User talk:173.73.126.72

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Annihilationism
I removed your edits on the Talk:Annihilationism page because talk pages are not the place for discussions about whether a doctrine is biblical or not. As I had explained, there are Christians who believe that doctrine and Christians who do not, and the talk page is only for discussion of the presentation of the material in the article. Please keep future comments focussed on that, or they will be removed. On Wikipedia we write with a neutral point of view and do not take sides on the issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To say that there are Christians that believe it so it must be Christian Doctrine is incredibly nonsensical. It lack of logic is shocking.  There are people claim they are Christian and believe that there is no hell.  Does that make that statement Christian doctrine?  The 7th day Adventists believe that they are Christian.  And also believe that all other Christians are damned besides them.  Does that make it Christian doctrine?  I am amazed at your explanation.  Not everything that any Christian in the world claims is Christian doctrine.  That is why I mention whether it is Biblical or not.  If you take the time to analyze this and your stance on the situation, I think you should clearly see that your statement makes no sense and is a weak argument. 173.73.126.72 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At some point, the accuracy of what is being published has to be accounted for. To publish this as Christian doctrine is really irresponsible. 173.73.126.72 (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it a neutral point of view to say that Annihilationism is Christian doctrine. How is it not a neutral point of view to say that it is not?  Does that make any sense to you? 173.73.126.72 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be very helpful if you wrote a comment and waited for a reply as all these additional comments cause me to have to sort out edit conflicts!
 * I actually said that some Christians teach annihilationism as doctrine, not just that they believe it. That they do so, and that the doctrine is published, discussed, disputed and commented on, make it significant and suitable for an encyclopaedia entry. I gave you a name. John Stott said the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment. That is a conservative evangelical viewpoint but other traditions also have those who have proposed the doctrine.
 * If you take the time to analyze this and your stance on the situation. You do not know my stance. On the other hand, I believe I know yours! Wikipedia requires articles be written with a neutral point of view. That is not just a request - it is a core policy of the encyclopaedia. If the article is not neutral, that can be discussed and challenged, but the article does describe a Christian doctrine. Just, as it happens, one that you appear to think is heretical. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)