User talk:John Carter/IP

My talk page is somewhat regularly protected because of vandalism efforts. This unfortunately leaves IPs without a means of contacting me. I have created this page to give them a way to contact me.

To my fellow admins and anyone else who may see comments that count as vandalism on this page:I realize that in some cases the comments here may themselves be the kind that count as vandalism, but I would urge that no one bother to revert such comments or block any IPs that make even remotely reasonable comments here. I can and very likely will revert such vandalism myself shortly, if I think such action warranted. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John Carter,

I am "MacforJesus", whom you challenged to supply proof of Saint Athanasius' innocence of the murder of Arian Bishop George of Alexandria.

I have prepared a short desertation, this being only an outline.

When someone seeks a job today they seek testimonials / references.

I refer to the testimonial given by Julian the Emporor that succeded his father Constance, November 361. He reverted to paganism and was an adversary of Saint Athanasius.

He sent a message to the Bishop to expel him from Alexandria and gave the reasons, simply that he did not permit him to return to his see.

At this occasion he had the opportunity to give more reasons but did'nt. If he had given the reason of murder or complicity in murder it would have been far more damaging for the church would not continue to accept Saint Athanasius.

My study of heremenutics assures me of the credability of this.

In fact Julian refers to Saint Athanasius' qualities of personality and courage even in a derisory way.

The full outline of these details and references I can supply.

Athanasius continued to be accepted as a leader of one of the five centers of Christendom and visited Antioch, and the petrarch there to consolidate the Nicean Creed. A thing he could not do if there was the slightest hint of complicity in murder. He would be shunned by all.

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John Carter,

I have changed the wikiproject vanuatu . if you have any disagreement please let me know. also i like to get your help to develoop wikiproject vanuatu. Hope you will be helping me. Thanking you BlueLankan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John,

I am super new to the "change things" side of Wikipedia, so I will ask that you forgive any blunders in advance. First, thank you for providing a place to make contact.

I read the Wikipedia page on Baptists, I found your name on the list of those who make it happen, I also saw your comments on splitting Anabaptists from Baptists. I have some concerns. Not sure how to make them known or where to address them. That said, you may take exception to what I think is true, that is OK.

It is my understanding that the Baptists came from the Anabaptists. That being the case, they predated the Reformation. That being the case, they are not of the Protestant line and are not Protestants. That being the case, it only fuels the misconception that they are Protestants by treating Baptist and Anabaptist topics separately. Historically the beliefs of Protestants and Baptists have been so far apart as to make the Protestant denominations persecute the Baptists from the Reformation until sometime around the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I doubt that either side would likely claim much fellowship or kinship under such conditions.

In case you do disagree (many people do) my reference is:

   Ashcroft, Robert. Contending for the Faith, An Updated History of the Baptists.  Texarkans, TX: Bogard Press, 2006.

It paints a detailed history with references.

It is probably not too wise to leave something for you with no way to get back in touch. Just paste my first and last names together with @ and suffix .net if you want to respond or point me back here for the response.

Thanks

Russell Hansberry September 20, 2009

John Earle

Hi John,

I noticed that you supplied quite a lot of information about John Earle. I believe I am related to him and in fact I have a (copy of?) the portrait found on his Wikipedia page. I was wondering if you had any connection to the Earles or was your interest mainly scholarly?

I've never done this before (though I have edited a couple of Wikipedia pages) so I am assuming that you can get a hold of me through my user name or signature. If not, maybe you can post something on your talk page and I can see it.

Thanks,

Jim --Grunewaj (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment left at Conditional Preservation of the Saints

Greetings John,

You objected that this article deserved a "Top" importance rating for the Methodist work group. IMO this article deserves to be of “Top Importance” in Methodism for several reasons. John Wesley and other Wesleyan/Methodist scholars after him spent significant time defending conditional security and the possibility of apostasy. Wesley wrote two lengthy pieces specifically against the fifth point of Calvinism—the Perseverance of the Saints. It appears that Wesley was in theological debate with Calvinists through much of his ministry (see Allan Coppedge, “John Wesley in Theological Debate”). In a number of his writings Wesley felt it was important to show the biblical, theological, and logical problems with the other points of Calvinism (i.e., TULIP). Wesley believed that there was an “insidious danger of false security and moral complacency,” in believing the fifth point of Calvinism. He did not believe that it helped to promote holy living among God’s people. Of course, holiness was, and still is, a very important issue to Wesleyan/Methodists. To this day, Wesley is known as an Arminian theologian and Arminians are known for believing that it is possible for true Christians to sever their saving relationship with Christ through persistent unbelief characterized by sin and disobedience. This belief has always been central to Arminians like Wesley. For these reasons I believe the “Top Importance” rating for the Methodism work group should definitely remain the same.

John, do you know of someone who would be interested in helping me put three pictures in the Conditional Preservation article to spruce it up? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,SWitzki (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category rename proposal

I think that the category you created Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work gorup members should instead be called Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work group members. I hope you are amenable to this category rename proposal. 24.44.14.186 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, for some reason I can't load fully your talk page - I probably need to clear cache in Firefox or something - anyway, we have page protection at Talk:Notzrim, I've invited PiCo, Editor2020, Ian.Thomson, Jayjg to return to discuss what to do re your/PiCo's notability/merge suggestions. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a proposal, is Talk:Notzrim the right place? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Manual of Style

Hi John! I remember that you proposed a to-be-created new manual of style for religious subjects soma months ago, but I can't find it in the archives. What has become of it? Can you provide a link to the page? Background: The Prem-Rawat-article is again in a stall (see talk), which it tends to be quite often, and your suggestions might prove helpful for finding a compromise. Especially your idea to give information on the spiritual provenance of sources, if I remember correctly. Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin

Hi John, Thanks for commenting on the John Calvin site. I've addressed some of your requests, so please visit again, thanks.Markewilliams (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]