User talk:Lostcaesar/Archive2

apostasy and excommunication in RCC article page
Hi, I saw you like my edit too. I read and understood the whole letter myself including number (2). Lima seems to have missed the point entirely and not understood but as I have very little time to argue I think you can help me out. I find it more productive to contribute or expand the article and make it clear then move on. I intend to revert it to your last revision and link with the photostat link of the letter without the comment or blog and let the reader read it for himself. As one scientist have said (I'm not sure if its Einstein or Feynmann or somebody else), if you can't explain something in a few simple words then you don't understand what you are talking about. The loudest voice usually gets heard the most but not always to be listened to by the most. Dr mindbender 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on the Bible page
Salvete, I appreciate your scholarship, but I've been studying the Bible and it's history longer than you've been alive. Yes, okay that doesn't mean much these days, but bear in mind your personal perspective is not always going to be the historically "correct" one, nor is it going to jive with someone who has a differing perspective of the fact. You need to be taking these things into account before you get haughty and critical of someone's efforts. If someone offers something that you disagree with, then just offer an NPOV edit instead of a wholesale revert as you've done on the Bible page. You're not always right. Wikipedia helps all of see from a much broader perspective! :) --Solascriptura 14:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

re:Authorship of Pauline epistles
Ehrman says exactly "Up to this point I have tried to show why scholars continue to debate the authorship of teh Deutero-Pauline epsitles, but when we come to the Pastoral espistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline." I thought "more disputed" was confusing, because it is ambiguous if it is refering to the scholarly debate being disputed, or the authorship being disuputed, and the use of "many" is vague and weaselly when the source says "widely regarded by scholars" and "greater scholarly unanimity". And I introduced "critical" initially, but I am not sure if that was implied in Ehrman. Anyway, I apologize for the confusion. That is the citation, feel free to paraphrase however you see fit. I trust your judgement.--Andrew c 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bishop of Rome
You haven't offered your reasons for suggesting a merge with Pope. --Wetman 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

An Olive Branch
You were right to suggest a reconciliation. Concerning our most recent conflict, my approach was much more hostile than it should have been. I apologize.

The issue of citing the Catechism is amenable to a very simple compromise. Like this:



Or this:


 * Catechism of the Catholic Church §120 (The Canon of Scripture).

I hope you're still agreeable to a more collaborative future relationship. A.J.A. 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What I was actually objecting to was the part about the individual being directed by the Holy Spirit, since of course saying the individual as such is supernaturally guided to the correct interpretation is incoherent in light of the fact that different interpretations exist. Calvin thought saved individuals are guided by the Spirit -- but not apparently down to fine details or to complete infallibility. I.e., that the saved are prevented from falling into damnable heresy. I see now that what you'd added was merely imprecise rather than covert apologetics.


 * A good source would be Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 3:16 (I'm not sure if that link goes directly to the page with the relevant commentary or to the first part of the 2 Peter commentary).


 * I've started a sandbox to iron it out, if you're interested: User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Scriptures. A.J.A. 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Be Friendly
Thanks for the insult over at Jesus. This is Wikepidia. You do not have to be an expert to edit here. I made my case in talk, so rather than insult me and pointlessly revert my justified edit, make your case in talk and show that your point of view is actually valid.--Roland Deschain 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bible
Hey, just a quick note, I don't enjoy being the lone conservative Christisn over at the Bible discussion page and insults such as others have hurled and harsh language don't help us improve the breadth of perspective nor the cooperative atmosphere. I guess I'm just saying try to be cool and lets discuss kindly together and try to understand each others' perspectives to create as npov and acurate an article as possible. Peace. --Home Computer 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost, take a look at the editwar with the definitions, particularly the recent revision by Slrubenstien of my last edit.. am I completely bonkers for what I'm feeling is going on there? Seriously.. what was wrong with that definition other than the "Christian" pov wasn't diminished enough? --Home Computer 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Document
Did you not read page 2? "... heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection, if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesistical authority in the required manner." The elements of "the required manner" are then indicated distinctly. Even page 1 states clearly that, while abandonment of the Church supposes "an act of apostasy, heresy or schism", more is required for separation from the Church and from being bound by merely ecclesiastical laws. Lima 08:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication does not mean separation from the Church (see canon 1331). Read again the last paragraph of page 1 of the document, and you will see that the document was issued precisely to indicate that you cannot renounce membership "like one might quit the poker club" or, more precisely, by just having your name removed from a German civil register of Catholics a part of whose taxes go to the Catholic Church (as registered Protestants' taxes go to a Protestant Church). Lima 10:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the article - have you read it in its present form? - makes it quite clear that you cannot renounce membership "like one might quit the poker club". You cannot renounce membership even by a mere act of apostasy, heresy or schism. A procedure must be gone through to have the competent Church authority (the local Ordinary or the parish priest/pastor of the person concerned) pass judgement on the genuineness of that act. What more do you want the article to say? Lima 11:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You have broken the WP:3RR rule on Historicity of Jesus. I agree that a lot of the material you keep reverting is poor and needs to be modified or kept out of the article completely. However, I do not feel this issue is important enough to warrent edit warring and breaking rules. It's better to let poor content sit in an article for a couple days (or better yet, let someone else revert it) than to go on a personal crusade that violates policy. Taking and working together is the only way to get progress on wikipedia. I'll tell you what I told Retsudo, you cannot force an article to stay in its current state by sheer will of reverting and reverting again.


 * 1st 13:03, 18 October 2006
 * 2nd 15:06, 18 October 2006
 * 3rd 17:25, 18 October 2006
 * 4th 03:35, 19 October 2006
 * 5th 07:19, 19 October 2006

Just because I agree with you doesn't mean I will ignore policy violations. The best thing to do in this situation is to self-revert back to the disputed version, with an apology referencing 3RR in the edit summary. (per WP:3RR) Then, don't remove the section again for at least 24 hours. Talk things out. Let other editors revert if necessary. Keep in mind It is strongly recommended that you revert any particular change no more than once (see Harmonious editing club). Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Diatessaron
can you give a reference for your edit on Tatian? I am happy to be corrected, but I believe your edit reflects superceded scholarship. My undestanding of the current consensus is that tatian did not use the (Greek) LXX, but rather a Jewish translation from the Hebrew precursor to the Masoretic Text into Syriac, and that this version also underlies the Peshitta Old Testament. Which is why Tatian is cited as an independant witness to the MT by some textual critics (e.g Jan Joosten). Are you suggesting that his source may have been in Hebrew, but following the LXX? . TomHennell 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)