User talk:Flex/Archive 2

Salvation/faith/works entry

Flex, I agree that your latest edit is more succinct. But I also think this entry should be moved from this particulay "list" and perhaps inserted further down, with appropriate caveats. Here's my reasoning: This list originally had in view highlights of the doctrine contained in the early ecumenuical creeds. In fact, the next paragraph makes that explicit. Therefore this subject entry is not appropriate here. Jim Ellis 18:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact, I think the point that says, "Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God." sufficiently covers salvation in an ecumenical fashion. I wouldn't mind deleting the point altogether, GordonWattsDotCom's objections not withstanding. --Flex 18:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. NPOV dispute

Dear Flex,

I appreciated your comments on the R. Albert Mohler, Jr. page being on the margins of NPOV. I worked on it some myself, then I asked for a third opinion. A user responded, and I implemented some of his suggestions (there's one I'm still working on.) The third party thought I'd done a pretty good job. If you would, please review the article again, and tell me honestly if you think any improvement has been achieved. If not, I would ask that you clarify where you think I could go from here with an eye to resolving the dispute. For example, we could request another third opinion (I guess it would be a fourth opinion) or whatever the appropriate Wikipedia policy is. Perhaps specific sections could be identified as particularly the source of the dispute, so that NPOV efforts could be concentrated on what consensus establishes as the worst offendors. Or something like that. Alan Canon 01:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Flex, thanks for working with me, and helping us all to get the article to a better state. Thanks also for removing the NPOV banner. Alan Canon 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Common Grace

Please see new article on Common grace and Talk:Common_grace. It is a stub that is probably inadequate as it stands. Regards, Jim Ellis 16:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Category_Talk:Christian mythology

What do you think about how things have gone in this category discussion? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Keith

See my talk page for the latest on the saints' perseverance! Keith 20:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"...we're all Wesleyans now."

from Christianity Today Keith 19:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lordship salvation

Isn't Macarthur a proponent of "lordship salvation"? KHM03 20:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Good catch. --Flex 11:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Perseverance of the saints is looking much better. Good work. Keith 15:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Atonement (Satisfaction view) - it's so easy to get you guys going!  ;) Keith 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

to: flex, Christian apologetics category created

Dear flex,

I just thought I would tell you two things.

1. I created a Christian apologetics category today.

2. I created a Greg Bahnsen category yesterday.

ken 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to: flex, fight for Christian apologetics retention if it is challenged

Dear flex,

There is a separate Mormon apologetics category. I see no reason why Christians cannot have the same. Please fight for its retention if it is challenged.

ken 18:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Well, right now, it looks like the new is a copy of Apologetics. A few minor nitpicks: the correct terminology is not "category" but "page" or "article". Categories are something different. Also, I've noticed that you use the term "redirect" when you mean an internal "link" or "wikilink"; redirects are also something different. You also needn't title your entries on my talk page "to: flex", as posts here are almost always to me. Cheers! --Flex 18:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

a request for help

I made some changes to the Christian apologetics area. I made the text less cumbersome, verbose and uninteresting. I also added some material as well. I would appreciate it if you made the text at Christian apologetics look nicer in terms of formatting. I am still a novice in the Wiki language although I am going to correct this matter. Any changes would be welcome too as I want the subject to stick and I think it will.

ken 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thank you

Thank you for editing my entries in Category:Protestant Reformers and Protestant Reformers. drboisclair 20:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

got your message about "see also"

I saw a lot of see also's in various articles and inferred that the policy was very liberal. I have not read any manuals of style yet. Next, I was judicious in my application of the see also inserts. For example, I did not give a see also for Metzger because I did not think it appropriate although he made apologetic statements. I will see if I can find the time to make alterations to previous "see alsos".

ken 23:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

did the edits plus a comment

Flex, I did the edits where I had put "see alsos" and I don't think I missed any. ken 23:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

yes that looks best and.....

Flex, I do like that style better. I have a question. Do you think that the smaller categories like relatively unknown theologians and apologist are overly developed considering that the categories like "Bible prophecy" never recently existed? Also, I saw a lot of Liberal theology and secular academic "weeds" in the big categories like Christianity, Bible, New Testament, Pauline letters, Jesus, Bible and History, Jesus and history, etc but no counter response from traditional Christians. I have no problem with the "weeds" being there as this is a Encyclopedia and I believe in academic freedom. I do think though that the smaller categories have a lot of muscle but the bigger categories are pretty flabby in regards to "traditional Christianity" input. I did add some muscle though to those categories and some are quite muscular like the "resurrection of Jesus" as I added a lot of content. I was also surprised that there was no Habermas and other big apologist like Gleason archer and others and I created them.

How old is Wikipedia? Do you know why the big categories are they way they are or were? It does seem odd that the category the "resurrection of Jesus" was so flabbby when there is so much in its favor evidentially. I mean the "resurrection of Jesus" is central to Christianity.

ken 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

double entendre

Hi, thanks for your message.

You may like to check out my changes to double entendre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Double_entendre&diff=22832081&oldid=21798223

If what I wrote on Logos was wrong, then you may wish to correct what I wrote on that page too. But in any event, you'll see I also condensed the previous text because I think that a full discussion of that particular double meaning does not need to be on both pages.

Main Page 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Shawshank Redemption

I reverted the edits on "integrity" in The Shawshank Redemption. Not sure why they were deleted, please provide discussion in Talk:The Shawshank Redemption#Integrity. I am truly yours, Steven McCrary 21:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Calvinism

Good catch on that "rapture" stuff. I've been reverting that user all day, it seems! Keith 00:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Flex, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Flex. Check his history of contributions and edit wars before you vote. Jim Ellis 15:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

kdbufallo

Hi, Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo please? Dunc|☺ 19:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

re: the disputed article

Dear Flex,

This is kdbuffalo. The message is about the Biblical scientific foreknowledge (BSF)article.

First, I do appreciate your nice comments in the KD talk section. I also realize your statements about my Wiki technical prowess is still unfortunately true.

Here is something I posted in the BSF talk page that I wanted you to read:

Wikipedians are likely not going to help and I realize I made some mistakes too

I know Mark, KMH03, and others know the following:

1. I used a very large amount of excellent sources like medical/science journals, medical historians, etc. Even Mark who does not hold my view admitted this matter.

2. I clearly said I was not a Bible literalist.

3. I wanted to live in peace with each position presenting its views. Yet the anti-BSF people would not allow this to occur. The medical/science journal and other sources were constantly eliminated.

Here is the Wikipedia policy though:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [1]

4. I know they realize that Duncharris is not telling the truth about my sources and he is not telling the truth about me being a Bible literalist yet they remain silent. I don't believe this is right.

Now given the article on Wikipedia creationism do I really believe Wikipedia is committed to their policy on minority view articles and thus my minority view article would be treated fairly? No, I do not. If they were committed to the minority view articles, the management would have done something about the creationism article a long time ago.

Now should I have broken the 3R policy the one time I believe I did this? No. Just because the other side breaks Wikipedia rules does not mean I should. The same goes for the "Admin Duncharris the bullyboy atheist" article in which I describe his harrassing messages to me and his harrassment of others.

Lastly, I do think I spent inordinate time trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think that time would have been better spent going though channels (although I don't think it would have worked) or doing other things.

addendum:

Cooperation is asked for but is true cooperation asked for?

I don't have any problem with the NPOV rule. I just see censorship over and over. Again, Wikipedia is clear:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [2]

Now I have wanted to have cooperation and have good faith efforts on both sides. I have listened to the other side and taken feedback. I made some changes although admittedly not a lot.

However, Cooperation may never happen. Why?

Here is why:

1. Does some person keep changing the theological conservative Christianity internal link in the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article so it goes to the Christian right (Falwell, etc). Would a person who wants to act in good faith do that?

2. Would people who act in good faith send harrassing messages ("fundie" etc).

I think the people calling for cooperation yet saying absolutely nothing publically about the bad behavior of certain anti-BSF parties are not seeking true cooperation. What they are asking for is the minority view be trampled despite the Wikipedia policy.

ken 16:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Reprobation

See the latest edits by an anonymous user? Keith 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please weigh in on the Hyper-Calvinism talk page when you can. Thanks. Keith 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther and Latin

Hello, Fellow-Lutheran Flex, you sound like a robust Vir Lutheranus! Check out Martin Chemnitz, and you will see that there is a lot of Latin there. I have translated his titles from German and Latin to be helpful to those interested in looking into Chemnitz. SDG, Davedrboisclair 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Latin native speakers

Hello, Flex, I was tending to vote to delete this: Category:User_la-N because I believe that there really are no longer any "native" Latin speakers. This would imply that there is a culture that has parents rearing their children with Latin as their language. What are your feelings? I would like to support your work. I tend to vote for delete. I guess that you have to be objective and disinterested. Cheers, Davedrboisclair 16:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Flex, if I voted I would vote to keep Latin. Since you want it deleted, I will not vote to help you out.

ken 03:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Flex, I voted to delete but I wanted to let you know that I have lost a lot of respect for all encyclopedias in general including Wikipedia. It seems at commercial encyclopedias important categories are kept politically correct to gain more customers. At Wikipedia more diverse opinions are given although it heavily leans to the liberal/left in general content. ken 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

very cool Bible scientific foreknowledge info I just dug up

The Law of Moses introduced a revolutionary new principle to conserve human strength. The Law of Moses has a provision for a weekly day of rest. (Exodus 20: 8-10). This law applied to everybody in the land including slaves. The medical historian, Karl Sudhoff, said: "Had Judaism given nothing more to mankind than the establishment of a weekly day of rest, we should still be forced to proclaim her one of the greatest benefactors of humanity." (Cecil Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation, East and West Library, London, 3rd edition, 1956). Peter Baldwin in his work Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830–1930 wrote that the day of rest given in the Pentateuch was a public hygiene measure (fatigue in a individual can make them susceptible to disease). [3] According to H. Kawato, in Japan about 10,000 worker deaths occur per year due to "death by work" (In Japan "death by work" is called karoshi). [4] The Ministry of Labor's Confidential Manual in Japan stated that overwork could be the cause of death only if the worker was engaged continuously for 24 hours just before death or worked at least 16 hours a day for seven consecutive days before death (Tsushin Rengou, Asahi Shinbun [Asahi Newspaper], May 19, 1990). [5] ken 18:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Ken, A footnote to your comments: many Christians would suggest that the Sabbath was codified at Sinai but that it was actually instituted as a creation ordinance (and, many would add, is still binding today). Note the observation of it in Ex. 16 is pre-Sinai. There were also the yearly sabbaths which gave the fields rest, and the days of rest associated with festivals that may bear upon the situation. (These latter institutions, BTW, are the ones that modern day sabbatarians think passed away with the coming of Christ, Col. 2.16ff). --Flex 12:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Native Latin speakers?

I have time, but I will do harm to your cause. I am an inclusionist. Either keep it and add a native category for all languages, or remove the native category entirely, which is misleading and open to many different interpretations, and add a better-worded fifth level of comprehension in its place.
--Absit invidia, Aluion 00:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it the Classical Greek category in the Wikipedia:Babel also has a "native speaker" category. I had to use it in order to get the right box on my Wikipedia page. One would have to delete the Classical Greek native speaker category too.drboisclair 21:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Aluion, I think something like what you propose is the best solution. The category as it stood when nominated was a joke and the two people listed in it were likely not very familiar with Latin except that they believed it to be an extinct language with not native speakers and thought it would be humorous to list themselves as such. The nomination has gotten the wider hearing that I desired, and perhaps the debate will provoke some broader changes in the WP's language proficiency scheme that will satisfy all. (Ha!) --Flex 12:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, conflict is the zeroth step towards resolution, after all. --Aluion 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Metzger

Nice image of the great NT scholar. KHM03 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

CoC

Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Category:la-N

• I got your message regarding the cfd discussion, but was unfortunately on wiki-leave at the time, sorry. I am glad that it survived the vote though Frenchman113 17:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

?

Where have you been? KHM03 23:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

At work and home. They're both keeping me quite busy for the mo. :-) --Flex 18:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"The Problem with Evangelical Theologies" -- KHM03 17:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, tolerance, and equality

This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

A.J.A. 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther Quote on drboisclair's talk page

David is a friend and I saw your note on his page. He will be offline for a bit, so I thought I'd take a crack at it. I didn't find it exactly, but something very similar to it from one of Luther's Invocavit Sermons:

God has commanded us in Deut. 4 [:19] not to lift up our eyes to the sun [and the moon and the stars], etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him [Ecclus. 19:2; 31:30]; so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them. Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, as the prophet, Jer. 17 [:9], says, “The heart of man is crooked,” or, as I take the meaning, “always twisting to one side.” And so on—what would we not do? (51, page 85)

Did you want me or our staff to look for it further? I've tried the easy approach. --CTSWyneken 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's perfect, thanks. --Flex 14:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:EdmundClowney.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:EdmundClowney.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Rossrs 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Up your alley?

Duty-faith...AfD. KHM03 20:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformed Arminianism

See my talk page...I replied to your question. David Schroder 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Flex: I confess that I'm not really too knowledgable about Reformed Arminianism; I actually had never heard of it before David's edits. It seems to me to essentially be Arminians who aren't Methodist. David has cited lots of books and articles, though. I would like to see some contemporary examples (theologians, famous preachers, etc.). That would be better for "context". I'll see what I can do. KHM03 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Arminianism article

Hey man,

Based on some discussion, I feel like it'd be (1) clearer, (2) more accurate, and (3) more accessible to merge the Reformed Arminianism article into the original Arminianism article. To help accomplish this, I've created a page to help brainstorm a good outline, write up one section at a time, attribute correct sources and citations, and proof-read for Wikipedia compatibility before posting. If you're interested, head over there are add your thoughts. I'd welcome a Calvinist' take.

David Schroder 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. See the discussion there...it will be ongoing until the page gets finished, checked, and approved. David Schroder 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The revised Arminianism page User:David_Schroder/Arminianism is 98% done, with only citations left. I'd love to get a Calvinist's perspective (as an ex-Calvinist I think it's fair and accurate). David Schroder 04:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you made some changes / left some comments on my Arminianism sandbox. I wanted to let you know that the revision was made to the public Arminianism page a week ago. I looked through the sandbox history to find all the changes you made, and transferred them over myself to save you the time. The one change I did not make was the Harper quote on Wesleyan Perseverance - and you can see my comment on the talk page. I appreciate your time and feedback! David Schroder 17:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision of the Covenant Theology article

I'm working on a revision of the Covenant Theology article. The current version is unsatisfactory. If you are interested in giving feedback and helping with the revision, see User:Guðsþegn/Covenant Theology. You can leave comments on the discussion page there. I've been working on it for about a week. It will probably be at least another week before it is ready to be posted.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Calvin College

Sorry that I put Calvin College under the John Calvin article. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. :) --Evadb 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)