User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2010/August/3

Comments in Exodus article
Greetings,

Regarding the below edit string:


 * 1) (cur | prev)  04:00, 9 August 2010 Afaprof01 (talk | contribs) (36,644 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Ryoung122; Removed "it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events....." Unnecessary POV.. (TW)) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 03:53, 9 August 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (36,774 bytes) (Undid revision 377915645 by 71.11.233.205 (talk)religious texts aren't science) (undo)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 01:34, 9 August 2010 71.11.233.205 (talk) (36,644 bytes) (Removed statement "...being inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as burning bush...as history." Jesus Christ himself stated in Mark 12:26 that God spoke to Moses "in the burning bush.") (undo)

I didn't write the comments, but I found the rationale for deletion to be highly inappropriate. Quotations of Biblical verse, especially regarding supernatural events, should be taken in a religious/theological context, certainly not an historical one. Ryoung 122 04:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RYoung's statement, "it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events..." is RYoung's POV. It is unsourced by competent scholarship. User RYoung is entitled to his/her opinion, but that's all that it is here. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Instead of removing my comments on the talk page, you should actually respond to the points. Your editing has inserted original research, removed verifiable information, and been random pruning, rather than my editing that has worked toward compromise by accepting to not have any Baha'i content in the whole article rather than the section left to the Baha'i Faith, and actually shortened the section by removing ungermane points to the connection to the Abahramic tradition, to try to meet some compromise. You argue that your-so-called Baha'i editors are not neutral, but I would ask you to evaluate your own behaviour, especially when many of your edits have gone against the policies noted above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Southern Baptist State Conventions
Could you please help me Afaprof01? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz Milik (and a few others) at this address does not see the Baptist state conventions as notable. Would you be able to help me document these conventions. They are all a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Having comprehensive coverage of the largest evangelical denomination in the world would be helpful to many. I named the doctrinal standard of the conventions as well as the entities they own and operate. As an SBC pastor I can assure you this is important and valuable information. I sincerely believe the conventions qualify as notable because they are a part of the SBC. Also, I linked each convention web site which verifies the bulk of information I contributed. In addition, I called each state convention to verify the number of churches in each state. Any help you could render would be most helpful. Thank you. Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello . There is almost nothing on Malik's Talk page that tells me where he's coming from. I notice that there are many state conventions with their own Web pages, BGCT for example. What is happening? Please show me a couple of examples that illustrate the problem. Thanks. ─[[User:Afaprof01|AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Substitutionary atonement article title
If you have any input on this issue, please make comments at Talk:Substitutionary_atonement. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)