User talk:Yeoberry

Re-use the sources

Hi, I added one of the citations for Covenant Reformed Baptist Church to the page Providence, Caswell County, North Carolina. I think it is appropriate in terms of WP:DUE. Hope this helps. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. Thanks.Yeoberry (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

I'm a regular volunteer there. I reverted your listing because all listings there must be made via the button at the top of the page so that the maintenance bot that runs the page will work correctly. However, what you are requesting is a conduct dispute and DRN does not handle those. You need to go to ANI for that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church

If you believe your material is appropriate for inclusion in this or any other article, I would strongly recommend you bring it up for discussion at a suitable place (such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Even if this is in fact suitable material, it might be better placed in a more specialized article (such as Icon). The main purpose of the Eastern Orthodox Church article should be to describe the history, beliefs, and practices of the EOC — not to either defend or attack the EOC (i.e., no apologetics or polemics). It may be appropriate to briefly mention that icons have been controversial at various times amongst the church leadership — as shown, e.g., by the Byzantine Iconoclasms of the 8th and 9th centuries AD — but any effort aimed at attacking the validity of the EOC or any other Christian group through lengthy arguments against the use of icons is misplaced in this article (and probably any other article).

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich, Thanks for the information. Obviously the paragraph is about the history of the EOC; it's source is a peer-reviewed academic journal. It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to suppress information that may be unfavorable to the claims of any group but to simply report on the available information. Wikipedia relies on editors of journals to determine the validity of information. This paragraph could be edited, even condensed, but that it has adequate citations and historical basis and is relevant to the discussion is without question.

The early church appears to have inherited the opposition to icons inherent in second temple, Talmudic Judaism. Hence, early Christians were accused of being "atheists" by Romans who assumed the absence of images meant the absence of belief in gods. Origen (184-254) responded to the charge of "atheism" by admitting that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira (c. 305) states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” About the year 327 the early church historian Eusebius (c. AD 263 – 339) wrote, "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." Epiphanius (inter 310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus wrote, in Letter 51 (c. 394), to John, Bishop of Jerusalem about an incident of finding an image in a church in his jurisdiction: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”Yeoberry (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Yeoberry

I am the editor LoveMonkey. It is nice to make your acquaintance. Please forgive me and the situation as it occurred today. It is in a love for Christ that we should seek to establish mutual respect (sobornost). Again please accept my apology for what transpired today. It is not an EO person's intention to harm or enrage anyone (as Saint Philaret will attest to). If you would like to talk about your views of us I am completely open and willing to listen. As this is a misunderstanding that occurred today and if indeed you seek to contribute here at Wiki then communication is key. And from your comments it appears you are very keen on Protestant reformation history and there is a whole lot of subjects and articles that would greatly benefit from people here contributing to them. I was wondering if you have hear of this book. [1]Also what is your view of the Mandylion? LoveMonkey (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey, Thanks for the information. Actually, the recently published article has to do with the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I've contributed a few bits to pages on Puritans and Puritanism but not on Reformation history per se. The article in question is an academic article, published in a peer reviewed journal, with Norman Geisler (a fairly well-known scholar) being one of the editors.174.53.88.54 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

But Norman Geisler has a degree in Philosophy not history per se was the article peer reviewed by a historical studies board or by a Protestant theology one? I understand that a degree in Philosophy is something of value when dealing with say theology or maybe even your own community or culture as the source I provided you [2] is one that collects and reflects the Orthodox arguments against the use of Epiphanius to justify iconoclasm. The author is not an historian per se or at least I don't think he has a degree in history (he has a degree in Orthodox theology). I wonder if your source John B Carpenter and or Norman Geisler have covered the other side of the issue and or even acknowledge why Epiphanius and the arguments given where not enough to make it dogma that icons are wrong. As Fr Stephan Bigham is just one person whom writes about one of the components that you speak of and from his works states that the comments attributed to Epiphanius are false and are false along the same lines as the Donation of Constantine. This was covered back in the time of the iconoclast councils and I wonder if what was said at those councils was given any weight in the article by John B Carpenter that you are promoting? So was that side of it addressed and if so why was the finding of the council that comments attributed to Epiphanius were false not to be taken into account?

As here is from the backcover of the book..

"Fr. Bigham has convincingly argued that Epiphanius's so-called iconophobia, a notion that is present in the popular imagination and in scholarly works for nearly a century, is only a myth...and, therefore, "the Christian tradition has been and remains fundamentally and essentially iconophile."

I understand that some people may not care to see or read or understand both sides per se, but it makes it impossible for people to care for their perspective if they have no compassion for anyone else's. Also this is not an academic format this is an informal format so though we are to remain on subject strict rules of formality in language and communication are not enforced here nor are they to be given gravity. This is informal as well it should be there is no reason we can not share our perspectives with one another as a matter content creation. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey,

I appreciate the intelligent interaction with you. I'm sorry that the article is not available freely on-line so you can read it yourself, since you seem to have some interest and knowledge of the subject. Specifically, the article addresses the claims that that part of Epiphanius' Letter 51 is a forgery in a lengthy foot-note, that includes some of the sources that seek to make that case, I believe including Bigham (though I'm not sure.) The conclusion is that there is simply no textual evidence that the letter (or any portion of it) is a forgery.

I'm fine with discussing the issue informally with you but I'm a little frustrated that it appears what goes into wikipedia is sometimes determined by a "idiocracy". The article is an academic article, in a peer-reviewed journal, and certainly relevant to pages on "iconoclasm" but it is being systematically eliminated even from that. It seems to me that as for the issue of whether the article is a valid source, is one determined by the editors of the respective journals, not by the feelings of mostly unknowledgeable (and often biased) wikipedia editors..

As for Geisler, yes his training is in philosophy but I believe his specialty was on the philosophy of Thomas Aquainas, certainly an historical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.88.54 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)