User talk:Jasonschnarr

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

There have been Point of view and original research concerns raised about True christianity. If this is an official doctrine of one of the branches of Christianity, I'm sure we can clean it up to meet Wikipedia's standards. Check any of the articles in Category:Christian theology for examples. Grigory Deepdelver AKA ArcholaTalk 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Marital Love
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place hangon on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. porges 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Marital Love (Again)
Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles as it is considered vandalism. You may place hangon on the page and make your case on the article's talk page if you oppose an article's speedy deletion. Thanks. porges 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

O.k. I get it now. I thought I was making those appear since I was trying to erase it myself.

The New Church vs. Swedenborgianism
Jason,

I agree, I'd rather have everything under "The New Church"; but it would also be nice if everything could be consolidated into one page. Maybe that's something to bring up on the Swedenborgianism talk page? You could make all "Swedenborgianism" links link to the New Church page, and maybe the title could be something like "The New Church (Swedenborgianism)".

The reason I changed a bunch of things is that they used to link to "New Church," not "The New Church", and the "New Church" link used to send you to "General Church of the New Jerusalem," when the things mentioned applied to all branches of the church and weren't specifically General Church-ish. I changed it to link to Swedenborgianism; I'll go change it to The New Church if you haven't done that already.

Coleman Glenn 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Coleman, that there are people watching over the Swedenborgianism page and will not allow it to become something which represents the New Church. Swedenborgianism and "The New Church" are different in my mind and I think they should be. I think the article I wrote for The New Church is really good, and people would not accept it as representing all of Swedenborgianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonschnarr (talk • contribs)

Hello Jason - I have merged "Swedenborgianism" with your New Church article. It looks like it has not been touched in a while, and it needs cleanup, so I will gradually be adding more sections with references. I have also been removing POV statements. Doug Webber (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Servetus and Swedenborg
Hi, I am reverting your editions in the Servetus page because Servetus came before Swedenborg. Therefore it is inaccurate that his theology resembles that of Swedenborg, because Swedenborg was not born yet. I suggest that you edit the Swedenborg article adding that his theology seemed similar to that of Servetus, or he was inspired by it, or whatever, but it is anachronistic to say that someone who was born two hundred years before is similar to what another person wrote later. --jofframes 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 *  "If the Oneness Pentecstal thing stays then so should this. It is the same thing. Those with similar more modern theology should be allowed to be brought up under "modern relevance" 


 * I have no objection to the reference to Swedenborg staying ... in fact I think it should!  However, the comment of 'jofframes' (Jdemarcos?) above needs to be considered ... is it more correct to say that Servetus has affinities with Swedenborg, or to say that Swedenborg has affinities with Servetus? (From my perspective, I would say that Oneness Pentecostalism has affinities with Servetus' theology, not the other way around).  I think the person who deleted the reference to Swedenborg was suggesting it be reworded, not omitted altogether. Rev107 13:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a reply on the talk page of Jdemarcos

Rev107 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference, but I cannot find the book in that website, only Hillar's study. I hope that they ship to Spain.


 * Please have a close look at Restitutio regarding Christ's conception. In Servetus it is much more complex than modalism. It is through his Sonship that Jesus is God, but it can only be fully understood if we take into account that the spirit of God pervades all things, and that every human being is called to be raised to the divine. --jofframes 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)