Talk:Joseph (husband of Mary)

	This Biblical figures related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

If you're going to say 'one source says this', and 'another tradition says this', references to those traditions/sources would be nice. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Feeling optimistic today, are we? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:30, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Validation of the title "Saint"?

Are we validating the title "Saint" by using it in the article title? I mean, look at our Ramanand Jhingade article, we don't validate him as "Dr. Jingade" and we don't acknowledge any of the silly diacritics that he seemed to insist were supposed to be in his name. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have Saint Peter. There's no other title for Joseph, and calling him "husband of Mary" or "father of Jesus" is needlessly complicated. Blue (pester) 23:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

From a religious perspective, i've always hated that we had "st peter" and wasn't a fan that we changed to "st. joseph". only one sect of Christianity talks about them as saints, yet they are part of every other Christian's biblical world. I do think we should change any of our references to 'saint". Also, we do not use "st. mary", "st. Paul" etc. so we are very inconsistent. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 02:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Almost all Christian sects have saints, they just treat them differently. With regard to Joseph and Peter, I think they have an especial merit for our referring to them as "Saint" because that's how most people know them and there aren't more convenient titles. Blue (pester) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So, we should validate Christianity on this wiki? Funny, I thought we treated Christianity like any proper skeptic should: "where's the fucking proof?" Until Christianity can offer up some evidence-based reason why we should refer to anyone as "saint" then it's a meaningless title granted to some random dead person because a cult things the person deserves special recognition. I mean, we don't talk about "Saint Teresa", even though she's been appointed the title of "Saint".

Basically, my whole objection here is: we're validating a specific religious belief system by recognizing the title of "saint". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Blue I'm not sure what your definition of "saint" is, but unless you are using it as "the soul and it's journey to heaven" (which all christian churches believe in, and many call saints), non Catholics do not have "saints' in the sense that Joesph but not his brother Sam is a "saint", or that you become a saint after so many particular works or deeds in your name. Joseph is not called "saint" out side of orthodox and Catholic circles. And it's just a bad precedent, I think, for the wiki. or we should be sainting Paul, Pope John, Mary, Moses, etc. And we don't, cause it's not the norm. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Godot, you have a much more valid point than Eira (what does "evidence-based reason why we should refer to anyone as 'saint'" even mean?). We should engage religion on the proper terms, and sometimes it is simply convenient to use religion's own terms. If absolute accuracy is more appropriate than ease of recognition, than we should use the longer, secular title. Blue (pester) 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A title of "Dr." is appropriately applied to someone who has obtained a Ph.D. from a non-diploma mill school. Such a person can present facts and evidence to demonstrate and support their title of "Dr." However, if I wanted to title myself as "Dr." then there would be no good rational reason to accept that I am deserving of the title "Dr." unless I can present evidence to support that claim. In the same way, our article for "Ramanand Jhingade" does not refer to him as a "Dr." because we have no evidence to support his assertion of a doctorate.

In that same light, what evidence do we have, beyond the arbitrary babbling of a religious organization that "Saint" Joseph is deserving of the title "saint"? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how "evidence" is appropriate. "Saint" is a very different title than "Doctor." We know what "Dr." means, but there is no comparable objective definition of "St.;" the only explanation we have is rooted in tradition or arbitrary religious doctrine. Blue (pester) 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is more or less what I was trying to say. However, I don't see anything wrong with referring to a person in a church by their employment title, thus "Pope John Paul" is reasonable, the same as "Queen Elizabeth" and "Emperor Hirohito". However, as you note "Saint" is an arbitrary religious title given to people once they have satisfied some arbitrary requirement, such as "performed X number of miracles". Even by the definitions of "Saint" given by the Catholic Church, any proper skeptic would reject all of the titles of "Saint" that have been applied, because there is no evidence to back up any of it. It's all anecdote, hearsay, and wishful thinking. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For me, the problem is that the definition you give of "saint' is for one religion only. The biblical concept of Saint, used only once actually, is for Moses. The early christian church and protestant churches today associated "saint" with every single dead person who had been saved by Jesus' grace or were before Jesus so didn't need saving. (some have argued that no old testament figure can ever be a saint, cause they were not saved... oh the mess that is woven when religions fight, heh). So when we use the term "Saint" in our titles, we are accepting only one religion's view of that term. That aside, the other issue is consistency across our own wiki. GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 18:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd venture to say that St. Peter, at least, is a "pop" saint, in that most Westerners know who he supposedly is through so many cultural references. Also, to Godot, "a foolish consistency..." Blue (pester) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Foolish? I like consistency, when possible. it makes me feel all librarian and all. grins...GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 19:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't your hobgoblin's incessant antagonism bother you? Blue (pester) 20:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

HE is the one person who turns me into a petty 6 year old, and for hte life of me I can't figure out why. Oh, are you talking about "consistency" as far as "on mission". To me, questions like that are more about thinking than "cold rules'. But things like "we like to put the first name last" or "at RW our preferred way to use titles is with Title Case" (Or not... I think we DONT use title case here). Those kinds of rules I like, cause if i'm looking for something, i like knowing that we've set up good category systems, and good "rules" about titles, etc. So on this, if we went Saint for one, we should likely go saint for all - but i do see why "st. peter" is maybe different. he does have more hospitals named after him than just about anyone. GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 20:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OOOOOOKAY, I was joking about Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," which is from his essay "Self-Reliance." I'm not sure where you went with this. Blue (pester) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, i'm sorry. LOL. I was reading teh other drama and got all jumbled. anyhow.......... (bangs head, just for effect).GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Heil

as a name cannot be both a male name (Joseph's father) and a female (Mary's mother). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)