109:. Besides being unsourced, there really isn't such a thing; not in the literature of social scientists, mental health experts or theologians, and not in the general conception of the public.
17:
128:
36:
127:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
113:
101:
89:
72:
52:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
69:
64:
I think this is a neologism. I can't find any material to back up the idea that it's in widespread usage.
58:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
110:
49:
82:
98:
86:
121:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
81:. If there was any useful content I'd suggest merging with
97:. It's questionable content without backup from sources.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
131:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
53:00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
114:22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
102:19:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
90:18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
85:, but there really isn't. -
73:17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
148:
124:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
59:Mat 5:10 syndrome
139:
126:
34:
147:
146:
142:
141:
140:
138:
137:
136:
135:
129:deletion review
122:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
145:
143:
134:
133:
117:
116:
104:
92:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
144:
132:
130:
125:
119:
118:
115:
112:
108:
105:
103:
100:
96:
93:
91:
88:
84:
80:
77:
76:
75:
74:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
123:
120:
106:
94:
83:Matthew 5:10
78:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
111:LambaJan
50:Enochlau
107:Delete
99:Tronno
95:Delete
87:SimonP
79:Delete
66:Joyous
46:Delete
16:<
70:Talk
68:|
48:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.