Talk:Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Northern Ireland (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Calvinism (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Anti-gay church?[edit]

Does anyone know what the stance of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is regarding homosexuality? Is it similar to the Westboro Baptist Church, which is led by Fred Phelps? - (Aidan Work 06:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

In earlier days the Free Presbyterian Church ran a Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign. However I am unaware of any similarity in their stance to that of Westboro Baptist Church

Virtually no other Christian groups share the approach of the Westboro Baptist Church. You'll never find any other church cooperating with it, for example. But yes, like all evangelical groups, the Free Presbyterian Church would be against homosexuality. It would consider the matter part of the Bible's general teaching on sexuality and might preach on it from time to time, but wouldn't go around with inflammatory signs saying God hates homosexuals. Pete505

Rubbish, they are one of the most homophobic mentalists in NornIrond.--feline1 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please retract your statement, Feline1. Defamation is not appropriate here.--Canadiandy talk 02:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Book of Church Order[edit]

Has the FPC now published a Book of Church Order? If so, the article needs a reference to the URL where the BCO can be found. Emote 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be an important reference- especially given the common feeling in other denominations that Ian Paisley rules by decree. Also important would be articles showing the book of order being followed. Are there any on-line references to excommunications? Trenwith 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally know of quite a few cases of unofficial excommunications (I think the denomination labels them depositions), but the only online source I know of is FPCWatch. The site seems to focus mainly on the child sex scandal from several years ago, but there are also articles describing some cases of involuntary removal without a typical presbyterian judicial process (see Through the Photographer's Lens and Divide and Conquer). --Emote 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth Creations?[edit]

Where do these bigoted boors stand on the age of the earth and evolution ect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.101.222.28 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I can't point you to a specific reference at the moment (watch this space though!), but any FPs I know are Genesis-is-literal people - hence creation at circa 4004BC. I don't know if this is just a general view within the church or FP Dogma. Trenwith 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Trenwith is correct there, The Free Presbyterian Church, does take the book of Genesis literally. Evolution, according to the church, is a complete contradiction of Biblical Teaching and is therefore incorrect. This can be taken from the first Article of Faith, (of the FPC), Quote "1. The Absolute Authority and Divine Verbal Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God" FPC Website. Please note, whomever the writer of the first comment may be, they are acting outside of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines under section 1:4 - Behaviour that is unacceptable. Hopefully this will clear this up. Olly150 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well any FP's are unlikely to come along and complain, as reading wikipedia is probably against their religion.--feline1 (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Feline1 has been issued a level 2 warning on her talk page in response to the above comment as well as the "homophobic" comment under the Anti-gay church? section of this page.—Emote Talk Page 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, seems I was wrong about Prebyterians not reading these pages, lol. We all know you are not actually annoyed at the "talk page being used for chat", but are actually issuing warnings because you felt your church was being insulted. This kind of use of wikipedia technicalities to pursue an editorial dispute is generally known as "wikilaywering" and is generally frowned upon. --feline1 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an RP, not an FP (although formerly an FP). I have low regard for the FP denomination and am more than willing to discuss its shortfallings, but this discussion page is not the place for it. Please refer to the talk page guidelines which state: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Please find a way to improve the factual content and accuracy of the article rather than littering the talk page with fruitless comments.—Emote Talk Page 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just answering the questions of a couple of other human beings, that's all. Sorry if it offended you.--feline1 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate[edit]

An honorary doctorate is a real doctorate and, as such, qualifies the recipient to assume the title of "Dr." Therefore it is not incorrect to refer to Ian Paisley as "Dr. Paisley."—Emote Talk Page 17:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Emote there. Can Wolfpelt please stop this 13-edit long war. Please stop using Wikipedia as your playground kids. The honorary doctorate is a legal degree given by a university as a "way of honoring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field, or to society in general." (see Honorary degree). It is at the recipients discretion whether or not they use the title. Even though it is common practice, that the recipient does not use the title, there is now rule against it. Therefore, if Paisley wants to say he's a doctor, then he can say hes a doctor. Anyway, both Rev. and Dr. and even Rev. Dr. are correct so there is no point to this childish debate Olly150 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolfpelt is entirely incapable of finding this talk page, so he will probably never see what you've written here. My experience with people who don't understand how Wikipedia works is that you just patiently wait till they go away. They always disappear eventually.—Emote Talk Page 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolfpelt is quite capable of finding this page, Emote, but evidently you hadn't the good grace to respond to my message on your talk page many weeks ago. As I said on Olly's talk page, you and he are both FPs therefore hardly neutral contributors to this "dispute." I also said that since Van Morrison also possesses an honorary doctorate, you won't object to my editing his page accordingly, will you? Since Rev. is correct can we settle for Rev. Paisley? BTW, isn't it true that even his ordination is disputed? Perhaps simply Mr. or Ian would suffice. —Wolfpelt Talk Page 22:50, 18 March 2008

Okay, my boy, let's get a couple things straight. First of all, you have never at any time written anything on my talk page. What you did was reply to me on your talk page. Second, I'm not an FP. Third, if I were an FP, that fact would not disqualify me from holding my current position in this dispute. Fourth, you are no more neutral than me, so let's drop the BS. Fifth, you would do well to slap a pair of colons on the front of your paragraphs so as to indent your comments and offset them from the previous person's comments. I don't have a clue who Van Morrison is, and I couldn't care less what you do to his page. "Dr." is also correct, so I'll settle for Dr. Paisley. If his ordination is disputed and his honorary doctorate is undisputed, then "Dr." is more correct than "Rev.", so stop introducing factual inaccuracies into the article. If you know of some Wikipedia policy that disallows honorary doctorate recipients from being labeled "Dr.", then let's see it; otherwise stop being obnoxious and find some useful way to contribute. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.—Emote Talk Page 05:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, what Emote said in the previous comment, I said on your talkpage, Wolfpelt. I think you should get your facts straight before you start telling people what church they are members of. My argument has been put on Wolfpelt's talk page. Read it.Olly150 10:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Well, how can I ever apologize for accusing Emote of being an FP? In my haste I assumed that because of his Calvinist interest he must be a Presbyterian of some description, hence far less neutral than I, who is Church of Ireland. I can scarcely believe that anyone who's lived in the West for at least two decades cannot know who Van Morrison is, but such is life. For the record (pardon my pun) he's one of the most influential songwriters/recording artists of the past four decades, as Emote would have known had he looked up the entry here on Wikipedia. If both of you care for accuracy then you'll agree that the use of a bogus doctorate diminishes the stature of a genuine one. Ian Paisley's is honorary and its use in an encyclopedia compromises that encyclopedia's striving for accuracy. Moreover, if you care to go to Ian Paisley's page, you'll read only a brief reference to his "doctorate." At all times he's referred to as respectively "Ian Paisley" or just plain "Paisley." I quote that entry: "Paisley's use of the title 'Dr' derived initially from a 1954 qualification from the American Pioneer Theological Seminary in in Rockville, Illinois. Later this was somewhat legitimized by an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree awarded by Bob Jones University, a Christian college in Greenville, South Carolina." I'm sure you'll both concur that "somewhat legitimized" is not the same as "legitimized." So if the main Wiki entry on the man drops the "Dr." what rationale can you have for including it on the FRC page? I'd have thought consistency to be an ideal Wikipedia would try to achieve. However, Olly's suggestion that we compromise by alternating "Rev." with "Dr." is one that's satisfactory to me. Lastly, Emote, you might consider your own insulting attitudes towards me before using the terms "obnoxious" and "BS." I have always remained civil, as I do now. And for your information, I spend at least a half hour each day proofreading and editing random Wikipedia entries. I consider that a "useful way to contribute," don't you? —Wolfpelt Talk Page 16:07, 19 March 2008

I'm not sure why my being a Presbyterian indicates that I'm part of the FPC. I might just as well assume that your Irish heritage makes you a lush. You will not find any confirmation in Wikipedia policies for the idea that an honorary doctorate is "bogus". Paisley's Wikipedia article is probably not the best place to appeal for support for your position — the very first sentence states that Paisley is often referred to and acknowledged as "Dr Ian Paisley". If changing "somewhat legitimized" to "legitimized" brings you comfort regarding the validity of Paisley's doctorate, feel free to change the wording. I'm impressed that you know so much about Van Morrison, and maybe someday I will be curious enough to go read the Wikipedia article about him. In this conversation, however, he is absolutely irrelevant. You claim to spend half an hour a day editing Wikipedia articles, yet a simple perusal of your edit history reveals that the last time you edited an article (excluding this edit war) was March 6, and the last time before that was February 10. Please remember to click Save page when you are finished editing so that your hard work doesn't go to waste. You identify yourself as "a member of the female community". (I see now that you have gone back and deleted that sentence.) Since you claim to be David Kiely, there are only a few possibilities here: 1) you lied about being David Kiely; 2) you lied about being a woman; or 3) David Kiely is actually a transvestite, one direction or the other. All three seem plausible to me, but do tell me which one sounds most familiar to you. The suggested compromise of alternating Paisley's titles throughout the article is exactly what existed before you changed it in the first place. If you are interested in going back and finding the original version and putting it back that way, go for it. Be sure not to destroy all the intermediate edits that have been made. The reason I respond to you harshly is that you're wasting people's time here. Despite my persistent pleading for you to answer me on this talk page rather than edit warring, it took a month and a couple of direct warnings to get you here. You told me you responded on my talk page when you never did. You attempted to discredit my position by labeling me an FP, as if that has any bearing on whether Paisley can be called a doctor. You wrote me a biography of Van Morrison … for fun, I guess. You called yourself a woman. Overall, you raised a lot of hell to get "Dr." changed to "Rev." and now, many weeks later, you want to compromise by putting it back the way it was. Never have you offered a sincere apology for your false assumptions, or for your disregard for Wikipedia procedures, or for wasting Wikipedia's resources. You have presented yourself as a menace throughout this discussion. Expect to be treated as such.—Emote Talk Page 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSITION TO RESOLVE DEBATE[edit]

Proposition I, Olly, will personally edit the article, alternating all references to Ian Paisley between Rev. and Dr.. I will start the alterating with Rev. as it is a church encyclopedic entry. (Random choice). This will create a balance between both titles. Also I would like both Emote and Wolfpelt to use the handshake template on each others talk page - {{User:Bam123456789/Templates/WikiLove/WikiHandshake}} - It's a handshake template. If you both use it, then your even and we never have to dicuss this again. Respond to the handshake, by using this template - {{User:Bam123456789/Templates/WikiLove/WikiReturnHandshake}} That makes it all fair. This is a symbol of wiki unity - corny I know, but still, it is a symbolic end to this debate. Thank you. Olly150 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSES FROM PARTIES

Emote - Sounds good.—Emote Talk Page 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolfpelt - Sure, let's do it. Thanks, Olly. —Wolfpelt Talk Page 10:25, 20 March 2008

Info box and website[edit]

Anyone tell me why the christian info box on this page doesnt have a section for the website which is supposed to be in it?Eleutherius (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)