This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
Why is a better source needed? An official Orthodox Christian publication isn't enough to say what the Orthodox believe in? How else can you prove a term is Christian Orthodox?! It's madness!! 2.216.16.104 ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "official term" in Orthodox Christianity. It is not like the Latin Church. They don't have an "Official Catechism" If a lot of people use it than (more so if they are Bishops and priests..) it is an orthodox term. That is that. It is official enough because the article is written by the Metropolitan, not just by anyone.I am sure you haven't read anything from the sources here, yet you keep making assumptions Romanity1 ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Further more the term is mentioned in two other sources (third party ones) one of them you put yourself. So, either you are not even reading your own sources...or...? Vandalizing a bit maybe? Please stop. I would also like to thank you for some of the addittions you made here because I find them interesting. Are you in any Catholic apologetic team or seminary my friend? Just asking because of your username Romanity1 ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The newsletter was published officially by the Orthodox Church in America, and the article is from an Orthodox Bishop. It might be "obscure" to you, but not for the Orthodox, and what we want to establish is that the term is Orthodox (i.e. is used by the Orthodox). If you actually told me before that you just didin't how it is worded than we could have agreed, without polemics. I really don't care if you say that it is an Orthodox Term, or a term used in the Orthodox Church. It's the same thing. But making so many changes without giving anyone some breath of air or explaining is considered "polemical" where I come from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_editor_feedback#Sad:_Contribution_reverted Hopefully you were just overzealous. We can continue adding to this, and as a sign of Good faith I will post here the changes for you to see before adding them , O.K.?
First I want to put this sentence in, with this reference. Please tell me if it is O.k.:
---
"According to Dr. Andrew (Zoran) Vujisić,Bishop elect for Latin America and the Caribbean, prime goal of Orthodox pshychotherapy, is to solve problems of ontological origin> Its basis is existential experience, which makes it phenomenological in nature." ,
[1]
---
Feel free to comment what needs changing. Thank you for your time.
Romanity1 (
talk)
16:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I will wait at least 24 hours before transferring this to the article, so you may have time to examine it. Thanks, again , for your valuable contribution. Romanity1 ( talk) 18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
References
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
Why is a better source needed? An official Orthodox Christian publication isn't enough to say what the Orthodox believe in? How else can you prove a term is Christian Orthodox?! It's madness!! 2.216.16.104 ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "official term" in Orthodox Christianity. It is not like the Latin Church. They don't have an "Official Catechism" If a lot of people use it than (more so if they are Bishops and priests..) it is an orthodox term. That is that. It is official enough because the article is written by the Metropolitan, not just by anyone.I am sure you haven't read anything from the sources here, yet you keep making assumptions Romanity1 ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Further more the term is mentioned in two other sources (third party ones) one of them you put yourself. So, either you are not even reading your own sources...or...? Vandalizing a bit maybe? Please stop. I would also like to thank you for some of the addittions you made here because I find them interesting. Are you in any Catholic apologetic team or seminary my friend? Just asking because of your username Romanity1 ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The newsletter was published officially by the Orthodox Church in America, and the article is from an Orthodox Bishop. It might be "obscure" to you, but not for the Orthodox, and what we want to establish is that the term is Orthodox (i.e. is used by the Orthodox). If you actually told me before that you just didin't how it is worded than we could have agreed, without polemics. I really don't care if you say that it is an Orthodox Term, or a term used in the Orthodox Church. It's the same thing. But making so many changes without giving anyone some breath of air or explaining is considered "polemical" where I come from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_editor_feedback#Sad:_Contribution_reverted Hopefully you were just overzealous. We can continue adding to this, and as a sign of Good faith I will post here the changes for you to see before adding them , O.K.?
First I want to put this sentence in, with this reference. Please tell me if it is O.k.:
---
"According to Dr. Andrew (Zoran) Vujisić,Bishop elect for Latin America and the Caribbean, prime goal of Orthodox pshychotherapy, is to solve problems of ontological origin> Its basis is existential experience, which makes it phenomenological in nature." ,
[1]
---
Feel free to comment what needs changing. Thank you for your time.
Romanity1 (
talk)
16:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I will wait at least 24 hours before transferring this to the article, so you may have time to examine it. Thanks, again , for your valuable contribution. Romanity1 ( talk) 18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
References