User talk:MerricMaker

Welcome[edit]

Hello MerricMaker, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to Diatessaron, Qur'an and John Robinson. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

--Gareth Hughes 17:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki[edit]

Good job starting that article; long overdue. I had meant to start it many times, but never got around to it. Well done...and welcome! KHM03 18:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Matte[edit]

Please provide sources for the material in this article. Thanx. TheRingess 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization[edit]

Based on your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Matters_of_Capitalization_.28Revisited.29 I'm not positive what position you're taking, since different people have espoused different views of what the rules of English are. Are you saying that Border Gateway Protocol and other protocol names should be capitalized? All but one of us say that it should because it is a proper noun referring to a specific standardized protocol, and is capitalized in common usage nearly everywhere including in the standards documents where it is standardized. --NealMcB 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Trinitarian formula[edit]

Please see Talk:Trinitarian formula. AnonMoos 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity article[edit]

Dear MerricMaker, if you prefer it can say that you are entitled to your opinion. But the problem is:

You complain that I am dismissive about your opinion, yet still you are even more dismissive about a whole range of opinions, accusing them of being "racists" and thinking the other "subhuman". Not the NPOV implis a willingness to hear - the objectiv of writing an encyclopedia requires this as we cannot have a collaborative work without listening to each other. Ans respect the other. I never said anything about respect - we should always respect the other and his views.

But, and this is the heart of the matter, if we respect others' views we must also respect that they have views, and that the views of different people differ. Everyone beliefs in the verity of his views, otherwise he wouldn't hold them. But what if two (or more) views contradict each other - only one view can be true. If both views are equally true, as one of your sentences seem to imply, the only logically conclusion is that they are both false. So, claiming that we all equally know the truth is no solution. The solution is to respect and tolerate the other and his views.

And that your posts didn't seem to do, as I explained above. Tolerance is not tolerating views that we agree with, or don't care about, but tolerating views we disagree with, strongly disagree with, even abhorr. But it is not accepting these views. And it's about not thinking the other "subhuman" despite deep disagreements.

Now, as the original issue was "Who is a Christian?", let me address another aspect. Above I only spoke of views - among these views are religions (and philosophies, but the same implies here) - a religion necessarily demands, like any view, that you either hold it or not. Now, if more than one person adheres to a certain religion the coreligionists will have different views on different things, some of which pertain to the principles and tenets of their religion. Such differences may be small but the may also stray so far, as to threaten the unity of the religion, and they may pertain to essential questions one cannot leave unanswered (that solution has been tried and found wanting) because of the either-or character of contradictory propositions, and some views contradict the essential tenets of a religion, even if the one who came up with a view didn't relize that. In such cases, a solution must be found and there are many ways to go at it, also depending on the internal structure of the religion (I am not talking about organization here but about the architecture of thought). In the worst case groups split from the greater body. I don't think you can call that "good" from the perspective of the religion in question, though using force to prevent such a split is hardly the best solution in the overwhelming number of cases.

So, to sum up, a religion must address issues raised and (not always but often) reach a decision, or it will became faceless. The downside of such definitions is that some will not agree and be excluded. That's sad but unavoidable. Otherwise it is the majority that reached the decision that will be excluded.

In Jesus' case, since he has been mentioned, it is the same. Yes, he opens the door for many excluded (sinners, tax collectors, whores, lepers) but he doesn't tear down the walls of the house. And he doesn't water down his claims (which one can believe or not) in the face of disagreement.

Regarding the question of "Who is a Christian" I have always tried to be inclusive and not to take that name away from anyone, unless I couldn't help. (I will not say now which groups are concerned, as that has always created hurly-burly then I did so in the past.) Of course that didn't mean that I agreed with these groups or that I did not consider them erring from true Christianity. Before you conclude otherwise, I know that I could be wrong. That's understood. But I don't think I am - if I did I would "adjust" my views.

So, what has that all to do with WP? We should respect one another but stick to our views. The NPOV policy is a tool to regulate how the appearance of different views is to be dealt with. Note that the article and the talk page are two distinct things. And yes, I have encountered jackasses, though I must say that most of them would be offended at being called "religious".

All in all I agree with what you wrote about the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church". If you were familiar with my Wiki-history you'd know that I can and do collaborate with people of different views, Christian and non-Christian alike. Some nasty individual (whose identity is not entirely clear) even included that into his accusations, calling me and a couple of other editors a ecumenical cabal.

So yes I was offended by some things you wrote - the equation with racis), the assumption that I was acting out of ignorance (Thoug I cannot see how you could deduce that from my article edits), but apologies were accepted before you mentioned it. If you haven't understood all this, feel free to ask. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

atheism wikiproject[edit]

HI MerricMaker, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: [[1]]. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical inspiration[edit]

Hi, I saw the changes you made to Biblical inspiration, and I'm a bit confused as to the meaning of the first sentence: "The Modernist (or liberal) view typically rejects interpretations which do not include or are entirely dismissive of claims of a perfect Scripture." It seems like the two interpretations rejected are in conflict with each other -- one requiring perfection and one dismissive of it. Can you clarify? --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to tweak it a bit more to keep the focus on inspiration rather than inerrancy, which has its own article. Please check the Modernist section to make sure I didn't misrepresent things (could you supply some relevant sources?). --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I certainly haven't misunderstood everything you said, or even your last post, although it appears you have (or else have decided to misrepresent it on a different venue in the hopes of causing some kind of confusion). Specifically, you said:

"But there was no analog for homosexual relationships because all three references to homosexuality in the New Testament were about unequal power relationships, not loving and equal homosexual relationships that exist today."

I replied:

"Your argument that we should disregard what the New Testament says about homosexuality runs into a logical problem; you've been insisting that relations between men and women involved a much greater inequality than would have existed in most cases between two men or two women (and they were unequal, although not in the way you've claimed). But every time celibacy comes up in the New Testament, it's clearly optional, not mandatory. Either the New Testament writers were okay with partners having unequal power, in which case the objection to homosexuality must have been something else; or they were able to imagine previously unequal relationships made equal, in which case there is no reason they couldn't have done the same in the case of same-sex relations, unless, again, there was some other reason for them to object to those couplings in particular."

On my Talk page, you chacterize this as if your main point had been the number of references, and as if I had counter-argued along those lines. But this, as can be seen above, is not the case. You also make the discussion about pederasty, which is also a mischaracterization.

But perhaps I was unfair after all. What you did say was, in plain truth, an attempt to limit the scope of the New Testament teaching to somthing that doesn't happen very much and is done by socially disreputable people. Calling this an argument that we should disregard it is hyperbole of my own, no? But this doesn't change the fact that I refuted your argument; your conclusion is left without support regardless of whether I was entirely fair with it.

The rest of your comment is merely ad hominem. After forgetting both the context and content of my argument (or indulging in what you yourself call "petty unwillingness to hear others"), you are in no position to characterize it or the thought behind it. A.J.A. 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's charming you just now think you're being rude. The assumption that if I go on disagreeing with you it is, obviously, a lack of comprehension is both rude and astonishingly arrogant.

You continue misrepresenting your own statements, writing, "I state, more or less, that the New Testament only mentions pederasty three times and that this is representative of its editors and author’s lack of concern with the matter." But this is an arguiment which you introduced on my Talk page; as I demonstrated above, on the article Talk you mentioned the number but drew no conclusions from it, rather making a different argument which I proceeded to demolish. Perhaps the reality that one of those inerrentist fundies would best you in anything is too painful to be faced directly, and that's why you cannot let yourself admit the argument you actually used on the article Talk page, and must retreat from that venue. But because you also can't let me have the last word, you move to a different Talk page and replace serious arguments with attacks on my person.

Again, you say, "You take this to indicate an utter disregard for the New Testament." But on this very page just a few lines above you see me saying that calling your position one of disregarding the New Testament is hyperbole. Which raises an important question: did you bother to read my reply, or did you merely read the first paragraph and get angry that I would dare answer at all?

Of course, utter disregard would simply admit that the New Testament is against homosexuality and shrug. Which is far from what you're doing, but you're also far from treating the text with the respect it deserves. You're giving us a New Testament with everything that might offend or strike oddly against a modern sensibility carefully glossed out. I admit to being heavily biased against this sort of thing; it is almost by definition an anachronism. I once started reading The Political Teachings of Jesus in a bookstore, but put it back after the author said we don't notice Jesus' political influence because it's foundational to both Right and Left and some perusal showed that, indeed, his Jesus said nothing which was not Lockean. I much prefer Yoder's Jesus, even though Yoder's politics are very different from mine.

You say the only word the had in Greek was the word for pederasty. This is wrong. Paul coined a new word which translates literally as "men-bedders", itself a reference to the literal reading of the text in Leviticus. More importantly, you don't need a word for something to mention it, you can describe it in several words. For example, if you're mentioning homosexuals you might call them "men with men committing indecent acts".

The rest of your comment makes me frankly embarrassed for you. You're getting into Dan Brown territory; inevitably, you cite Elaine Pagels, whose career is being the bridge between scholarship and Da Vinci. You even pick up aspects of Brown's style: you can't just mention the New Testament apocrypha (which, for the record, does not support your contentions), they're in the document rooms (oooh!) at Harvard and Cambridge (aaah!); in the same way that in the first few pages of the Code -- the only ones I've ever read -- just about every thing or person Brown mentions is "prestigious". And, if I'm not mistaken, all the heroes were Harvard professors or world's top experts.

By the way, the Council of Nicea never considered the canon. A.J.A. 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tripartite monotheism[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tripartite monotheism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, neologism

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Editor2020 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Young-Ho Chun[edit]

A tag has been placed on Young-Ho Chun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Theology (history of)[edit]

I have added a section to Talk:Constructive theology as I feel the article does not make the historical background clear. I know nothing about this subject, and referred to the article because I wanted to know what the "Constructive Theology" referred to in the series title "The Library of Constructive Theology" meant. Frankly, I am very little the wiser. --PeterR2 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Ray Griffin[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harold C. Washington for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold C. Washington is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold C. Washington until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

asilvering (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]