User talk:CapHammer

Junia edits 7-Jan-2010
Cap, you did a great job on your very first edits. I've "Wikified" a few things, and broke up the long paragraph on the two discussions with bulleted points. After I saved it, I discovered that you have made some more edits tonight. I tried a side-by-side comparison via History but the paragraphs don't align enough for me to see what changes you made tonight. I was going to put them back in. I hope that it won't be too much trouble for you to type them in again. (Sorry!) If there are any of my edits that either you don't understand the "why" or perhaps disagree with, please add on to this note, beginning your text with a colon to indent it one level. Also, please sign your text with four tildes, and Wiki will insert your Wiki name and the date/time. Thank you again for your strong interest in this article. I'm so glad to have an interested colleague who agrees with the female apostle view! Afaprof01 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the alterations and I think that they were great! Thanks for that, I appreciate your help. I'm a wiki noob, but I've a strong interest in women in the first century period and wanted to contribute the the page. I appreciate that you 'wikified' my edits, I have no idea how to do those sorts of things. CapHammer (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I'm really thankful for your interest and contributions here. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation
Cap, I've never been in something so heated. In Talk:Creation according to Genesis I've written a proposal there. It's too long and hasn't won an Oscar. I'd be grateful if you'd critique it for me and give me your suggestions of ways I could improve on it and make it more acceptable. Please also be frank where you think I'm wrong.

Short form of my opinion: "Creation myth" (CM) is a general term used to refer to creation stories in many, maybe all, religions. In my opinion, 'myth' implies imagination and fantasy to most people, and that is the case as may be seen in the Wiki article Creation myth. Simply saying "Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth," while a true statement according to the formal literary genre, implies to readers unfamiliar with the CM term that Genesis (and the rest of the Bible since Jesus and many other places in both OT and NT refer to the Creation narrative) is a myth in the common use of that term, without understanding it to be a technical term in this case. That raises the hackles of readers who accept the Bible as God's Word in some fashion, and affirms the worst suspicions of doubters.

I object to putting CM in the very first sentence. I also believe it should be explained when it does appear.

I certainly understand reluctance to get involved. If you don't have the time or inclination to make suggestions to me, that's also fine. Thanks for considering it. See you at Junia sometime. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a suggested paragraph, perhaps I will be flamed, but that is OK. I understand your point of view. My main ideas were probably in regards to terminology such as 'Pentateuch' or 'Torah' when referring to Hebrew Scriptures. I understand that there is a page for the Hebrew Bible, but these are more correct terms. Ack, as for Myth......this is always such a contentious area! It can be really insulting to peoples beliefs to assert something about the truths of their religion. That being said, science is an important aspect in our religious dialogue. I like the idea of Myth, but perhaps redefined. I like Rene Girard's approach to Myth, that it is a Anthropological story that communicates a more profound truth.

Let me know what you think of my contribution.CapHammer (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglican Diocese of Brisbane
Hi do you need any help updating the Diocese page? I created a Wikipedia account to help out. Any idea who did the earlier changes? Hard to figure put the agenda - parts seem pro-Sydney, parts anti-military and parts pro-Chislett/All Saints. Anyway, we can use this as an opportunity to showcase the Diocese's progress. Will be good to list the pro-SSM clergy to show the public support is behind this. What else can we do? I realise we have to write in a neutral way to pass the encyclopaedia's standards though but you know how to handle this. Let me know if you need a hand. Liberal Anglican (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)