This is ARCHIVE 4 for my talk page....
11 Oct 05 through 2 Nov 05.
Eh, he was just having a bad day. We all do. He got all gushy on me and several other people last night on IRC. Karmafist 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't want to be an admin? I'd really like to nominate you. You certainly have most of the credentials. Borisblue 20:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the image crusades! There is a push to delete all non-sourced images; apparently, the gold star was deleted because I didn't source it, and I deleted the SEA because I don't remember the source. Anyhow, I have reuploaded the gold star and properly sourced it, and I found a replacement for the SEA. It is now the Brother Roger Strides in Ecuminsim Award. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Appears to have stopped now. The pattern of the vandalism seems to suggest that it is from some school IP. Let's hope their computer lesson is over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi KHM03. Thanx for the message. I am not that fluent on the topic but surely balant POVs are very clear to spot. So, I'd do my best spotting those from both sides. I hope editors of these kind of articles try to include sources more often to ease the work. Maybe I, too, have a POV regarding those articles (that I don't fancy them) but I'd never try to impose my POV. Cheers -- Svest 19:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Don't worry about it, I've been "robbed" a lot lately! ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 23:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC) |
K, I believe you when you state that the Grace of God is available to all. However, my statement is that when you claim someone is not Christian or "the mission field", you are also stating that the Grace of God is not in their life, but only avaiable to them if they convert to "tradional Christianity". For example, when you state Mormons are not Christian, aren't you also saying they can not know Christ as their personal Savior and still be Mormon?
I have been a student of religion all my life. It has never ceased to amaze me at how far churches and ministers of respective churches go to identify those who are not "saved" enough or at all. It is the mind set that burned people at the stake, that enables individuals to feel that persecution of others because of their beliefs is acceptable, and to further discriminate in our day.
In the vast majority of Protestanism one must simply accept Christ as his/her Savior to be saved by the Grace of God...except if you are Mormon. If you are Mormon, then you not only must accept Jesus as your personal Savior, but you must accept the creeds of man created 325 years after Christ and then you can be saved.
The essentials as you call them are really a requirement to be part of the tradtional or historic Christian church, but certainly not a defnition of being Christian that can be demonstrated using the New Testament. As a LDS, I reject the historic Christian church because I believe it is in a state of apostasy. Though I study the writings and thoughts of many members of other churches and respect their witness of Christ and am strengthened by them, I have no interest in joining their respective churches. They all have some truth in them and attempt to follow Christ as best as they understand it. Storm Rider 22:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
K, I think I have a good understanding of your position and in most instances do not disagree. I also appreciate your desire to be honest and not to back away from your beliefs. That is commendable. However, I do disagree with the terminology you use. Historical or traditional Christianity is not in a position to say what is and what is not Christian. To define someone or some group as non-Christian is to state that Christ is not active in their life/lives and that is an impossibility for anyone to say. To use this logic, one must necessarily put themselves in the place of a judge; who is "saved" and who is isn't. We are simply incapable of seeing and knowing the heart of man and thus incapable of knowing whether someone "knows" Christ and follows Him or not.
I am perfectly comfortable with a group saying "Mormons do not meet the standards of tradtionial/historical Christianity". That is a perfectly defensible position and it is true. Mormons do not meet the standards of traditional Christianity because Mormons believe there was an apostasy that required a restoration of the chruch of Christ. However, to state they are not Christian goes too far and puts one's judgement on a par with God's. The creeds created 325 years after Christ are what tradtional Christianity must believe, but it is not the definition of a Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ, that He offered His life to pay the price of our sins, that He rose the third day that we might live again, and that His atoning sacrifice makes it possible to live with Heavenly Father.
The creeds attempt to summarize a specific interpretation of scripture, but it is only one interpretation of scripture. Further, they go further than scripture does and attempt to address mysteries the New Testament does not address. Just as you must be honest and faithful to your beliefs, so must I. Though I admire many of early, tradtional church fathers and so many good Christian people today, my admiration does not prevent me from also being a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is here that I find a fullness to the Gospel that I was not able to find in other Christian chruches. For me, it was the difference between a diet of milk and a diet with additional meat. I found more truth in the LDS church.
In closing, thank you for the distinctions you made above. I hope that you will support using the same terminology in the article. Though it may not be a significant difference to you, it means a great deal to me. Calling me a heretic means we have a disagreement in beliefs, but calling me non-Christian is a slur that attempts to negate my relatinship with Christ and that is unacceptable. Storm Rider 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
K, I read your comment in the Christianity talk regarding Restorationism. A distinction may be in order. Mormonism did not orgininate or descend from the restoration movement. Rather, it professes to be a church that was restored directly by Jesus Christ through a prophet. It belongs in the Restoration Movement because it professes an apostasy. However, it unlike other/most restorationist groups that believe they could recover the restored faith/church through limiting the gospel to only that found in the scriptures as they understood them. JW's, Campbellites, Church of Christ and others take the concept of sola scriptura to a complete new level whereas LDS believe that the restoration required a direct intervention from God. Storm Rider 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear KHM03, can you please have another word with Storm rider. He seems not to understand what my edit on Christianity was about. Thanks. Str1977 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi K, I wrote the UMCOR article you put an image on. Thanks =) The article was for a class project so it wasn't the greatest; I hope it was still to your liking. Anyway, the real reason I am posting: I am an undergrad senior looking for a seminary, and I see you are a UMC Elder. From what I read on your page, we seem similar theologically. Any thoughts on good seminaries? I'm considering Duke and Emory right now, but I haven't made any decisions. Feel free to email me if you have time. dancey(at)uiuc(dot)edu. Take care. -Drew
I don't disagree with the point of your recent edit (about racial artistic perspectives)...I just think it could be worded a bit better. Would you mind clarifying it a bit, when you have an opportunity? It also might help if someone decides to get rid of it. Thanks for considering... KHM03 23:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why thank you. I use a combo of CDVF, #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode, and User:Sam Hocevar's godmode-light.js. Good to see someone appreciates my work, RC patrol is often a thankless job. :) - Greg Asche (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
KHM03, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. I've enjoyed working with you on several of the Christianity articles. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! — thames 18:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're watchung the AFD God man page, but I edited the article, making it accurate and, clearly, notable. Would you consider withdrawing your nomination? Thanks. Gator1 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't remove AfD tags before the discussion at AfD is finished ( here), even if you are the nominator. Also, please be careful in using an edit summary such as "rvv" when you are removing a new paragrpah contributed by another editor ( here). You and I may agree that the paragraph doesn't belong in the article, but see Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition of vandalism. One reason that this is important is because of the three revert rule. Thanks. Jkelly 16:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
But I rightfully get angry because everything I do goes unappreciated. I am convinced that Friday treats vandals better than me!
Molotov
(talk)
19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Accept my thanks for your support at my RFA. I hope I have been able to sufficiently answer any outstanding questions regarding my conduct in the Arbcom matter. Sincerely, - St| eve 04:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered if you might be interested in joining a long term Wikiproject
Its goal is to increase the amount of information originating from academia in biblical articles, as it is noticably lacking at the moment, this includes
This also includes transferring the information present in the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, which is not present in Wikipedia. This work is over 100 years old, and so the information needs updating once copied over, e.g. by taking account of subsequent scholarship (e.g. Martin Noth, Richard Friedman, Israel Finkelstein).
--francis 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I look forward to running into you again around the project. Best, Johntex\ talk 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RFA till the end.
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
KJV rules! :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This is ARCHIVE 4 for my talk page....
11 Oct 05 through 2 Nov 05.
Eh, he was just having a bad day. We all do. He got all gushy on me and several other people last night on IRC. Karmafist 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't want to be an admin? I'd really like to nominate you. You certainly have most of the credentials. Borisblue 20:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the image crusades! There is a push to delete all non-sourced images; apparently, the gold star was deleted because I didn't source it, and I deleted the SEA because I don't remember the source. Anyhow, I have reuploaded the gold star and properly sourced it, and I found a replacement for the SEA. It is now the Brother Roger Strides in Ecuminsim Award. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Appears to have stopped now. The pattern of the vandalism seems to suggest that it is from some school IP. Let's hope their computer lesson is over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi KHM03. Thanx for the message. I am not that fluent on the topic but surely balant POVs are very clear to spot. So, I'd do my best spotting those from both sides. I hope editors of these kind of articles try to include sources more often to ease the work. Maybe I, too, have a POV regarding those articles (that I don't fancy them) but I'd never try to impose my POV. Cheers -- Svest 19:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Don't worry about it, I've been "robbed" a lot lately! ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 23:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC) |
K, I believe you when you state that the Grace of God is available to all. However, my statement is that when you claim someone is not Christian or "the mission field", you are also stating that the Grace of God is not in their life, but only avaiable to them if they convert to "tradional Christianity". For example, when you state Mormons are not Christian, aren't you also saying they can not know Christ as their personal Savior and still be Mormon?
I have been a student of religion all my life. It has never ceased to amaze me at how far churches and ministers of respective churches go to identify those who are not "saved" enough or at all. It is the mind set that burned people at the stake, that enables individuals to feel that persecution of others because of their beliefs is acceptable, and to further discriminate in our day.
In the vast majority of Protestanism one must simply accept Christ as his/her Savior to be saved by the Grace of God...except if you are Mormon. If you are Mormon, then you not only must accept Jesus as your personal Savior, but you must accept the creeds of man created 325 years after Christ and then you can be saved.
The essentials as you call them are really a requirement to be part of the tradtional or historic Christian church, but certainly not a defnition of being Christian that can be demonstrated using the New Testament. As a LDS, I reject the historic Christian church because I believe it is in a state of apostasy. Though I study the writings and thoughts of many members of other churches and respect their witness of Christ and am strengthened by them, I have no interest in joining their respective churches. They all have some truth in them and attempt to follow Christ as best as they understand it. Storm Rider 22:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
K, I think I have a good understanding of your position and in most instances do not disagree. I also appreciate your desire to be honest and not to back away from your beliefs. That is commendable. However, I do disagree with the terminology you use. Historical or traditional Christianity is not in a position to say what is and what is not Christian. To define someone or some group as non-Christian is to state that Christ is not active in their life/lives and that is an impossibility for anyone to say. To use this logic, one must necessarily put themselves in the place of a judge; who is "saved" and who is isn't. We are simply incapable of seeing and knowing the heart of man and thus incapable of knowing whether someone "knows" Christ and follows Him or not.
I am perfectly comfortable with a group saying "Mormons do not meet the standards of tradtionial/historical Christianity". That is a perfectly defensible position and it is true. Mormons do not meet the standards of traditional Christianity because Mormons believe there was an apostasy that required a restoration of the chruch of Christ. However, to state they are not Christian goes too far and puts one's judgement on a par with God's. The creeds created 325 years after Christ are what tradtional Christianity must believe, but it is not the definition of a Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ, that He offered His life to pay the price of our sins, that He rose the third day that we might live again, and that His atoning sacrifice makes it possible to live with Heavenly Father.
The creeds attempt to summarize a specific interpretation of scripture, but it is only one interpretation of scripture. Further, they go further than scripture does and attempt to address mysteries the New Testament does not address. Just as you must be honest and faithful to your beliefs, so must I. Though I admire many of early, tradtional church fathers and so many good Christian people today, my admiration does not prevent me from also being a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is here that I find a fullness to the Gospel that I was not able to find in other Christian chruches. For me, it was the difference between a diet of milk and a diet with additional meat. I found more truth in the LDS church.
In closing, thank you for the distinctions you made above. I hope that you will support using the same terminology in the article. Though it may not be a significant difference to you, it means a great deal to me. Calling me a heretic means we have a disagreement in beliefs, but calling me non-Christian is a slur that attempts to negate my relatinship with Christ and that is unacceptable. Storm Rider 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
K, I read your comment in the Christianity talk regarding Restorationism. A distinction may be in order. Mormonism did not orgininate or descend from the restoration movement. Rather, it professes to be a church that was restored directly by Jesus Christ through a prophet. It belongs in the Restoration Movement because it professes an apostasy. However, it unlike other/most restorationist groups that believe they could recover the restored faith/church through limiting the gospel to only that found in the scriptures as they understood them. JW's, Campbellites, Church of Christ and others take the concept of sola scriptura to a complete new level whereas LDS believe that the restoration required a direct intervention from God. Storm Rider 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear KHM03, can you please have another word with Storm rider. He seems not to understand what my edit on Christianity was about. Thanks. Str1977 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi K, I wrote the UMCOR article you put an image on. Thanks =) The article was for a class project so it wasn't the greatest; I hope it was still to your liking. Anyway, the real reason I am posting: I am an undergrad senior looking for a seminary, and I see you are a UMC Elder. From what I read on your page, we seem similar theologically. Any thoughts on good seminaries? I'm considering Duke and Emory right now, but I haven't made any decisions. Feel free to email me if you have time. dancey(at)uiuc(dot)edu. Take care. -Drew
I don't disagree with the point of your recent edit (about racial artistic perspectives)...I just think it could be worded a bit better. Would you mind clarifying it a bit, when you have an opportunity? It also might help if someone decides to get rid of it. Thanks for considering... KHM03 23:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why thank you. I use a combo of CDVF, #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode, and User:Sam Hocevar's godmode-light.js. Good to see someone appreciates my work, RC patrol is often a thankless job. :) - Greg Asche (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
KHM03, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. I've enjoyed working with you on several of the Christianity articles. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! — thames 18:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're watchung the AFD God man page, but I edited the article, making it accurate and, clearly, notable. Would you consider withdrawing your nomination? Thanks. Gator1 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't remove AfD tags before the discussion at AfD is finished ( here), even if you are the nominator. Also, please be careful in using an edit summary such as "rvv" when you are removing a new paragrpah contributed by another editor ( here). You and I may agree that the paragraph doesn't belong in the article, but see Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition of vandalism. One reason that this is important is because of the three revert rule. Thanks. Jkelly 16:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
But I rightfully get angry because everything I do goes unappreciated. I am convinced that Friday treats vandals better than me!
Molotov
(talk)
19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Accept my thanks for your support at my RFA. I hope I have been able to sufficiently answer any outstanding questions regarding my conduct in the Arbcom matter. Sincerely, - St| eve 04:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered if you might be interested in joining a long term Wikiproject
Its goal is to increase the amount of information originating from academia in biblical articles, as it is noticably lacking at the moment, this includes
This also includes transferring the information present in the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, which is not present in Wikipedia. This work is over 100 years old, and so the information needs updating once copied over, e.g. by taking account of subsequent scholarship (e.g. Martin Noth, Richard Friedman, Israel Finkelstein).
--francis 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I look forward to running into you again around the project. Best, Johntex\ talk 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RFA till the end.
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
KJV rules! :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)