User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Hello CTSWyneken, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

Welcome & note on copyright

A belated welcome from me, as well. I feel that you are genuinely interested in improving the Luther article, so I apologize if I came off a bit harsh regarding the copyright issue. I have written the meta text m:Avoid copyright paranoia because I feel that copyright matters are often exaggerated, or used as a red herring. (As a matter of fact, I do not recall a single actual copyright complaint from a party owning a copyright!) I also find the whole idea of copyrighted translations of public domain works silly, even if recognized by precedent -- would our quote magically revert to the public domain if we changed a few words?

Nevertheless, I look forward to your contributions regarding Luther, and possibly other pages as well. We definitely need more experts to look through our historical articles. --Eloquence 19:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I feel I have been remiss, not introducing myself before, even though you expressed curiosity about where I was coming from. Okay, here goes. I live in a country which has an established Evangelical-Lutheran state church (Finland). I am not a member of the church, but am a member of the culture. And here we have a very robust image of Martin Luther. Churchmen and atheists here do not mask any of the color in his persona. When I first came upon the Martin Luther entry here, it struck me as phenomenally candy-assed. I have to the best of my ability tried to add some flesh into the image of a man who did not lack flesh. If it is a sin, count it against me, please. The works I have in my library (in addition to the many purely national works having to do with our own lutheran church and it's connection with the man himself) are James M. Kittelson: Luther the Reformer (The Story of the Man and his Career), Gottfried Fitzer: Was Luther Wirklich Sagte. Oh, and of course I do have a translated compendium of his works (nearly 1800 pages in 3 volumes). But let me emphasize that I have these purely out of general interest in the world we live in and its general history. I consider them indispensable in understanding the world, and I would like that the Martin Luther article serve that purpose primarily as well. We don't need to describe the man, as long as we acknowledge all the sides of him that have affected cultures around the world. (nicely phrased, if I do say so myself) But maybe some bit of the man himself would not hurt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 20:40 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the intro, Cimon. My interest in Luther comes from being a spiritual disciple of his, a publisher and translator of his work on the internet, a pastor of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, a church historian and a instructor at the night school division of a university.

I came to the article when very loud complaints came from folks who had seen it. The article was, when I saw it, just an excuse to trash the reformer, incomplete by far. My intent was to fill it out, bring it to an NPOV state and to make it something I wouldn't mind my students quoting in their papers. I ended up a kind of catalyst that set off folks that would, on the one side, turn Luther into a superhero, and, on the other side, an archvillian.

Where I hope we will be when we're done with it and other related articles, is to have a fair, balanced, chronicle of who Luther was, what he believed and what his significance is. In other words, doing pretty much what other encyclopedists have done. CTSWyneken 22:01 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

MO Synod

Hi, I'm glad you've made those great changes to the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod article. But why did you get rid of the 3 sections at the end? They were the one that talked about relations with other church bodies, the list of synod presidents, and the external links. Fishal 17:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, since everyone here's been quite friendly, I should introduce myself as well. I'm a secondary education student at Concordia University, River Forest, currently spending the semester at Concordia University, Saint Paul. So I've had lots and lots of exposure to the LCMS. I'm friends with several people bound to your institution, actually. Exciting. It's been nice meeting you.

Good to meet you, Fishal. Glad that you're at one of our colleges. Are you pre-sem?

I'm not sure what happened to the end sections and glad they're back. If it was me that deleted them, it was an accident. I first waded into wiki about a year ago, when the Luther article was very, very bad. It is finally taking shape, but I can only take a shot at it from time to time. See my page for an intro. Right now I have my hand (or cursor) in a number of articles. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm in the Secondary Education program, as I said, but have some close friends who are going to seminary. Fishal 19:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some ideas re the Confessional Lutheran stub that recently arose out of the LCMS article. I'm the one who made "confessional Lutheran" in the article link to Confessing Movement because the term fits the LCMS's confessional movement so well: trying to steer the denomination away from secularism, female clergy, etc. The Confessional MO Synod Lutherans' case is different because (a) there is an emphasis on the Book of COncord, and (b) the confessional movement is significant enough within the synod to dictate important policy, so much so that the article can call the synod a "confessional Lutheran denomination." But don't you think it would be better to add a section on LCMS confessionalism to the Confessing movement article, rather than create a stub that will likely never get longer? I used the same logic when I merged Historical-Critical Method into Higher criticism. Fishal 03:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that a separate article is needed for the Confessional Lutheran movement because it is not historically a part of the confessing movement at all. The movement to confessional Lutheranism arose in the 1830s as a reaction to pietism on the one side and rationalism on the other. It arrives in America with the emigration of groups like the Saxons of Missouri and Grabau's group in Western New York. Folk like F.C.D. Wyneken come on board as they read Luther and the Book of Concord. Unlike the confessing movement, the Lutheran Confessionalists do not comprimise easily on matters of doctrine and practice. So, although the name's nearly the same, the movement is in fact distinct. --CTSWyneken 10:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize the term and the movement went back that far. Thanks. Fishal 17:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi CTSWyneken. I've looked through your additions to the MO Synod page and thought they were great. I just added a section to the history part and I wondered if you'd take a look at it. (I've asked Fishal the same thing.) I thought readers might be interested in some of the background to recent internal debates, so I added a brief note on Seminex, the formation of internal caucuses, the Benke fracas, etc. I tried to be scrupulous in avoiding POV problems, and I think I succeeded in that regard. However, I'm new to the subject and might have misinterpreted something, so I wanted you to take a look. One area of confusion was in naming the various "wings":

• It seems like the most conservative wing uses the name "liberal" for the other wing, but this might confuse non-LCMS readers because the more "liberal" LCMS camp bears almost no resemblance to "liberals" in the way the word is usually used in American society. (And I shied away from using "evangelical," because it seemed that there might be many who are socially/doctrinally more moderate/liberal but who are nonetheless supportive of traditional forms of liturgy.) So I opted for "moderate," even though this camp is conservative in the grand scheme of U.S. culture, politics, & religion.
• And as for the other wing, would "confessional" be an accurate internal name for the most conservative wing?

Sorry for my confusion, but I did my best with the edit. Anyway, take a look and let me know if this looks okay. Thanks! Ropcat

---

There was a series of changes made by User:192.160.64.49 on Feb. 4 to Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod; do you want to take a quick look at them? I have some questions, but you're probably better qualifed to review them. Johnh 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Name

The German word spelled Luder or Ludder has, I believe, the meaning in German of a scoundrel. The slight respelling (after he entered the cloister at Erfurt, I think), changing the sound from Looder to the sound Lootter, eliminated that taunt. I'd like to add something to that effect to the end of the first section of the article. What do you think? --StanZegel 02:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think the whole thing is tangental and would like to delete it. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, and should be somewhat general. If you do add it, I'd pu it in the area about Luther's birth and family. Better yet would be a tiny article on the whole thing and just carve it out of the main article altogether. But that's me. If you add it, you might want to go into Luther signing some of his writings with a rennaisance style eleutheros, free one in Greek. Eventually he dropped that pen name. -- Bob --CTSWyneken 12:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lutheranism page project

Bob, a pedantic note on word order: "At death they teach that Christians are..." might work better as "They teach that, at death Christians are..." --StanZegel 03:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good thought! If I don't fix it, it'll be because I forget. Go ahead and fix it. -- Bob --CTSWyneken 11:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. In formal principle and some of your other edits, I think you're using too many capital letters. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style; in Wikipedia, we don't normally capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in an article title or a section heading. Also, it is usually better to write "In zoology, a dog is an animal that barks" than "Dog is a term used by zoologists to refer to an animal that barks." I think the latter syntax should be used only when there is a reason to say something about the word "dog" rather than about dogs. In Cajetan, I have adapted the opening sentence to Wikipedia conventions by highlighting the title phrase (in this case, the man's name) at its first appearance and disabbreviating some words that were abbreviated, and making the first sentence a complete sentence. I've also changed the article's title to Thomas Cajetan; I don't think using only the surname should be done except in redirect pages. I've put in a link to cardinal (Catholicism) in that article; certainly more links should be added. Also, I'm going to add that page to the list of notable cardinals. Michael Hardy 23:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! This is good work. I'll add some links to Cajetan. Bob --CTSWyneken 02:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rechtschreibung

In Martin Luther#Exile at the Wartburg Castle is the phrase Ueber die weltliche Gewalt, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam echuldig sei which I think may have a misspelled word. Do you think it should really be schuldig?--StanZegel 03:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I checked it out. Right you are. It must have been a scanno. 8-) Bob --CTSWyneken 20:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Latin question in Lutheranism

Hi, CTSWyneken. Regarding "sola Christus" vs. either "solo Christo" ("by Christ alone") or "solus Christus" ("Christ alone"): It is true that the feminine "sola" is occasionally used as a mistaken parallel to the other solas which are rightly feminine (the same is true with "soli Deo gloria"), but that usage is grammatically incorrect and not universal even within Lutheranism (cf. this article by Lutheran pastor, Rod Rosenblatt). I suggest we change it to one of the correct forms, which are also in common usage (well, as common as Latin can be). --Flex 14:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flex:

I've not done much research on the form that this sola appears in, but have seen it enough as sola Christus for it to look funny to me to see it any other way. We can go to Solus Christus for now... If I get a moment I'll look around...

Lutheran Eucharistic Theology

Hey, CTS, I saw your comments to Talk:Real Presence, and I want to ask a favor: I just reformatted Transubstantiation, and because of the comments at T:RP, I switched out the existing Lutheran section with the Lutheran section from Eucharist. The old section on Transubstantiation still used "consubstantiation" etc., so I felt it was a good change. Would you check the section for Lutheran accuracy? Thanks, Essjay · Talk 09:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi,

the first infobox on Martin Luther seems to be correctly right-aligned; what exactly do you want to change?--Eloquence* 06:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lutherans / Protestants

Bob, in your recent edit to Martin Luther, your edit summary was that Lutherans don't consider themselves protestants. I was a bit startled when I read it. Could you expand upon that?--StanZegel 14:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran theology is quite a bit different than that of most denominations that consider themselves Protestant. For instance, Lutherans have a theology of the Means of Grace, by which we mean that God has chosen to work through His Word and through the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We believe that God the Holy Spirit uses God's Word to create faith in the hearts of unbelievers, that He actually saves people through baptism, even babies and that He gives His real body and real blood in, with and under the elements of the Lord's supper. We do not believe in "accepting Jesus as Savior," that salvation is conditional on good behavior, etc. We also believe that it is good to retain the ancient worship orders of the church, and any traditions that support the gospel. That's just for starters. So we don't we too well with Protestants. A similar list can be made for the Catholic, Orthodox, holiness and other Christian traditions. Since we take Luther seriously, it is at best annoying to have our tradition left out of an article on Luther. 8-) Does that help?

--CTSWyneken 00:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. Lutherans are the Urprotestants. There may be other sects of protestants that have different practices, but I think that the term "Protestant" covers all Christian sects no longer having allegience to Rome, but whose historical roots go back to the western catholic church. You seem to be distinguishing Lutherans from Calvinists, what some may call Evangelicals, and the venerable Holy Rollers, but all are flavors of Protestants. Couldn't you use some other term (copycats?) for non-Lutheran protestants :)? --StanZegel 12:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What about the Orthodox Church? They have no alleagence to Rome, but are neither Protestant nor Lutheran. We could also speak of Anglicanism, which certainly is not protestant exclusively either. I could also argue that Pentecostals, are not protestant either. The problem is the term is so established to mean people with a Calvinist or Armenian viewpoint, that to try and define our way out of that box is futile. We really have as little in common with them as we do with Catholics. Better to simply keep Lutheran as our label and keep us distinct. That would likely please the protestants, who are not at all happy with our sacramental theology. --CTSWyneken 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk Archives

Bob, I started to classify the previous Talk topics onto thematic pages, but some were too involved to easily follow. Because you were involved in almost all of them, might you be able to take some time to review the two archived talk pages Talk:Martin Luther/archive 1 and Talk:Martin Luther/archive 2005 Sept 19 and cut-and-paste so that certain topics are put into context? To create another subpage, while you are editing a archived page, just type [[talk:Martin Luther/Bob Is Great]] (or whatever topic you want) then Preview your change, shift-click on the new red link you have just created (to open the new page in another window) and then cut and paste from the donor to the recipient page. Add the topic alphabetically at the top of the main talk page, and you are done and rehashes might be avoided. That is, if you think it worth doing and you have the time. Regards, --StanZegel 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

p.s. If we were married, instead of yelling at you about leaving the cap off the toothpaste, I might mumble a bit under my breath about overuse (my perception) of the horizontal line in Talk postings that I think is unnecessary above a ==topic== and not a good substitution for indentations as a dialog progresses. It is, in my opinion, justified when needing to interlineate a comment in the middle of a previous posting, but the different ==, ===, ==== levels and ::... indents seem (to me) adequate for most normal talk postings. The horizontal line is useful as a substitute for separating unrelated comments which the author did not start with a ==topic== and we don't want to take the time to create one. (Not to pick a fight... If I wanted to pick one, I'd start in about how Lutherans ARE Protestants!  :-)

Sorry about that. I'm not especially careful on talk pages, especially when I'm there to put out fires. (as is almost always the case) I like the rule to separate messages, esp. when folks do not indent. You may feel free to edit these things all you like, as long as you do not touch the content of my words. 8-) And, about the Protestant thing, for me its simply a useless word at best and dangerous to the salvation of others at worst. Since for some of my brothers it is like being called scum, I tend to find other ways to speak. What's the harm, really, if we're dividing the body of Christ rhetorically anyway, to use more numerous and meaningful sub-divisions? Is being "not Catholic" so important that nothing else matters? Of course, we're not fighting about this one. ;-)

Biographical infoboxes

Prof. Smith, the Wikipedian community is contemplating the wholesale removal of all the biographical infoboxes. If you look at the Luther article, Luther's infobox is targeted for deletion. This is an important matter in my opinion. Please weigh in pro or con. --Rev. Dave Boisclair drboisclair 21:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Real Presence article

I completely agree with you on the Real Presence article. Other things to watch out for is 1) making the "Lutheran" paragraph in this article too long relative to the other traditions, 2) not taking into consideration that Lutherans are not all agreed on all the details, and 3) being too combative with other traditions. I appreciated your discussion of the reasons why we do not accept eucharistic theories like "consubstantiation": that was the word that Roman Catholics popularly used to describe us as late as the 1970's. Lutherans are very picky about the Lord's Supper--sometimes for good reason. The idea of Wikipedia is to increase accuracy, understandibility, and consensus while leaving in place as much as possible (building on what others have added). Unfortunately, there is the need to delete things that are not true. I am sad about all of the vandalism. I wonder if there is an article in Wikipedia about vandalism of Wikipedia articles? Cheers. drboisclair 14:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cfd

Hi, we had some Latin-related interaction a while back, so I thought I'd ask: If you have a second, could you vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers. --Flex 15:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther's marriage and family

Hello, Robert, I have written a paragraph on Luther's marriage and children, which I posted as tentative in Talk:Martin Luther. I gleaned it from Brecht and Bainton with reference to the other biographies. What is interesting is that Bainton mistakes Magdalena's birthday for the day Margaretha was born in Here I Stand. I relied on the Brecht data. Please advise. --drboisclair 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Bob, just a quick note to say I really admired what you said earlier:

On matters of theology, which are not the concern of this encyclopedia, nor directly relevant to the point we're debating, how would you expect me to speak? If I saw you walking off a cliff, yelled to you, "Don't do it!" and you replied, "That's OK. I can fly!" Would you have me say, "Oh, well, he has a right to his opinion." and walk away?

In any case, as I Catholic I was curious to know what, if you were to enumerate them, would be the 3-5 biggest things you disagree with the Catholic Church about, and what things you admire. I realize not all Lutherans have the same perspectives. In any case you probably know (much) more about my Church than I do yours. I need to learn more about Lutheran views on the Eucharist, that most crucial of things. Anyway, thanks for your presence on Wikipedia. Have a good Sunday! --Dpr 15:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Watchlists

Bob, if at the top of a page you click "Preferences" and then the "Editing" tab, you will see a check-box labeled "Add pages you edit to your watchlist." If you check that box, then every page you edit thereafter (including another user's Talk page) will automatically be added to your watch list. When you log on, just click "my watchlist" at the top of the page and you will then see links and edit summaries of activity to those articles in the past few days. That is helpful because someone to whom you propound an interrogatory can answer on that same talk page and you will be notified that their page has changed (presumably in response to your query). Otherwise, the responder needs to post to your page to be sure you are aware of his response and the continuity of the conversation is lost. Does this help? Can I help more? (Auch: Bitte am meinem talkpage "e-mail this user" klicken und schicke mir Deine privat e-mailaddresse.) --StanZegel (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Law and Gospel

Thank you, Bob, for asking me. What??? Walther inventing it??? I guess some folks need to do more research by going to Project Wittenberg!! Please lend your careful assistance as Stan did for me on the Luther family paragraph. BTW, on the Pilgrim's Progress article an editor was using the data from the low distribution movie rather than the text. You have shown us the importance of careful research in Wikipedia in order to provide a truly quality online source. BTW, Dr. Nagel had a nice 80th birthday celebration on October 8th. Blessings, Dave drboisclair 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done some of the initial work on Law and Gospel, but would appreciate your looking at it, and adding some things. We might link to Wittenberg Project's Apology. I couldn't think of anyone earlier than Luther really making a point about Law and Gospel. Blessings, Dave drboisclair 18:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Law and Gospel's mention in Luther and linked from Luther

Bob, I suggest that we add this sentence or something like it to the end of "Luther's theory of grace" paragraph:

Luther's definition and reintroduction of the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel safeguarded his theory of grace, which he believed to be the central message of Christianity.

The proper distinction between Law and Gospel plays a vital role in understanding that salvation is a free gift of God. When Law/Gospel distinction and polarity are mixed up, then this understanding is lost.

BTW, This POV thing about the Luther article may be raised by the person who made alterations from "God" to "his God" in this article. Can a newcomer or a person who is not an administrator edit an article by putting in a POV flag? I believe that this person should 1) sign their concern and 2) be specific about the POV issue. Blessings, Dave drboisclair 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bob, you might want to look over changes in "Luther's theory of grace": I have added "proper Law & Gospel distinction in the caption as well as a new paragraph into this section. You may want to refine what needs refining. drboisclair 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your concern about the chronology in putting the Law/Gospel insight in this paragraph that precedes "Indulgence Controversy"; however, it would not fit thematically in the later paragraphs. My rationalization for putting it in the "Theory of Grace" paragraph stems from the fact that there are elements that were already in that paragraph that may not have been chronologically before the "Indulgence Controversy." Law/Gospel distinction is very closely linked to Luther's doctrine of Justification by grace through faith, so this paragraph is the natural place for a reference to Law / Gospel distinction. We probably need to modify the caption a bit. I would suggest: "Luther's doctrine of Justification and proper Law / Gospel distinction". drboisclair 15:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and changed the caption to "Luther's theology of grace", which I think it superior to "theory". I have also revised the Law/Gospel paragraph. Please look at it for any needed improvement. drboisclair 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Reformation Day question

There's a question at Talk:Reformation_Day that could use more input. Thanks Sumergocognito 00:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism

Bob, I am truly sorry for the editing battle that went on on the section on "Luther and Judaism"; I have been very properly taken to task by those who have opposed my actions: Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and Slrubenstein. I have heeded the need to comply with NPOV, and I will recuse myself from editing this controversial paragraph. You may wish to look at it. I hope you have been able to come up for air! drboisclair 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Appreciation for fine work

Bob, thank you for the fine work you have done on the Martin Luther article. Stan is also to be credited for fine editing. I don't know why we are thought to "whitewash" anything. I appreciate your stepping in and fixing a problematic scenario. Blessings, David drboisclair 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Doctor in Biblia

I thought that it was still to be researched. It is stated in Luther's Works, "Introduction to Volume 10," St. Louis: CPH, vol. 10, pp. 1-2 that that was the name of his theological doctorate. Oberman points out that his position at the U of Wittenberg was "lectura in Biblia." You might say that Luther had a doctorate in biblical studies: this is something that the Old Testament exegetes glory in. I think that the jury is still out on this one as to what you feel is right here. drboisclair 19:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see response on my talk page to your kind question: User talk:Drboisclair drboisclair 17:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Walther and slavery

Please see Talk:C.F.W. Walther for a start to the discussion page. You may want to add a few lines. Perhaps we can help the abolitionists to discuss things before they intrude them into Walther's article. drboisclair 08:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If this article ever becomes detailed enough that Walther's slavery views are relevant (and they may well be, depending upon the Synod's pre-Civil War position), then I suggest that the entry place such views in context, e.g.:

Missouri was a slave state, and slavery was widely supported among its population. It was justified on theological grounds (1 Corinthians 7:20-21, to the effect that everyone should remain in the condition in which he was called) by many clergymen in those slave-holding areas, including Wyneken. During the time that pious New Englanders had slaves, pious clergymen there had justified in on similar grounds.

I think that this states the factual situation in an NPOV way, neither accusatory nor white-washing. Whether it is relevant is a matter that depends upon the LCMS position then, when many church bodies underwent schisms over the issue, and if it is, it may be more appropriate in the history section of the LCMS article than here. But if it ever become relevant here, I suggest something along the lines above, although what I have written could be rearranged to flow better. --StanZegel (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Stan on this. Addressing this issue should come in the LCMS article. Walther's only concern was to set the record straight on what the Bible had to say about it. He did not want to justify the institution of slavery in this country. Other issues that might come to play in this, though, are 1) the reintroduction of slavery in Western Civilization through the subjugation of the African continent from the 17-19 centuries, 2) the morally reprehensible manner in which slaves were treated, and 3) the inherent prejudice of fiding a racial difference between Africans and Europeans sanctioning the enslavement of Africans and not Europeans. However, these matters do not impinge on biblical doctrine but in the domain of the 5th Commandment. If the slaveholders were Christian they might be asked to look at St. Paul's Letter to Philemon. Just some thoughts that are germane drboisclair 18:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with copyright issues

Bob, could you join the fun on the Talk:Martin Luther and Antisemitism Babajobu is wondering about the copyright issues in On the Jews and Their Lies. He says that we can still link to that site that posts it even though they may be violating copyright. Your expertise here is greatly needed. Blessings, Dave. drboisclair 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu has sought out proper authority and he is satisfied that "the link stays off" as you have endeavored to maintain. God bless! drboisclair 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Continued edit re: Antisemitism/Antijudaism

Thank you, Bob, for your leadership in resolving this matter. It is in Wikipedia Luther's best interest that we be balanced on this. I think that we need to be as mindful of copyright issues: it is so easy to simply link up to things on the internet. I think that we have a well-balanced and fair presentation. However, we do have this new anonymous editor, who wants to continue to interject the above distinction, which is used by the ELCA. The ELCA, though, thinks of the distinction as one becoming the other. To them what used to be "Antijudaism" is now "Antisemitism." I think the way that you and we have framed the paragraph directs one to the 20th Century debate rather than dabble in the fine distinction between the two "antis". That is another story as the saying goes. P.S. I will contact Bob Kolb about the article and ask him to look over it. I will also ask Dr. Schumacher to look over it: he did his dissertation on Luther and the new Finnish theology of Luther. Blessings, Dave. drboisclair 14:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm convinced of the Anti-Judaic position, BTW. Luther's rhetoric against all his opponents, even his friends, is just as caustic.

I really need to skim "The fabricated luther" to see what we can add to the Hitler era info.

Bob --CTSWyneken 17:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting the "controversial" sentences and part of the caption. I think that you gave a spirited defense of what we are trying to do here. We do not venture into areas in which we are unfamiliar; however, sometimes as in "Star Trek" we boldly go where no one has gone before. SDG. Dave drboisclair 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther's Titles

Thank you, Bob, for changing the Doctor in Biblia to Doctor of Theology. I went to the St. Louis Sem library this afternoon, and I saw what you were saying in vol. 1 of WA Briefwechsel, the letter of Luther to Albert of Mainz. He calls himself Doctor of Sacred Theology or simply Doctor of Theology. Obermann bears us out on the "in Biblia" being his chair at the U of Wittenberg. I guess that you heard from Rev./Mr. Russel on this. You were right. drboisclair 20:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, haven't heard back from Russell yet.

--CTSWyneken 20:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Points of view

Please be careful not to push any particular point of view at the Martin Luther article. The quibble about whether indulgences were "purchased" is a case in point. [1]

Rather than insisting that they were or were not "sold", it would be better to quote sources who advanced either of these points of view.

Say that A called the practice "selling indulgences", and that B objected to the idea that indulgence was for sale, arguing that the required donations were . . .

Needless to say A and B are not Wikipedians but historians or religious scholars or some such.

If you need help with this, call on me. I've been here 4 years and am one of the best NPOV writers around. Uncle Ed 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)