User talk:Be Dave

Welcome to Wikipedia!
GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of God and other comments
You asked why the Kingdom of God was included in WPCalvinism. The justification I would give is "This needs input from Calvinists", especially since various ones had a well-developed view of this (if I understand correctly -- see Reconstructionist postmillennialism for details :) ), but my real reason was that I tagged mostly Calvinist stuff and a few others I couldn't resist.

Hmm. Maybe we need a category of "Core Christian concepts" or something -- stuff that *every* branch of Christianity has an interest in. For example, WPChristianity includes a whole bunch of stuff that is specific to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which I have no interest in. But I think *all* Christians would see the importance of a soteriology/salvation article.

One other comment. You mentioned on your front page about being involved in "Northern Politics". Being an Australian in an American influenced world, I couldn't at first work out whether you meant Queensland (Australia), or some kind of anti-KKK, anti-US-south, post US Civil war thing :).

-- TimNelson 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tim -a bit Anglocentric -will ammend that Northern British! Thanks for your explanation. (193.63.62.252 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC))(Be Dave 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Penal substitution edit wars
I started writing something here, but then I ran across Resolving disputes and it was saying everything I'd said, but better :). My suggestions are:
 * 1) Stop edit warring, even if whatsisname deletes stuff
 * 2) Discuss things on the talk page, and try not to make any controversial changes until consensus is achieved -- often disagreement can be resolved somehow (eg. Talk:Reformed Presbyterian Church -- it took a while, and I started changing stuff too early, but we got there in the end)
 * 3) If consensus appears to be totally impossible, follow the dispute resolution process above.
 * 4) As far as the POV tag is concerned, try to get Roger to agree with the solution I suggested on the talk page before doing anything.

I'm afraid I'm a little too busyish to get involved properly at the moment, but feel free to direct more questions in my direction. It may be a few days before I respond though.

-- TimNelson 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Williams, Offence is the the eye of the receiver, but I do not think that 'denigrate'and 'offensive' are appropriate for observations about edits. I might remind you that it was you who wrote 'nail the lie' in an earlier contribution. I might have taken offence at the word 'lie' - which might have been attributed to me; I merely pointed out that it was not true, a misreading of what Packer wrote. You put the word 'impermissible' into my mouth, which I politely pointed out what not true. I am afraid that I am still of the opinion that you missed the point in your edit about Oak Hill. I have removed one sentence in my comments (contrary to WP guidelines). Roger Arguile 09:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bradford City
Hi Dave, I noticed on your edit summary for Bradford City you put "sadly" - are you a fan? If so you may be interested in helping on List of Bradford City A.F.C. players. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)