the way, Catholics read the Bible. Quite a bit. Carlo (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the article gives the understanding of the word "saint" from Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Lutheran point of view, so I fail to see what the problem is. Carlo (talk) 13:50, 17 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)

Under the Section headed "Protestant": "In many Protestant churches, the word "Saint" is used more generally to refer to anyone who is a Christian. This is similar in usage to Paul's numerous references in the New Testament of the Bible. In this sense, anyone who is within the Body of Christ (i.e., a professing Christian) is a 'saint' because of their relationship with Jesus." Carlo (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest changing the article to 'Sainthood' - allowing a discussion of sainthood as an idea in different religious and spiritual traditions of cultivation? By definition, that may NOT truly 'cover' the 'real concept' any specific faith HAS, but it might open the complications of any such word in a modern, pluralistic context. MaynardClark (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hindu

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)

Verification needed to avoid heavy deletion

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 agree that these citations are not very good, but good Roman Catholic sources are (e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia), I think, probably acceptable for saints in the Roman Catholic church. Ditto for Orthodox sources. Andries (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think that this is the sort of article where "authoritative" sources are more important to find, and the issue of neutral sources is not AS important as in other articles. Official church cites would be where to get info on the procedure for sainthood, who is considered a saint, etc., even though in other circumstances these same sources would need to be balanced. For instance, an article on the history of a specific church should not rely on official church sources alone, or too heavily. But here, the topic lends itself a little more to reliance on official sources. There are parts where POV may be an issue, certainly, but not as much of a risk for most of the article. Let's start getting reliable sources and we can bring in balance where it seems necessary and lacking. --anietor (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

some questions

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)

There are two different meanings to the term "saint" in Anglicanism. "Saint" (capitol s) refers to someone who is in Heaven, whereest "saints"(lowercase s) are ALL Christians. The Low Church Anglicans typically only use to term to refer to christians and people on their liturgical calenders like Martin Luther King Jr. and John Wesley, but High Church Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and members of the Anglican Use use the term to reffer to cannonized persons. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline questions

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)

False, Anglicanism is not Protestant. The church itself declares itself "Reformed Catholic" and a "Via Media" or Midway between Catholic and Protestant. While certain members of the Anglican Communion (especially in the Episcopal Church of the United States) may identify as protestant, the church itself official holds that it is not protestant. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And as for "Other Christian Groups" the Oriental Orthodox Church is Orthodox (similar to Eastern Orthodoxy or Eastern Catholicism) and the Church of Latter Day Saints is NOT Protestant. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I see now that I was mistaken, that the Anglican Church describes itself as not Protestant, so thank you for that clarification. But care should be taken on your second point: Oriental Orthodox churches are NOT the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church, and if the standard is mere similarity, then the Eastern Orthodox Church has much more in common with Catholicism - all Catholics, not just Eastern rite Catholics (who anyway, are in communion with Roman Catholicism). The member churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion do not accept the outsome of the VERY important Council of Chalcedon, while the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Churches do. (And I suspect also most Protestant Churches, but I'm not as familiar with their theologies.) -- Saffi Anne (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And I have not suggested that the Church of Latter Day Saints should be included under Protestantism - in fact, I would strongly object if it was. Members of that Church believe that they have restored the pure form of the earliest Christian churches, which predates their differences to even before the split that followed Chalcedon. -- Saffi Anne (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mormons

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)

Your opinion is merely that- an opinion. As a practicing Roman Catholic, I do not view Mormon's as Christians. However, the denomination refers to itself as Christian, and by wikipedia's policies it is to be included as part of Christianity. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind ALL the different beliefs of Christianity. It is not simply "Catholic", "Mormon", and "Protestant". There are many different branches of Protestantism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, New Age, Evangelical, etc.. all with different beliefs. Wikipedia views ALL these as Christian, regardless of what the different churches think of each other. For example, the Unity Church and Jehova's Witnesses have doctrines that are contradictory to the doctrines of say, the Lutheran, Catholic, or Baptist churches, but they are also considered Christian on Wikipedia. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Willthacheerleader18. I know that there are many "different beliefs of Christianity;" I am an Anglican who doesn't much care to be classified as a Protestant! But really, there are still basic beliefs that all Christians, from Roman Catholics to Baptists, recognize and share - and that's not just an opinion. I would start with the fundamental Christian belief in ONE God in Three Persons (not a "plurality of gods") who is the Creator of heaven and Earth, and, indeed, of all things. You really can't be a polytheist and be a Christian, and Wikipedia is taking the easy - but wrong - way out by allowing Mormons to force their way into inclusion. But at least now I understand the policy. (If I refer to myself as Rossweisse Windsor, will Wikipedia allow me to include myself in a list of the members of England's royal family?)

RossweisseSTL (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There are three senses of the word Christian that seem relevant to this conversation.

1. One is that of being based on the teachings of Christ (e.g. Christian teachings, Christian theology, Christian belief), something which is hard for a neutral encyclopedia to decide. This can be documented and sourced, but only with reference to a Christian group's POV. In order to do this, we could assert a notable group's opinion about the subject of the article, but to avoid WP:UNDUE that has to be balanced against other notable POVs and cannot be asserted as fact by the encyclopedia.
   See also: Christian denomination § Differences of opinion regarding the definition of Christianity
2. Another is the adjective sense of having a character or quality similar to or derived from Christianity (e.g. a Christian name, a Christian architecture, a Christian culture) which is easier to do without controversy. It may help to view their inclusion here as an indication of having been influenced by Christianity, or of having been an offshoot thereof. As a matter of historical record, this can generally be documented and sourced without regard to POV. However, there are cases where we may have to simply source the subject group when it says it was inspired by something related to Christianity.
3. A third sense would be that given above, that is, self-identity; anyone who says they are a Christian would be Christian. While it may be the easiest of the three to document, it does reflect a POV - the person's view of themselves. It also provides the least amount of information to the reader. Alas, I cannot make myself a [[|House of Windsor|Windsor]] by saying I am such, nor can I become an Orthodox Jew by proclaiming, however stubbornly, that I am -- they would not accept that I had anything to do with them and I show nothing of having been influenced by them. Idi Amin could not make himself the Last King of Scotland, and no one reputable is about to assert that he was anything more than a pretender. Hence, I don't believe that self-identity really tells the reader anything meaningful other than the subject's view of themselves, which certainly merits inclusion in an article about that subject, but to avoid WP:UNDUE we would also have to balance it with others' view of the subject person/group/denomination. The only way to document and source the third sense is in reference to the subject's POV of themselves which is generally not that objective.

In my opinion, to some extent Wikipedia should be taking all three approaches, as each provides distinct information to the reader. Articles about subjects ARE allowed (indeed encouraged) to document both the group's POV about themselves, and other notable POVs about the group. However, if forced to choose between senses (e.g. in the case of a category or section heading) the second sense may be the best combination of easy to cite, NPOV, and informative to the reader. I would support possibly renaming such categories (e.g. "Christianity-influenced" or "Christendom" or "Christian-umbrella") to make it clear which sense is being used.

I'd be curious as to whether there are any existing consensus or Wikipedia policies that help us to travel the narrow road between a meaningless definition and a No True Scotsman fallacy.

-- Joren (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Or we could rely on how non-partisan/neutral reliable sources classify Mormons/LDS, eg:

• The Religious Composition of the United States
• 2001 American Religious Identification Survey
• CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing::Religion
• ARIS 2008 Report: Part IA - Belonging

to name a few. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Joren. I would definitely agree with Mormonism being "Christianity-influenced," as Christianity and Islam are Jewish-influenced. But Christians and Muslims would be subject to severe correction if they claimed to be Jews on that basis. Mormons should be equally subject to correction when they claim to be Christian.

FyzixFighter, the problem with your so-called "non-partisan/neutral reliable sources" is that they are all simply relying on the Mormons' POV of themselves, and, no doubt, the usual high-powered objections from Mormons if they're put into a non-Christian category.. (I do note that ARS has diplomatically placed Mormonism between the Christian groups and the non-Christian same.) Therefore, as a determinant of whether or not Mormons can legitimately claim to be Christians, they are pretty much worthless.

RossweisseSTL (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"as a determinant of whether or not Mormons can legitimately claim to be Christians"... that's the thing. As an encyclopedia, we're not really in a good place to make that determination. All we can do is report on what others have said about the topic, and decide for our own project how best to organize these religions (e.g. what section to put them under). I prefer #2 as a solution that might be more defensible, informative, and less prone to controversy, but others have other opinions. We are (thankfully) not the decider of what is and isn't true.

-- Joren (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

True, Joren, but when high-pressure tactics result in blatant falsehoods being allowed to stand in a reference work - and, by default, the reference work that most people turn to first - it diminishes the value of the entire enterprise. I'd go with #2, too.~~RossweisseSTL (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If one were to say that Mormons could not be included under Christianity in wikipedia, than neither could any denomination that is part of Nontrinitarianism. If you notice, they defy basic beleifs like the virgin birth, Trinity, many of the Sacraments, etc. But they are still considered part of Christianity --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No: We're talking about polytheism versus monotheism - or at least I am. Polytheism is, by definition, non-Christian. We're talking about teaching that some men can become gods and control the eternal situations of other human beings, which is essentially a form of paganism.

But since the policy is the policy, as bad as it is, we're probably spinning our wheels at this point.~~RossweisseSTL (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the Mormon belief of God. They consider themselves "Monotheistic", like the rest of Christianity. Their belief of becoming "like God" does not mean they worship other people, rather they can all obtain that holiness. They only worship one God. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's just not true. Mormons acknowledge a "plurality of gods," and they truly believe that good Mormon men will become gods of their own planets. (See some basic facts about Mormonism: http://utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm#16.) They may only worship the god of this planet, but they believe that many, many other gods exist, just as ancient pagans acknowledged lots of different gods but usually only worshipped the deities specific to their own districts. That constitutes polytheism. (I've agreed that the policy is the policy, Will - why are you still going after me?)--RossweisseSTL (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you are missinterpreting the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See Henotheism a FORM of monotheism accpeted by Mormons. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. That's your opinion - and "your opinion is merely that - an opinion." I'm putting those doctrines into terms that the Mormons don't like, but that doesn't mean that those terms are inaccurate. I suggest that you read the "Doctrine and Covenants" and Journal of Discourses (or at least the extracts from them provided free of charge at utlm.org) and then come back and tell me whether I am "misinterpreting" their doctrines. I assure you that I take great care to be factual in everything I write. Anyway, once again, since I agreed that Wikipedia's policy is Wikipedia's policy several exchanges back, it would be nice to let this conversation come to an end. RossweisseSTL (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not stating the doctrines as they are believed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other Mormons. It is similar to saying that Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians worship the the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints, and the angels.. but that is not so. As I said, look into Henotheism. I am not arguing that Mormonism IS Christian, because I do not believe it is, as the Roman Catholic Church says it is not, but I am arguing that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias view it as such, and according to their policies it is just that. Seeing as you agree with that statement, this conversation can end. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's what they believe, whether they use those terms or not. And I hardly agree with the policy - but I agree that it IS the policy. Is that it? Deo gratias. RossweisseSTL (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

May I ask which policy you both are citing here? Again, I'm curious what existing consensus there is to help us navigate this difficult topic.

-- Joren (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The policy that allows religious groups to define themselves, whether as Christian or otherwise. RossweisseSTL (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And which policy would that be? We have several, but I have not yet seen that one among them. I would appreciate it if perhaps one of you could tell me which of these policies you might be talking about.

-- Joren (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Afro-American Religion

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)

Lutheranism

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)

Japanese use of the term

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)

Alphabetical order?

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)

Alphabetical order is for the sake of neutrality. It minimizes the issue of undue weight. To treat "Other" as less important nullifies the reason for neutral alphabetical order. (Are there any Anglicans, Lutherans, or Methodists that are still protesting anything anymore? :)
—Telpardec (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Collage

File:Saints of the Catholic Church.jpg

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)

Word "Saint" derived from Sanskrit word "Sant" ?

Can any one please clarify ?

No,yes.Thanatos|talk 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Saint?

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)

Aaron as a "saint".

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)

Not sure where to ask this question, but...

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

Word "Saint" derived from Albanian word "Shaint" ?

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)

Sainthood in Quan Yin Meditation

I'd like to see some comments on sainthood in Quan Yin meditation. MaynardClark (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Saint

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:

• http://www.om-guru.com

  Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If 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)

Question: upgrade from Class = C to Class = B ?

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)

Disagree. See below.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812112425/http://www.kofc.org/un/catechism/getsection.action?part=1&sec=2&chap=3&art=9&parasec=3&subsec=2&hdr=0&par=828&paratype=a to http://www.kofc.org/un/catechism/getsection.action?part=1&sec=2&chap=3&art=9&parasec=3&subsec=2&hdr=0&par=828&paratype=a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619002648/http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

full of holes

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" 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)

Catholics

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)