User talk:Cis2002

March 2007

Hi, the recent edit you made to Christianity has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks – Qxz 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it was presented non-Christian groups as if they are Christians. I was clarifing the difference.

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Christian denominations. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Christianity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Christianity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page violation

Please be aware that your user page violates Wikipedia guidelines. Please change your user page to avoid creating a negative atmosphere. Vassyana 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. Polemical statements like "Wikipedia is a load of lies. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian, and they do not worship Jesus Christ or the Christian God." are the problem. Criticism is OK. Polemics are not. Please take a look around the guidelines and rules. Check out WP:WEL. It will help give you an idea of what Wikipedia is all about. I'd also recommend WP:NAM and WP:LOVE to get an idea of the spirit of things. G-d bless. Vassyana 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to your user page change). It is not criticism that is the issue. It is the downright nasty tone and language you are using that is the problem. There are plenty of users who have written entire essays critical of Wikipedia who are not only users in good standing, but even administrators. Opinions are most welcome. Vicious insults and polemics are not. Again, I'd encourage you to read the links above. Vassyana 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Hmmm...seems to be the very thing that is being done, I post something and it is removed or I'm threatened with being booted. As for my user page, what statement I ask again is anything but criticism? Possibly the statement "Wikipedia is a load of lies" but certainly not "Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian, and they do not worship Jesus Christ or the Christian God" this is a statement of fact. The term Christianity refers to those that worship Jesus as God. If you don't then you are not a Christian - fact. If the United States which is a democratic republic was ruled by a monarchy then it would cease to be considered a democratic republic regardless of it's statements or history the same is true of non-Christian groups.Cis2002 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Mormons aren't Christian, they are doing a good job of hiding it. They name their church "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints", and it was originally called the "Church of CHRIST". It always had the name Christ in the name. Did you know that? Second, they believe that Jesus Christ is God. That has always been taught from day one, and has never changed. Did you know that? They do reject the Trinity, which I think is why you reject them. But remember, the Catholic Church nearly excommunicated Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He eventually recanted. Just because the 4th century Christians defined a doctrine on the "nature" of God, doesn't mean that is the only Christian definition, and it may very well be false, just as the Earth's place in the universe was. I don't want to debate religion with you, but I do think you don't have very many facts straight. You clearly don't know much about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to respond with credibility. Rather than believing your Christian rhetoric, try learning something about these groups on your own. Just a suggestion. Bytebear 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not following the spirit of the rules, and therein lies part of the problem. Poisonous and vicious statements are certainly against the spirit of the rules. As for consensual discussion, you're not the first person to make that claim about Christianity, and probably not the last, but consensus has determined time and again those groups are Christian, at least in definition. Of course, the same consensus also acknowledges that there are some, such as yourself, who disagree with that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, it is just that, an opinion, not a finding of fact. In a similar vein, there are those who insist unless you specifically believe in the Trinity you are not a Christian, excluding Nontrinitarians. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have liberal and emergent Christians who assert that those who simply follow the teachings of Christ are Christians. Those are also just opinions, no more or less correct that your own. One or the other may even be the truth, but "the truth" is not the same as what can be verified by neutral sources. Wikipedia is not a bastion of "truth", because one man's truth is another man's lie. Wikipedia is about verifiable information, which is another animal entirely. G-d bless. Vassyana 02:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem, the world has muddied the waters as to what the term Christianity means. It's origins came about as a reference to those following The Way (those that believed Jesus was the Christ). I am not concerned with what Satan has tricked people into defining a Christian as but rather what the term actually does mean. And yes there are absolute truths. Wikipedia will never be a valid source as long as it tries to claim everything is relative.Cis2002 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is your opinion. So long as "the world" recognizes that "muddied" definition of Christianity, that is the basic working definition of Christianity. Also, I think you are contradicting yourself. Does one have to recognize Jesus as the Christ to be a Christian? Or does one have to recognize Jesus as G-d to be a Christian? Those are two very differant standards. Vassyana 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You prove your own lack of knowledge on the subject. Christ and God are both God as well as the Holy Spirit. And as I said it is not opinion that IS how the term originated.Cis2002 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I can only invite you to actually research the matter. The Trinity is a doctrine formulated at a later point than the advent of Christianity. Christology is a complex subject and not a uniform field of study. The term "Christ" did not originate as a synonym for G-d. It originated as a Greek translation of "Messiah", which is not a synonym for G-d. I leave you to your own opinions and devices with the strong suggestion you bother to research the history and scholarly views of the matter. G-d bless. Vassyana 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to do YOUR research. You are correct that Christ is a term for the Messiah but if you read what Jesus said then you can not claim there was no reference to a Trinity or to Him being God. For example, the Trinity is mentioned by Jesus Himself in Matthew 28:19, Jesus had the authority to forgive sins which only God can do is in Mark 2:1-12, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in Mark 2:28, Mark 14:61-62 Jesus answers "I Am" which was not just an answer but also the use of God's name refering back to Exodus 3:14 hence why the high priest got so upset, finally Exodus 20:1-17 gives us the 10 Commandments in which we are not to worship other gods so if Jesus is not God then it would be a sin to worship Him. I could keep going but perhaps you should do some research!207.160.209.250 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Wikipedia can be very frustrating but please take the time to read the policies and some of the archives of this page. You will find that although flawed we do a pretty good job at somehow representing a diverse spectrum of views in as balanced a way as possible. Some people agree with your view and you will find references to the disagreements in the article. However the wider world does regard these groups as under the "Chistian" umbrella so our article must reflect this. Good luck with the editing and I hope you can contribute in a positive way to wikipedia. Sophia 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

Here we go again. I can't even have control of my own pages. Can no one see that Wikipedia is not a joint effort but rather at the whim of the aministrators.Cis2002 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators are not a ruling cabal. Consensus determines the content here. Besides that, contrary to your claims, you're the one who was trying to push a point of view against the consensus of this joint effort. Your complaint seems more that your point of view is not being enforced against the consensus of the editors here. G-d bless. Vassyana 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No the point is that you contribute by editing. Every attempt I make to correct material is reversed. That said my last statement was about material on my user page which is not a matter of the consensus.207.160.209.250 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]