User talk:LCP

Wikipedia relationships are not real

Before you write something here, please first consider going and doing something real and truly meaningful with your life.LCP 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

APA and the WHO

We are having a discussion on whether or not to include the WHO classification of ego-dystonic sexual orientation on the reparative therapy page, or simply use APA. Could you add your thoughts?Joshuajohanson 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still confused. Can you explain to me what is going on at my talk page? Joshuajohanson 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your words of encouragement. It is really hard when there is an article written about me saying how horrible I am. Sometimes I feel like the whole world is against me. It is hard not to take it personally, but I am trying. It is nice to know someone at least sympathizes. Joshuajohanson 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I probably do take this too seriously. I just get frustrated when you try to find honest information out there, and it can't be found anywhere. I still have a lot of questions about what the best way to go about this is. I look at this as a learning experience. When I first read Reparative therapy, I thought, oh, they don't allow it, and only had an issue with the way it represented Christian groups. But as I read more and more, I found that the article completely misrepresented, basically everything. There are some things that I have put up there, only to be shown that my interpretation was flawed. I am fine with that. I just had a problem when everything I put was taken down regardless. Anyway, although science can be a helpful resource, you are right that only God can heal me. I need to remember that, and be satisfied that I know within myself what is God's will. By the way, I have never actually lived a gay lifestyle, I am only looking to diminish my same-sex attractions. I really don't care whether it is called a mental illness or not, I just want help, and if that is the only way I can be helped then so be it. (Not that Wikipedia will change that.) You said I could email you, but you don't have a link. (I do.) Most of what I want to put up is in the talk page anyhow. Can you read my arguments? Am I way off base? The biggest thing I want in there is the quote from APA president that "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction," and then have things the APA does have conflict with explained.[1] Anyway, email me so I can email you, and thanks. Joshuajohanson 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Idolatry

Septegram, I wanted to make a correction and some changes, along the lines of our discusion, and I found the page locked. Do you have any idea of what's going on?LCP 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I've posted something on the article's talk page, so an administrator should be by shortly.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check out my latest comment in our discussion. It turns out your scepticism was well placed!LCP 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Pedantic Presumption?

I'm sorry that I have hit a nerve with you, it was not my intention at all. I can only assume that you believe my "lecturing" is in reference to this comment: If you were being sarcastic, please don't make unserious suggestions to make a WP:POINT. I honestly could not tell if your suggestion was an honest suggestion or not. If your actual point is difficult for other users to figure out, perhaps you should adjust your talk page tactics. There is nothing wrong with saying something in plain words. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, by not making a decision on whether or not I thought you were being sarcastic. I said if you weren't x, and if you were y. I still believe that making suggestions on a talk page that you honestly don't support is a form of disruption. It's better to just explain why you don't support something (and I'm not saying that is definitely what you did). And at the risk of being accused of lecturing you again, I'd ask you to review Wikipedia:Administrators. Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. I do not believe I overstepped my bounds as a wikipedia editor in my last exchange with you at Talk:Death and resurrection of Jesus, but I appreciate you bringing your concerns up with me. I will try to be more sensitive to your needs in our future exchanges. I hope that this experience for you will cause you to examine your manner on talk pages, to perhaps allow users (such as myself) to understand your intentions better. I hope we can move on together, because I thought that we had worked well together in the past, and it saddens me to have come into conflict with you over a small matter of difference.-Andrew c 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, please let me apologize. I apparently came across far too sharply. I do not feel in conflict with you. And regarding recent edits, I think the changes you made were warranted and judicious. I agree that we have worked well together in the past. I think we both respect the dialectical process and are pretty good at sticking to points and giving credit where credit is due.

However, in case you didn't notice, you just lectured me again. Your advice is unsolicited, and although I too have been guilty of giving unsolicited advice (“once or twice”), I don't know anyone who appreciates unsolicited advice. Apart from that, I do not think you overstep you licit bounds. Nevertheless, if admins are not suppose to be a special subgroup, I don’t imagine that being an admin includes giving unsolicited advice. Not even doctors and lawyers, who are culturally a “special subgroup,” give unsolicited advice. So, while “Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator,” I don’t see why that exhortation would include giving unsolicited advice--unless a user needs to be told that he has broken a guideline. Your habit of engaging in debate and simultaneously provide advice feels patronizing and, thereby, makes it hard for me hear your argument. In contrast, your direct statements about your state of mind, such as the ones you make in the post above, are helpful.

LCP 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Hi LCP. I just wanted to thank you once again for your attempt to resolve my controversy with Bishonen. As mentioned to you via email, I have now begun a "Request for Comments" here. The rules for Requests for Comments (RfC) require at least one other user (who has tried to mediate the controversy) to "certify" the RfC, or else the Request for Comments will be deleted within 48 hours from when it was started. Therefore, I would be very appreciative if you would please click on this link and sign directly below my name. Thanks again.

Ferrylodge75.21.26.219 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Commendable

Your apology to Bishonen is very commendable. Not everyone has the personal strength to acknowledge when they have erred. It seems that you do, and that is admirable.

My comments related to my perception of your 'lawyer speak' and 'possible sock issue', were merely my observations. It seemed to me that there was a notable similarity in your writing and phrasing. The two possibilities that came to mind were a) sock or b) he suggested wording. Neither of those two were particularly Good Faith on my part, and for that I apologize to you.

It seems you were guilty of poor judgment and nothing more, and I am properly chastened.

Best regards,
Peace in God.

Lsi john 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lsi john. The apology was not easy. I still think the text appears to support FL regarding his take on the warning, and (poor judgement or not) I did not want to contradict that. But I was apparently wrong in several ways apart from that. I am a sucker for the underdog, and the RfC thing does seem to be over my head. BTW, I was just having fun with the slang. Pax et bonum.LCP 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have followed up on your last comment (for closure, not to beat up on you). An RfC is supposed to be a rather serious situation. As I believe you now realize, it is not something to be done simply to support the underdog. ;) The slang, though an attempt at humor, did not win you any points. I gave you AGF on it and didn't address it.

I'm afraid you simply got sucked into his plea for a sympathetic ear. Its done, and no real harm will come of it. Bishonen (aka Biszilla) is actually an incredibly fair admin. Whether or not the warning seemed 'harsh' or 'abrupt' is not for us to second guess. It wasn't the warning that Ferrylodge is complaining about (well its not just the warning) and the warning isn't really part of his 'permanent record'. The fact is, he ignored the warning, three times, in an attempt to get a retraction, and tried to force KC to accept his final edit. That is what constituted the harassment and qualified for the block. And it was his ego, which refused to accept a harassment 'warning', that got him into trouble. I tried to explain this to you on Bishonen's page, but I suspect that I was not very gentle in my explanation and you were not interested in hearing it. (no offense intended as you have acknowledged that you were out to support the underdog).

Ferrylodge would do well to take a lesson from your apology to Bishonen.

Lsi john 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:John Crichton-Stuart

I assessed the article through the WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive - • The Giant Puffin • 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cynical/vs/Realistic

Interesting userpage. The only thing I can add to it is: Welcome to wikipedia! Lsi john 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Writing it was very cathartic. Reading it makes me feel better. Cheers. ;-)LCP 17:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I think the bullies (my word> you describe are here to stay, and it is very trying at times to deal with them, learning the rules of wiki-world helps even the field a bit. Keep editing! Peace in God. Lsi john 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wages of Modernism

As for the Devil discussion we were having, I am of the opinion that any credence given to the Devil as an actual being is to enter into dualism and traffic in supernaturalism. You see it with charismatics all the time, they can become so obsessed with this "Devil" creature that God is made into a weak and ineffective non-presence in their lives. It's well and good to talk about theodicy and try and figure out how much we're responsible for it and how responsible God is for it, but I think plopping all blame on a sacrificial lamb called Lucifer is a cop-out. MerricMaker 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And according to Karen Armstrong, the charismatic movement, which is born of the Pentecostal movement, is an anti-intellectual reaction to modernity--and the flip side of the Pentecostal movement is fundamentalism (in all denominations). And similar to almost all of the other "Johnny come lately" religious ideas, it is just a re-invention and repackaging of long ago refuted and defunct attempts to reinvent the faith. For example, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Science are essentially variations of a repackaged hybrid of Arianism and Gnosticism. In contrast to what you suggest, the Catholic Church teaches that man's biggest impediment to "knowing, loving, and serving God, and enjoying his friendship in eternity forever" is man himself, not Satan. Man freely chooses sin. But this is not what I am writing to discuss. What I am suggesting in pointing you to the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Modernism is that, if you are really interested in truth (and I assume you are), you catch up with the conversation about faith that has been going on for the past two-thousand years. If you are going to argue, argue against the best minds, not against strawmen. You may be having fun, but what good does it do for you to shoot down third-rate theories (e.g., “Satan is the Bogeyman”) with your own “novel” speculations when the Church has--almost a hundred years ago--already written volumes taking your novel assertions to their logical conclusion and refuting those conclusions? I would bet anything I own that any “new” theory you can think of has already been thoroughly understood and either refuted or accepted at some point in the history of the Church.LCP 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you assume that the Church arrived at the correct decision when engaged in dialectics. The decision against Liberation theology and base communities resulted in a significant loss in its ability to speak for and with the people in Latin America. Pentecostalism was quite happy to fill in. Despite their rather pedantic theology, they were able to actually address the needs of the people. Protestantism has recognized the value of Liberation theology. Roman catholicism saw it as a threat to their power base in the region, as well as political relations with Regan's administration. This was at least in part due to John Paul II's tendency to distance himself from anything with Marxist characteristics. Also, as a side note, Athanasius won on the doctrinal front, but most Christians today are Arian in their Christology. Saying that the Church has discussed an issue does not mean they made the right decision or that the right decision is the one the laity (and clergy, for that matter) actually follow. MerricMaker 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, did you read "INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE 'THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION'"[2] before arriving at your above conclusions (about Liberation Theology)? LCP 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been some time, but yes. I always find it odd that what is deemed "acceptable according to correct doctrine" is predicated on whether or not one falls within certain accepted interpretations of Christology. And who happens to be sitting on the evaluating board, of course. MerricMaker 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. "Acceptable according to correct doctrine" doesn't appear in the text. Also, I don't understand why you think authority is odd or why you think your presumptive authority is more solid than the authority of those who have a very strong claim to be heirs to the promise Christ gave to Peter.

I haven’t assumed that the Church has reached the right decision. When I have been in doubt, I have read arguments and been persuaded. You stated, “Saying that the Church has discussed an issue does not mean ... that the ... decision is the one the laity (and clergy, for that matter) actually follow.” First, I didn’t say that the Church “discussed” Modernism. I said that they have written volumes about it; it has been exhastively debated and refuted. However, I would not say that this alone gurantees correctness. What gurantees correctness--in doctrinal matters--is Christ’s promise to Peter. But that is a rather large can of worms that I really don’t want to get into. On the second issue, about the layity and clergy being unwilling to follow, I think you are right, the claim is true in too many cases. I am sadly reminded of what Padre Pio responded on an occasion when a person told him that they didn’t belive in hell. He said, “That’s ok. You will when you get there.” I also wonder at such people. What pleasure (or guilt) do they cling to so tightly that they would rather reject the Church and imperil their souls rather than surrender, submit, and be reconciled?

At every Mass, Catholics pray the Nicene Creed, which states, “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” This doesn’t look much like Aryanism. And since Roman Catholicism is by far the most populous denomination, your claim that most Christians are Arians seems odd.

Perhaps you can give the document on Liberation Theology another look. You might notice that there were good reasons why JPII rejected Marxism and, therefore, so-called “Liberation Theology.” The theological basis for the rejection is thorough and sound. It has nothing to do with Reagan or realpolitik. For example, the document states that it is “illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites [ideology and action], and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the ideology, or to enter into the practice of class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads." And, “the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons.” The text then goes on the give a thorough analysis of why Marxism is rejected and the disastrous effects embracing Marxist ideology would have on theology. If the Protestants accept Marxist based Liberation Theology, it can be only because they don’t understand the implications illustrated by the CFDF. As you yourself said, Pentecostalism is pedantic (i.e., not penetrating or sophisticated?).

Finally, you have convinced me that you know what you are about. I am sorry that I have been patronizing. Nevertheless, between us there is a great ideological divide, and I do not see any point in further discussion. Of course, you are welcome to respond, but, if I can manage to restrain my self, I probably will not respond. Pax et Bonum!

LCP 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, which has renewed my trust in the ability of Wikipedia editors to think and discuss in a cogent manner, thank you.

As a final, clarifying point, the theological divide to which you refer is one that exists between us. I am more or less an Episcopalian of the constructive dissent variety and a liberal. I do not particularly care if I'm reconciled with my tradition because I do not equate it with God or think of it as indispensable to my faith journey, I equate religious traditions with temporal social structures only. For a Catholic (and forgive me for speaking for you) there is the assumption of a direct connection to God that must be nurtured through involvement with the Church.

While it would be grossly inaccurate to say that Catholic understanding of church is based on "assumption," nevertheless, your understanding of the Catholic view here is more or less correct. God calls humanity to salvation through his Church, which exists only because of the constant succor of the Paraclete. I find your comparison and contrast very useful.LCP 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

However, this divide does not exist in a negative sense, as something we must bridge, but in that it does exist, and it is formative to our discussion and provides an important forum for that discussion. It amounts to what Jacques Dupuis called "the acceptance of the Other in their very otherness." We are different and can engage in dialog that informs and challenges one another, but we are each justified in our assertions. Again, thank you. MerricMaker 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You share a beautiful idea: "the acceptance of the Other in their very otherness." Thank you for reminding me of this! (BTW, I am not familiar with Dupuis. Is his idea of Other related to Buber's?)LCP 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That quote of Dupuis' is in Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. In that context, Other refers to persons of non-Christian religious traditions, but I think you'll agree it can be applied between Christian denominations as well. While it does have some shared ground with Buber (with whom I'm not particularly familiar), it's not precisely aligned with his particular take on the notion. Küng and Knitter write about "the Other" as in: the religious other. That is, those with ideas and culture foreign to our own. I think they probably take the idea most directly from Alan Race. MerricMaker 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Implicit vs. Explicit Support (in ref to Homosexuality in Christianity Entry)

Actually, most clergy that I know (and I'm in the biz) tend to follow church policy because they like getting paid and don't want to get defrocked. But they personally feel that to exclude anyone based on criteria like sexual orientation is a violation of the oath they took for ordination. They feel that in order to minister, one cannot judge, at least not the extent that you say to some parishioner, "you don't get to be treated as a human being in God's house, and it starts right here with me." There is no compelling reason to stand in the way of God's work like that, regardless of how one views the morality of homosexuality. So they'll say something like, "it's a sin, no greater than any other." An Episcopal acquaintance lost a third of his congregation, and when they walked out half the money went with them. They were so incensed by the decision to install bishop Robinson that they just left. This priest then went door-to-door and got all of them back simply by pointing out that the church is still the church, and the work of the church still needs doing. I think that's pretty emblematic of this issue. It's a difficult balancing act, and it is becoming safer for the clergy to resist playing. In a few years, God willing, none of us will be expected to play at all. MerricMaker 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)