| Revision as of 02:00, 4 January 2006 editSplash (talk | contribs)33,425 editsm Reverted edits by 71.143.5.61 (talk) to last version by Jason Gastrich← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:43, 4 January 2006 edit undoFormer user 20 (talk | contribs)2,136 edits PruningNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==To my critics== | |||
| This will not become a soap box for my critics. If you want to say negative things about me, you can do it on your own web site or somewhere else. Hateful things are subject to speedy deletion. Furthermore, continued vandalism will be reported and stopped.--] 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Abortion link == | |||
| There are a few different reasons why I removed the link to your site that you inserted on the ] article. | |||
| *This is your own personal research, and not somebody else's, as to both what the bible says about abortion, and which scriptures are relevant to the discussion.. See: ] and ] for why this is problematic. For more research on the (rather complex) subject of religion and abortion, there's diverse views available at: http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/ethics/abortion/religionandabortion.html | |||
| *The ] article clearly cannot have all possible links to the different religious views on the topic, as the article would rapidly be swamped by advocates. | |||
| *] might be a somewhat better location for adding your link (or instead adding the more comprehensive above external link, which comes from that article's talk page), because as the ] article states (in the comments):"Help keep this article short and simple: resist adding more links to "biased" section. Add them to whichever sub-article would be appropriate instead. Thanks!" | |||
| You had also asked what I would do if somebody else had inserted the link (which could also have similar issues)... if a link was inserted out to a notable site on the subject, which offered comprehensive information, I might have let it stand, but the existing site being linked to doesn't even cover the massive range of evangelical christian belief, scripture, and exegisis on the relevant topic, let alone interpretations of other groups that use various biblical texts and scriptures as their source. | |||
| Perhaps the best long-term solution would be to make a new page (or group of pages) off of ], to contain the various discussions about religious texts and their varying interpretations on the matter (I'm guessing you're aware that a whole article could be formed merely around the Exodus 21:22-23 controversies that have formed over the years, as the hebrew and septuagint versions offer contradictory interpretations). ] 04:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == David Jeremiah == | |||
| Wow, what a surprise to see his name pop up! My brother and he are close friends; Dave's a terrific guy and a worthy addition to Misplaced Pages. In fact, I was considering adding an article on him myself. Great call! Merry Christmas, BTW. :) - ] 21:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! He pastors my home church in El Cajon and he's a fantastic guy. I'm going to add to the entry, soon. Merry Christmas! --] 21:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to it. In fact, I'll be seeing my brother soon. I'll try and get some more biographical info. Dave used to live up in Hesperia and he and my brother have been friends since well before he hit big. As I recall, he's also done some video game voiceovers, including a major Star Wars release a few years ago. - ] 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome to the Christianity Portal! == | |||
| Hi Jason, it is great to see your interest in the ] and your contributions to it thus far. Feel free to make comments and suggestions on articles, people and images to feature on the page. I hope you had a Merry Christmas! ] 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! I applaud you for creating such a portal. I'm happy to contribute and help in any way I can. I'm very interested in making sure Christianity is fairly and generously represented on Misplaced Pages. I've also launched a special ministry to this end and it's called . God bless, ] 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| When ] there is a small field labelled "]" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: | |||
| :] | |||
| The text written here will appear on the ] page, in the ], on the ], and in the ] of users who are watching that article. See ] for full information on this feature. | |||
| When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for ] and may be ], so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. ] 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! I try and do this, but sometimes I'm in a hurry and forget. --] 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Links== | |||
| Our warning template about spam says: | |||
| :Please do not add commercial links — ''or links to your own private websites'' — to Misplaced Pages. ] a vehicle for ] or a mere collection of ]. See the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. | |||
| In that spirit, it would be best if you did not add links to your own websites, even when they are informative. If they are useful than other editors will add them. Thanks, -] 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your userpage == | |||
| Have you considered having your userpage ]. It is currently under full protection, so you currently can't edit it. If it were semi-protected, you would be able to edit it. Only anon IPs and users with accounts less than four days old wouldn't be able to edit it. If you want semi-protection, tell me. ] 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Laura Bush categories == | |||
| Please see ] regarding your category additions to the Laura Bush article. ] 14:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This is similar to Phillip Johnson being a religious leader objection i had. I think you need to be careful not to use these categories too loosely otherwise their usefulness will be diluted. ] ] 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Pat Robertson article == | |||
| I can see how you might be right but I can also see how I might be right. | |||
| any idea how we can find a middle ground? | |||
| grazon 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Yeah, there was another word, but I can't remember it now . . . any proposals?--] 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Critcism vs impeding. I think it is clear that Roberston means criticism of the war. His quote is "''I know we have an opportunity to express our points of view, but there is a time when we're engaged in a combat situation that carping criticism against the commander in chief just doesn't cut it.''". Of course, he may also think that criticism is impeding the war but I find it hard to understand his logic if that is the case. ] ] 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I know what you mean, but I think he slightly backed off in that sentence. This is his sentence about treason: "And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason." Undermining isn't synonymous with criticism. I think impeding works perfectly because that's his point (whether I agree with it or not); those that get in the way (which is all impeding means) are causing treason. Thoughts? --] 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Duh on me. The word I forgot was undermining. Let's just use that word. It's what Robertson used. Can't go wrong there. --] 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| uhhhh and what of the "carping criticism" statement jason? | |||
| grazon 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict with grazon who makes same point) What does he mean by undermine? As far as i can tell he is only refering to criticism since his subsequent sentence only refers to "''carping critiscism''". With respect to the supposed freedom of speech in the U.S. there is no way that 'criticism' can be equated with 'undermine', as he seems to do. Since I have not heard his comments in context i could be missing something, is there something else? ] ] 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's the beauty and simplicity of it. By using his own words, we don't have to know what exactly he meant. We can just report what he said and let others decide. Keep in mind, too, that this is just the title. The entire quotation is left intact. And it does seem like there may be more to it . . . but it still probably wouldn't change the way we should proceed because we need to forge a title about treason from the statement about treason. --] 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Bearing in mind that Robertson in the past has; | |||
| claimed Joe Lieberman wants to destroy all Christians | |||
| called for assassination of Hugo Chávez and then lied claiming he never did. | |||
| and claimed various Protestant Demominations are controled by the anti-christ yet had no problem voting for members of that church. | |||
| I see know reason why he wouldn't call criticism of Bush treason. | |||
| grazon 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : The way you rewrote the title looks fine. It's all-inclusive and reveals the ambiguous nature of the statement. As for the other things you mentioned, Robertson has a tough job. He feels he has to stand up to sin and proclaim the Word of God, but at the same time, he has critics that can and will use anything against him. I know how small things and even nothing can be exaggerated out of control; not to say he shouldn't be held accountable, though. --] 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It's easy to say that sort of thing when he hasn't said anything to offend you. | |||
| Try imagining what it's like to hear him say your kind as can be, ultra Christian, Republican grandparents worship the anti-christ. | |||
| grazon 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but absurd statements about me or ones I love never really bother me. Why? Because they're absurd. Feel free to continue if you want, but I agree. There is no reason to argue. --] 04:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| PS I suggest we nd this dialong now before we start to argue. | |||
| grazon 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Dream Theater albums == | |||
| The Dream Theater albums are Progressive Rock or more specifically Progressive Metal Albums. Regardless of their individual religions, which they do not overtly promote in any way, thier music is not Christian in any way. Although some of their music is spiritual, or has a spiritual message, it's is in no way overtly Christian, and can be mainly attributed to Mike Portnoy's (the drummer's) battle with alcoholism, and his recovery in the 12 step program. This is being put into song with steps 1 through 7 having been written in the songs "The Glass Prison", "This Dying Soul" and "The Root of all Evil" and 8 through 12 having yet to be written. Thank you pointing out to me that I did not put down that they are Progressive Metal albums, and I will correct my mistake. --] 18:23, 31 December 2005 (EST) | |||
| ==mediation== | |||
| I am the Cabal Mediator. Can you please look if you can both find a compromise solution. It will be best if you can find together a solution. Deadline tomorrow 2 january 2006, hour 21 UTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Mark_K._Bilbo --] ] 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Bonaparte. Thanks for your help with this issue. I wrote a second paragraph and called it Suggestion #2. The first paragraph was a little longer and more inclusive, but either one should suffice. --] 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||