Talk:Duns Scotus

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 152.86.90.179 in topic Odd picture attribution

Wikipedia spreading superstition

edit

Superstition is defined as knowingly believe in something that logically cannot true. The wikipedia is filled with things like: "generally considered to be one of the three most important philosopher-theologians of Western Europe". These are constructions that defines the personal sphere of ignorance of the individual that wrote it, and of those that promote it. Can we please stop spreading superstitions like this. The wikipedia is supposed to bring light and not an outlet for propaganda and proselytism that spreads ignorance and oppression. Honestly, I am starting to simply ignore the link to wikipedia in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.129.131 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Awful Quality

edit

The article is full of misinformations and grave errors. I have not time to correct them all, but clearly it need a thorough revision by someone who at least knows what "nominalism" and "realism" means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.115.156 (talkcontribs) 14 January 2012

East does not hold Immaculate Conception to be heresy

edit

I edited out a comment that said that the East regards the Immaculate Conception to be heresy. There is no controlling authority that has declared the Immaculate Conception a heresy, and such a label is deeply confusing. It would be better to say that such terminology is alien to the Eastern Churches:

The Eastern Churches hold that the Blessed Virgin Mary was without the guilt of sin. Never having defined original sin along the lines of St. Augustine, whose sainthood is recognized in the East, but whose writings were largely unknown in the East for many centuries, however, they also do not recognize the guiltlessness of Mary as something which distinguishes her from the rest of humanity. Augustine taught that all mankind shares in the guilt of original sin; In the East, this teaching is neither considered heretical, but neither is it recognized as a premise on which to base further syllogisms.

Odd picture attribution

edit

One of the pictures of JDS shown in this article is claimed to be 10th century, yet he wasn't born until the 13th century. What's up with that? 152.86.90.179 (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply