Thanks. To be honest, I've never even seen the movie, I'm just editing for formatting. Keep up the good work though. I hope you don't mind if I take some of the details out of the Golem article. I think things like the production company aren't so relevant in that article. Ashmoo 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tom: Thanks for your work on the Luther page. Sorry I put that error back into the article that you removed. --Dave, Drboisclair 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC).
Could you review these changes to Five solas from a Lutheran perspective? -- Flex 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your changes to my user page have again caused it to appear messed up in the worst way. Why can't it be left the way I fixed it?-- Drboisclair 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the rest was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Talk section of the Martin Luther article you make a statement which I must challenge. You claim that the LCMS is "faithful to the Lutheran standards" and that the much larger ELCA "has not made it a practice to follow what might be considered authentic Lutheranism." I reject this slander. I have seen the LCMS in action by virtue of worshipping countless times over the past 30 plus years in several congregations of LCMS in various parts of the country. I have not seen greater doctrinal purity there than in ELCA congregations, but I have seen some amazing examples of the classic authoritarian personality at work in the LCMS. Edison 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Your reply indicated that you felt the LCMS had become too liberal. If so, there is always the Wisconsin Synod? They are convinced they are more Pure and Holy and Devout than the LCMS. But those who think the Wisconsin Synod is too liberal and not Pure enough can join the Church of the Lutheran Confession. I expect there are some in the CLC who feel a greater need for Purity because the CLC sometimes talks to the Wisconsin Synod, and so on. There is always a regress toward greater "Purity" usually accompanied by hatred, authoritarianism, arrogance, putting on blinders to avoid reading all that is in the Bible, with a simultaneous diminution of love and compassion. The old LCA said Love Compels Action while recognizing that salvation is by grace and not by works. Arrogant Holier Than Thou factionalism is true among Jews (Orthodox vs Conservative and Reform), among other protestants (Baptists have horror stories about how liberal the Methodists are), Catholics (Archbishop LeFebvre started a breakaway faction of Roman Catholics because of the Latin mass and other factors), and Islam (the Sunni's and Shias kill each other daily over shadings of historical interpretation). This authoritarian factor turns into "Women and youths, hold your tongue. If I think you need an opinion, I will give you one." I know an LCMS congregation which was horrified at at churchwide convention to see a woman teaching a Bible class, because at home women could only teach the children's class. Supposedly women can now vote in the LCMS, but some congregations have apparently not heard the news. LCMS professes "Biblical inerrance" but then says that the detailed Old Testament rules do not apply, so they freely plant different seeds in the same field, or wear garments made of different fabrics. The Bible is an inerrant rule, but they freely ignore the parts they disagree with in the old testament, but cite adjoining passages as a continuing rule for behavior. They can rationalize several differing accounts of what was said and done at the same occasion in Jesus ministry. If the Gospels are inerrant, they should never disagree. Every ELCA congregatioin must include in theis constitution their adherence to the unaltered Augsburg Confession and other of your "confessional" documents. The claim is a false one that the ELCA is not a "confessional Lutheran church." I can't find the part about ordination of women in that document. Perhaps you could point out which article of faith it is in.
Now for something we probably can find agreement on: the inaccuracies of a website, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul6.htm , which claims a) that Martin Luther did not nail his 95 Theses to the church door, and b) never said "Here I stand, I can do no other." What do you think are the best documents to support the assertion that he did those things? As recently as the early 19th century documents were commonly nailed to the door of a public building. I have seen original documents from the 1840's in the US, dealing with notices from the Circuit Court, which are filed in a courthouse today, with the water stains and nailholes showing they were "published" that way. There seems to be some idea that it was an aberration or sacrilege to nail something to the door, when it fact it was probably common. Thanks. Edison 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. -- WikiCats 04:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be sorry to have to revise. You caught what was a typo on my part and got the category corrected. Excellent work. My thanks go out to you. Erechtheus 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked the intro sentence a little; what do you think now? Batmanand | Talk 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is a good addition about him or his legacy being controversial. Perhaps better would be "As a result of this, his revolutionary theological views, and the Reformation his legacy remains a controversial one." This might be revised by some of the other editors; however, I believe that you add an important point to the lead-in intro.-- Drboisclair 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that I am not capturing what you are trying to do here. You are saying: "As a result [of all of what Luther said and did] ... his legacy remains a controversial one", so scratch my suggestion above. Everything about the man was controversial. I think that it is a good way to end the intro. Let's see what the other editors do with it.-- Drboisclair 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Responded on my talk page. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Dr- while I see your point in terms of technical accuracy in the Orignal sin article, I'm not yet convinced you have improved the article by adding the technical term "actual" and removing the colloquial use of "personal". I am going to have another go at it. In the meantime, I want to assure you that I am not using "personal" in the sense of "hypostasis"; rather I am using it in the modern sense of "what I am personally responsible for doing" - the sort of commonly accepted use of the term in the current wash of individualism as a philosophy. I believe this actually helps the non-theologically g\qualifierd to bet a better undderstanding than the use of the technically correct term "actual" Cor Unum 10:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to take note of the recent changes to sola scriptura. IMHO, they are not neutral, but I won't have time to address them right now. -- Flex 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Another POV check request, this time on Sola fide: These edits by User:Simonapro and these edits by an anon. -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 14:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have a moment, please share your thoughts at Talk:Sola_scriptura#Bible_verses. -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added an article on the analogy of faith as an umbrella article over sola scriptura viz-a-viz tradition. Please take a look, and feel free to edit, correct, or otherwise improve! -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flex"
The "Original Blessing" notion is vehemently opposed by Catholic conservatives - but I think Fox was on the right track (at least when he started out). It has some considerable currency among progressive Christians, and is a remedy (of sorts) to extreme Augustinian negativity. Thanks for building the new article. I was going to start one myself- but was just too busy- so I am delighted to see you have done it. Cor Unum 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism
I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!
Fair enough, you did not place the original reference to porn. Thanks for the response, I merely reverted back before the original placement. It would appear you have an automated bot in place to change porn to adult feature ( adult feature.) Unfortunately the change did not distinguish the vandalism, and in fact made the vandalism appear more legitimate. Here is a link on IMDB to the feature in question.
While clearly not an adult feature, the vandalism made it appear as such. Thanks, Group29 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for your answer. I know that the question I asked could be perceived as insulting, so I'll drop it. I admit my confusion, and Wikipedia is no place to work through my difficulties. If you perceive the crux of the issues I raised on the talk page, though, and think that clarification would improve the article, I would be grateful. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Drboisclair/Archive05/. Over at WikiProject Harry Potter we're trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name, along with all other project participants, has been placed on the inactive list. If you'd like to get involved again, please place your name back on the active list, and take a look at the project talk page for the latest happenings. |
RHB(AWB) 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter
Thanks. To be honest, I've never even seen the movie, I'm just editing for formatting. Keep up the good work though. I hope you don't mind if I take some of the details out of the Golem article. I think things like the production company aren't so relevant in that article. Ashmoo 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tom: Thanks for your work on the Luther page. Sorry I put that error back into the article that you removed. --Dave, Drboisclair 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC).
Could you review these changes to Five solas from a Lutheran perspective? -- Flex 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your changes to my user page have again caused it to appear messed up in the worst way. Why can't it be left the way I fixed it?-- Drboisclair 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the rest was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Talk section of the Martin Luther article you make a statement which I must challenge. You claim that the LCMS is "faithful to the Lutheran standards" and that the much larger ELCA "has not made it a practice to follow what might be considered authentic Lutheranism." I reject this slander. I have seen the LCMS in action by virtue of worshipping countless times over the past 30 plus years in several congregations of LCMS in various parts of the country. I have not seen greater doctrinal purity there than in ELCA congregations, but I have seen some amazing examples of the classic authoritarian personality at work in the LCMS. Edison 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Your reply indicated that you felt the LCMS had become too liberal. If so, there is always the Wisconsin Synod? They are convinced they are more Pure and Holy and Devout than the LCMS. But those who think the Wisconsin Synod is too liberal and not Pure enough can join the Church of the Lutheran Confession. I expect there are some in the CLC who feel a greater need for Purity because the CLC sometimes talks to the Wisconsin Synod, and so on. There is always a regress toward greater "Purity" usually accompanied by hatred, authoritarianism, arrogance, putting on blinders to avoid reading all that is in the Bible, with a simultaneous diminution of love and compassion. The old LCA said Love Compels Action while recognizing that salvation is by grace and not by works. Arrogant Holier Than Thou factionalism is true among Jews (Orthodox vs Conservative and Reform), among other protestants (Baptists have horror stories about how liberal the Methodists are), Catholics (Archbishop LeFebvre started a breakaway faction of Roman Catholics because of the Latin mass and other factors), and Islam (the Sunni's and Shias kill each other daily over shadings of historical interpretation). This authoritarian factor turns into "Women and youths, hold your tongue. If I think you need an opinion, I will give you one." I know an LCMS congregation which was horrified at at churchwide convention to see a woman teaching a Bible class, because at home women could only teach the children's class. Supposedly women can now vote in the LCMS, but some congregations have apparently not heard the news. LCMS professes "Biblical inerrance" but then says that the detailed Old Testament rules do not apply, so they freely plant different seeds in the same field, or wear garments made of different fabrics. The Bible is an inerrant rule, but they freely ignore the parts they disagree with in the old testament, but cite adjoining passages as a continuing rule for behavior. They can rationalize several differing accounts of what was said and done at the same occasion in Jesus ministry. If the Gospels are inerrant, they should never disagree. Every ELCA congregatioin must include in theis constitution their adherence to the unaltered Augsburg Confession and other of your "confessional" documents. The claim is a false one that the ELCA is not a "confessional Lutheran church." I can't find the part about ordination of women in that document. Perhaps you could point out which article of faith it is in.
Now for something we probably can find agreement on: the inaccuracies of a website, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul6.htm , which claims a) that Martin Luther did not nail his 95 Theses to the church door, and b) never said "Here I stand, I can do no other." What do you think are the best documents to support the assertion that he did those things? As recently as the early 19th century documents were commonly nailed to the door of a public building. I have seen original documents from the 1840's in the US, dealing with notices from the Circuit Court, which are filed in a courthouse today, with the water stains and nailholes showing they were "published" that way. There seems to be some idea that it was an aberration or sacrilege to nail something to the door, when it fact it was probably common. Thanks. Edison 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. -- WikiCats 04:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be sorry to have to revise. You caught what was a typo on my part and got the category corrected. Excellent work. My thanks go out to you. Erechtheus 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked the intro sentence a little; what do you think now? Batmanand | Talk 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is a good addition about him or his legacy being controversial. Perhaps better would be "As a result of this, his revolutionary theological views, and the Reformation his legacy remains a controversial one." This might be revised by some of the other editors; however, I believe that you add an important point to the lead-in intro.-- Drboisclair 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that I am not capturing what you are trying to do here. You are saying: "As a result [of all of what Luther said and did] ... his legacy remains a controversial one", so scratch my suggestion above. Everything about the man was controversial. I think that it is a good way to end the intro. Let's see what the other editors do with it.-- Drboisclair 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Responded on my talk page. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Dr- while I see your point in terms of technical accuracy in the Orignal sin article, I'm not yet convinced you have improved the article by adding the technical term "actual" and removing the colloquial use of "personal". I am going to have another go at it. In the meantime, I want to assure you that I am not using "personal" in the sense of "hypostasis"; rather I am using it in the modern sense of "what I am personally responsible for doing" - the sort of commonly accepted use of the term in the current wash of individualism as a philosophy. I believe this actually helps the non-theologically g\qualifierd to bet a better undderstanding than the use of the technically correct term "actual" Cor Unum 10:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to take note of the recent changes to sola scriptura. IMHO, they are not neutral, but I won't have time to address them right now. -- Flex 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Another POV check request, this time on Sola fide: These edits by User:Simonapro and these edits by an anon. -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 14:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have a moment, please share your thoughts at Talk:Sola_scriptura#Bible_verses. -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added an article on the analogy of faith as an umbrella article over sola scriptura viz-a-viz tradition. Please take a look, and feel free to edit, correct, or otherwise improve! -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flex"
The "Original Blessing" notion is vehemently opposed by Catholic conservatives - but I think Fox was on the right track (at least when he started out). It has some considerable currency among progressive Christians, and is a remedy (of sorts) to extreme Augustinian negativity. Thanks for building the new article. I was going to start one myself- but was just too busy- so I am delighted to see you have done it. Cor Unum 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism
I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!
Fair enough, you did not place the original reference to porn. Thanks for the response, I merely reverted back before the original placement. It would appear you have an automated bot in place to change porn to adult feature ( adult feature.) Unfortunately the change did not distinguish the vandalism, and in fact made the vandalism appear more legitimate. Here is a link on IMDB to the feature in question.
While clearly not an adult feature, the vandalism made it appear as such. Thanks, Group29 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for your answer. I know that the question I asked could be perceived as insulting, so I'll drop it. I admit my confusion, and Wikipedia is no place to work through my difficulties. If you perceive the crux of the issues I raised on the talk page, though, and think that clarification would improve the article, I would be grateful. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Drboisclair/Archive05/. Over at WikiProject Harry Potter we're trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name, along with all other project participants, has been placed on the inactive list. If you'd like to get involved again, please place your name back on the active list, and take a look at the project talk page for the latest happenings. |
RHB(AWB) 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter