User talk:Jesus is Lord!

Cast your vote on whether or not this name should be changed at User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange

-

Thank God we have such a loving servant of Jesus Christ among us! -- Outerlimits 02:16, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't like you mocking me. Jesus is Lord! 02:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You mock yourself by being hateful yet professing to be a follower of Jesus. -- Outerlimits 02:21, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse me of things that are simply untrue. Peace be with you. Jesus is Lord! 02:22, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jesus. I willingly accept your offer of peace in the spirit in which it was offered. -- Outerlimits 02:24, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Youre going to have to change your name, Jesus.&#25140;&#30505sv 06:08, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Judging from the User Contributions, Jesus is Lord! and Outerlimits are either good friends or the same user. Kingturtle 06:13, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, the third possibility is true: following each other around, but neither friends nor identical. -- Outerlimits 06:15, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Certainly mister 'Jesus is Lord!' appears to be an alter ego or reincarnation of another user. A user for but three days, yet knows all the Wikipedia slang and jumps right into a bunch of controversy. --Morven 07:15, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From my Talk page: --- Whyd did you revert my corrections to List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people ? Jesus is Lord! 20:33, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Hi Jesus is Lord!, if you read the relevant sections of the Talk page, I made this same suggestion not long ago and the consensus came out almost unanimously against it. They do not agree with removing those names whose articles do not mention that they are LGB.  Even though I do support fixing this in some way, I'd really like to see it done in accordance with what the Wikipedia community has decided, you know?  Thanks, Paige 20:38, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A consensus seems to be forming on wikien-l. I think we can assume that a name change is imminent. Can you please choose another name? If you don't choose one then it will probably end up being JIL, but I think acronyms are boring. -- Tim Starling 06:54, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Changing your policy so that you can find a reason to change my username is rather unfair . My username is not offensive. Jesus is Lord! 07:00, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Whatever you reckon. Another boring acronym it is, then. BTW this isn't going to happen immediately. I'm waiting for a few more people to voice their opinion, but I'd be surprised if there's any argument. -- Tim Starling 07:06, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * No its not offensive, your right -- its inflammatory -- weve been meaning to change it for a while (after CrucifiedChrist) but never got around to it. You can change it, or we can vote on it, and make you change it. (If people agree it should be changed) &#25140;&#30505sv


 * Mav thought it was offensive. I think so too. -- Tim Starling 07:13, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's offensive TO ME, but I can see how it would be to others. Definitely inflammatory, I think, and I suspect deliberately so.  --Morven 07:20, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be offensive to you, it's enough that it's offensive at all. If a username was offensive to blind people, or Down's syndrome sufferers, or Polish people, we wouldn't have to have a certain number of the minority in question present before the name can be declared offensive. -- Tim Starling 07:26, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure.. offensiveness is subjective. What may be offensive to one person in a category might not be offensive to another. I don't know if this justifies keeping the name, but it's something I thought should be brought up. Er.. I'm agnostic and it doesn't offend me, but I dunno. I'm probably just rambling. (by the way I haven't seen this person's behavior before so I don't know if they are trying to stir up something, but on first glance I doubt it.) Evil saltine 07:32, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course it's subjective. That's why when half a dozen people say "I think it should be changed" and another few say "I don't really care", we change the name. These debates tend to be pretty much empty of substance, because the outcome depends on a consensus of vaguely expressed gut feelings. -- Tim Starling 07:40, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

It appears that someone else has a very similar user name, User:Jesus is Lord. They have not, to my knowledge, been told to change their user name. Jesus is Lord! 09:21, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is also a user named Jesus (User:Ihcoyc) in Greek. Jesus is Lord! 09:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

When you apply your anti-religious bias you could at least do so uniformly. Is making an affirmation about Jesus worse than claiming to be Jesus (as User:Ihcoyc does)? I would say certainly not!

Hello, Jesus is Lord!.

Although I'm not a Christian, I also don't find your username offensive. Nevertheless, it seems to disturb some Wikipedians, for whatever reason. In the interests of promoting peace and harmony among people, it may be a good idea if you were to voluntarily change your name to something that others find less offensive but which still carries your message. Maveric149 has been arguing against your name on the mailing list wikiEN-L, but he indicated to me that User:Subject of Lord Jesus would be acceptable to him. Although I can't read your mind, this would seem to get across your point that acknowledging Jesus as Lord is central to your own sense of identity -- presumably that is why you chose the slogan "Jesus is Lord!" as your username originally. If you were to make this name change voluntarily, then other users -- and in particular mav, who is well respected by almost all Wikipedians -- would calm down.

As I said, I don't find your username offensive (nor "inflammatory"), and I would not like to see precedent set by forcing your name to change, possibly to a name that you don't like. If you change your name voluntarily, then this precedent will not be set (or at any rate will be much weaker) and you will also have maximal impact on the choice of your new name. If you don't like User:Subject of Lord Jesus (which is merely my first suggestion), then please consider another name; working together we-all should be able to find a name that satisfies both you (by acknowledging Jesus as your Lord) and your opponents (by not making a direct claim of fact).

As I mentioned above, I am not a Christian. Nevertheless, I have always found Saint Paul's words in Romans 14 quite wise. As you may recall, in this chapter Paul addresses those Christians that are disagreeing about whether Christianity requires one to obey certain rules about food and the like. Although Paul takes a firm position -- one is not required to do this -- that is not the point of the chapter. (He addresses the relationship of Christianity to the Law more fully in other chapters and other epistles.) Rather, his point is that Christians should not allow the Christian community to be split over arguments of this sort. Allow me to quote a verses 15 and 21 in particular: Remember that Paul has already agreed that a Christian may eat anything. Nevertheless, he recommends that Christians avoid eating meat if it distresses some other (mistaken) Christian.
 * If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. (NIV)
 * It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. (NIV)

I feel the same way about the Wikipedia community. Although I agree that your username is OK (as Paul agrees that eating meat is OK), nevertheless I follow Paul (in analogy) by counselling you to change your username to avoid distressing our fellow Wikipedians. To be sure, the question of whether you acknowledge Jesus as Lord is more important than the matters that Paul was addressing in Romans 14 -- indeed, Paul contrasts these matters throughout the chapter with the importance of being a Christian. However, a name like User:Subject of Lord Jesus, which is acceptable to mav, does not compromise on your commitment to Jesus. Thus the disagreement is not whether you acknowledge Jesus as Lord, but rather how you do so: by making the claim that Jesus is Lord, or by personalising this to your identity as His subject. Although you may prefer the former to the latter, I believe that this difference ranks, in importance, closer to the question of whether a Christian may eat meat than to the question of whether a Christian must acknowledge Jesus as Lord -- since you do acknowledge Him with either username.

Please consider this, for the sake of peace among Wikipedians.

-- Toby Bartels 21:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

BTW, here's a link to Romans 14 so that people don't have to look up the context for my quotations above:
 * http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=romans+14

(This is the NIV, but it links to several other versions, including languages besides English.) -- Toby Bartels 21:29, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write that. It certainly is something to think about. I don't like the name User:Subject of Lord Jesus, because of the connotation of 'subject' (it sounds to me like a feudalistic liege-lord sort of term). Although I like my current username, I will take some time to consider perhaps another one that will appease those with strong anti-Christian biases. I certainly don't enjoy the prospect of my username being forcefully changed by some committee anonymous detractors, and I suspect no one would. Jesus is Lord! 07:38, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for considering this. I'm sure that it must seem harsh that people jump on you right away for this sort of thing, but compromise is the spirit of Wikipedia. ^_^ As for "Subject", I chose that because it seemsed to go with "Lord", but please pick whatever fits your conception of your relationship to Christ. And I don't want to give you a name chosen by committee either, even if the committee is only me and you, so I won't give any more specific suggestions. (But I will mention that even I have found some difficulties, though only of a minor grammatical nature, because your username is not a noun! ^_^) -- Toby Bartels 00:59, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'v decided that I would like to change my username to "Drolsi Susej". I would like to say that I'm not terribly happy about changing my username, but will do so to avoid further conflict from certain users. In the future, Wikipedia needs to develop a better policy about changing a user's name. An abrupt insistance that my username must be changed probably lead me to fight a name change more than I otherwise might have. A policy is better than having someone complain to the wikien-l, race off to change the policy, start a vote to have a user name forcibly changed, goes on to insult the user whose name they don't like, and then procede to declare that they will ban the user they don't like. Jesus is Lord! 01:53, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Another option for compromise would be to change your username but not your signature. Anyway, I'm glad you're considering the matter: that's all that I (personally) ask. God is dead -- Martin


 * I'd be happy with that compromise. As long as the username you change it to is something sensible, which can be grammatically formed into a sentence without enclosing quotation marks. -- There is indeed something seductive about our pure conceptions of the understanding, namely a temptation to transcendent use; for so I name that which transcends all possible experience. 11:36, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * C'mon thats not a real compromise. Thats a compromise of principle. Were not anti-Christian at all. (I am Christian.) I dont howver like prosthletysing and POV where it doesnt serve a purpose but to impose upon people a statement that's fairly political or at least imposing. Who are you preaching to? Jews? Muslims? Do you expect Muslims to convert to Christianity? That's insulting, in case you hadnt thought about it.


 * I'm also wanting there to be a precedent set, so when someone comes along that wants to say, "Jesus is Lost" or "Jesus ate my brain" or "Muhammad>Jesus" there wont be any problem. Also, its a statement in a way-- changing your name is an affirmation of your understanding of NPOV and a commitment to adhere to it. Your partisan Christian views wont be necessary or helpful in the creation of new articles and content, so there wont be any need to let people know them. &#25140;&#30505sv 20:28, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I would hate to set a precedent according to which, when a new user (possibly in quite good faith) states their personal biases for all to see in their username, they are told "I'm sorry, we have a policy that this name is not allowed. An SQL query will now turn your name into initials. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia!". OTOH, I would love to set a precedent according to which, when a new user chooses a name that others find personally offensive, Wikipedians ask them, with respect, to consider another name and lay out the reasons for that (perhaps referring to the divisiveness that such names have caused in the past). -- Toby Bartels 01:17, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem imposing to me, it's just making a personal statement. The user doesn't have to change their name to affirm their understanding of NPOV, they can have a POV name and still make good edits. If this person makes POV pro-Christian edits, then that's a different matter, but there's no reason to disallow the name just because of the possibility. Also, the name "Muhammad>Jesus" is different IMO because it's a direct statement toward Christians akin to "My belief is better than yours", not merely a statement of belief. The same goes for "Jesus>Muhammad". Evil saltine 03:36, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * If you are a Christian, and not intending to mock the faith with flippancy and irreverence, then remember that to the full extent that it is in your power to do so, you have an obligation to be at peace with all men, and you must not be careless with the name of the Lord. I suggest that you may have chosen this name in order to have occasion to accuse people of bias and to stir up trouble.  Your best affirmation that Jesus is Lord! will be to avoid connecting that worthy proclamation with silliness and obstinacy.  Mkmcconn 23:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo: you're a Christian but you don't approve of proselytising? How does that work? Perhaps the opinion of your denomination is somewhat different to the one I'm familiar with, but I thought that evangelism was one of the core activities of the church. Matt 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". -- Tim Starling 04:02, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * Disciples of what, Tim? It's the typical failing of a faith to turn into a religion over time-- that the religion and its terms be proselytized rather than the message. Jesus's message was love-- "I come not to change one iota of the Law"-- but 'add to that understanding of G-d and your relationship with h-m, an understanding of your relationship to your fellow man as a brother or sister--a fellow 'Child of God.' This is the message of Jesus-- its this message that is to be proselytized, not the Biblespeak and the dogmatic preachings of revolving rev's and so forth.  Judaism and Islam, contrary to popular belief (or many Wikipedia articles), in fact don't misinterpret or "disbelieve" the meaning of Eashua-- that he was the "son of God" by spirit ( not "literally" (Well... God*Universe*stars*explode*atoms*carbon*humans so I suppose it can be taken as "literal" too ;)).  They often do not dispute Jesu's divinity -- provided that Jesu's message is understood-- he being born of spirit, again becomes spirit. That Jesu's divinity was above that of other men, is the flawed interpretation-- rather, his knowledge of the nature of what is called "divine" was superior.
 * But the differences between different religions are not all that big, and the differences between Christian sects and denominations are not that big either. The point?   Proselytize  the message of peace and love-- these lead to Jesus by spirit.  If you proselytize  the Anglicized name of "Jee-zuss," you often just get a lot of "Jee-zuss" worshippers-- sometimes you get Christians.  The truth that we Westerners call "Christianity" in fact comes to all people quite naturally (we are God's children after all, eh?) and without any proseltyzing whatsoever.  Naturally people who dont speak English, (like Eashua, M'sheekah himself) called this ("his") faith by a different set of syllables.  I like the idea of representing the message, not the mere syllables. &#25140;&#30505sv 16:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * So you vilify JiL for following the traditional interpretation of the bible? How is that in keeping with "the message"? When faced with talk of compromise, and the prospect of peace and tolerance, you call for mob justice: "the tribe has spoken". There is no need for retribution. We should assume JiL picked his username in good faith. -- Tim Starling 00:32, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

- Hi Jesus is Lord ! I think we will know when the real Christ returns, I'm really not sure that he'd use an encyclopaedia to announce his Second Coming but anyway yours (better  saved  than sorry) in considerable theological confusionNorwikian 16:11, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

from Problem users

This user has been consistently making highly questionable edits to articles relating to homosexuality, from deleting people from the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people (historians are all agreed that Patrick Pearse was homosexual. Only JiL disagrees) to adding in references to fæces in Homophobic hate speech. FearÉIREANN 00:00, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not a problem user. The only thing I did to the list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people was remove some people whose articles did not indicate that they were gay. This was reverted by Paige who explained that there doesn't need to be evidence in the article to list someone as gay. The reference to feces in Homophobic hate speech moved from fudgepacker, which I made into a redirect to the former. There is nothing questionable about my edits. I never removed Patrick Pearse, I don't know where you got that from. Jesus is Lord! 07:41, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have moved the material above from the problem users page, because a careful review of the edits does not produce any real evidence of a problem other than a dispute about the content of several specific articles. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 18:36, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jesus is Lord! has requested that this account be renamed to "Drolsi Susej".

I'll change it now. See the newly-created Changing username for details of what will happen.

It's done. Just tying up some loose ends... -- Tim Starling 03:22, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

The user page has been moved to User:Drolsi Susej. I do not intend to move this page to User talk:Drolsi Susej. -- Tim Starling 03:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)