User talk:Lostcaesar/Archive3

Bible
. I just want to express my thanks for your recent comments on the Bible talk page. You and I have disagreed in the past and we will probably disagree over other things in the future, but I respect and appreciate the clarity and sanity you are bringing to the discussion with Home Computer. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Transclusion example
Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

re:Gnosticism
Point 1: That sentence was a direct summary of what Ehrman wrote in his book Lost Christianities. Here is the quote:
 * But how can Christ enter into this world of matter and not be tainted by it? This is one of the puzzles that Gnostics had to solve, and different Gnostic thingers did so in different ways. Some took the line we have already seen in Marcion and others, maintaining that Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood human being, but only appeaered to be so. These Gnostics took the words of the apostle Paul quite seriously: Christ cam "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3). As a phantom sent from the divine realm, he came to convey the gnosis neccessary for salvation, and when he was finished doing so, he returned to the Pleroma whence he came.
 * Most Gnostics, however, took another line, claiming that Christ was a divine emissary from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. For these Gnostics, Jesus himself was in fact a human, even though some thought that he was not made like the rest of us, so that he could receive the divine eimisarry; some, for example thought that he had a "soul-body" rather than a "fleshy-body". In any event, at the baptism, Christ entered into Jesus (in the form of a dove, as in the New TEstament Gospels); and at the end he left him to suffer his death alone. This is why Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (literally, "Why have you left me behind?") Or, as stated in the Gospel of Philip, "'My God, my god, why O lord have you forsaken me?' He spoke these words on the cross; for he had withdrawn from that place" (G. Phil. 64). According to one of the myths reported by Irenaeus, once Jesus had died, the Christ then came back and raised him from the dead (Against Heresies 1.30.13).

So, given the diversity of Gnosticism, it is probably safe to say that both your source and my source are correct. However, if Chadwick is trying to say that all Gnostics were docetics, then I believe that is an incorrect summary. As for the importance of the resurrection, there are at least 3 Gnostic texts that discuss this: Treatise on the Resurrection, Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, and Second Treatise of the Great Seth. (Irenaeus recounts an alleged Gnostic story where the Christ plays a trick and switches bodies with Simon and the wrong man gets crucified, 1.24.3) The moral of all of these Gnostic texts is that flesh and blood is easy to kill, but true spirit can escape death (and that those "in the know" have a chance of salvation/resurrection themselves). In Peter, the Savior seperates from the man during the crucifixion and is seen laughing above the cross. Etc. Regardless, I do not see a reason to change the text in this area, but I'm willing to listen to suggested changed. Point 2: My source doesn't make a comparison with classical philosophy. If your source does and you feel it is important to mention, then go right ahead (but keep in mind these passages are supposed to focus on Gnostic belief about Jesus, not Gnostic belief in general). Point 3: That is a good point. the NT wasn't canonized back then, and there were a large number of books that didn't make it into the NT. However, we are linking to Gnosticism and the New Testament. So maybe we can say "New Testament books, in addition to many extra canonical book" or something like that? I think the point is that Gnostics did use some books that made it into the NT, only with different interpretations. Regardless, the sentence could be improved. Point 4:I agree that a sentence or clause could be added to explain the disconnect (or alleged reconstruction), but since it doesn't have much to do with Jesus, I don't want to focus too much on describing the modern movement. Anyway, thanks for sharing your concerns.--Andrew c 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops on my part, too
It's slightly easier to highlight to the end of the paragraph, but if I'd remembered you were fixing up the references I would've been more careful. Now we've both got one revert less than we should. :^) A.J.A. 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Catholic scholarship
I want to say this now, in case discussions on Purgatory, etc., get heated and I'm in no mood to say it later. I've generally found that the best-informed Christians I debate with are Catholics, and you're no exception. Jonathan Tweet 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Acts
LC-- just to let you know. Sometimes when people post to talk pages asking "What do people think?", they're really saying "So... why don't ya'll all agree with me, so I can revert this other guy". But in this case, I definitely was _NOT_ doing that, but instead was sincerely saying "Hmm. he makes a good point, but on the otherhand, 2-source-hypothesis is important, so maybe we should mention it.  I dunnno--what do ya'll think." :) Looking over it, I realize it probably just looked like one of those arguementative/rhetorical kind, not the genuinely openminded kind. :)  --Alecmconroy 07:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul
I hope to do some more. I am not a Pauline scholar of any seriousness, but I would like, conflicts permitting, to allow some air into the article. It may be asking for trouble but something on current contgroversies would be useful. I have had a look at the archived discussion, but only briefly. Keep in touch Roger Arguile 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roger_Arguile"

My view  on the textual analysis is that it needs to remain in the test on Paul. Otherwise reqders will get a false view of the inconsistencies which exist between the two acounts. I note that you have only justified your changes in a very short order. Roger Arguile 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You suggest that we should give the different scholars their voice and allow the reader to decide. You also want to separate the story from the controversies about which version is the truthful one. I can't follow either of those ideas for the following reasons.

To engage with the scholarly arguments requires not two voices but dozens;to give them each their own voice requires selective editing, which does not allow the development of sometimes complex arguments. An encyclopaedia cannot develop all the arguments: they are more like a tree with its roots rather than a seesaw. Secondly, I recognise that there are people who want an article to 'tell them what happened'. One can only satisfy that desire where there are genuine probablities which is simply not the case with the 'Council of Jerusalem'. Any version is POV (or will be alleged to be so by someone). One of our other editors thinks that by quoting the Catholic Encyclopaedia he can resolve the problem of how Paul decided to take a Nazirite vow when he returned from Jerusalem. We have a problem: either a man who wants to go back on what he said to the Galatians or a lack of credibility in the sources. A published encyclopaedia would let the contributor have his opinion. We suffer from deep divides. I also think that the Catholic Encyclopaedia is trying to square the circle. Finally, we suffer from the fact that few of us are scholars. We have high school kids, we have self-taught anoraks, we have lonely people who have found a hobby, we have educators of one sort or another with some background, we have even one or two retired academics. I am not a scholar either, though I engage is writing as part of my job. The amateurs and the professionals have only equal access.

But I shall try to improve the Council of Jerusalam if you will give me a bit of space and then come back to me. Roger Arguile 13:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I hve done some more work on it. Is it asking too much to ask that you voice your objections before setting down to edit it? I have tried to make it more accessible without misleadingly suggesting that there is any known way out of the conflict between Acts and the Letters. Roger Arguile 15:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my quotation and typos. I had copied it from the REB not the RSV but the latter, being an ecumenical translation (The Common Bible) is a preferable version. I'm sorry about the typo too. I'll look out the tag you mention when I get a minute. Thanks. I trust you had a good Christmas; we were very busy. \Here's to a wiki New Year. Roger Arguile 11:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanakh
It is incorrect to say the Old Testament has "more books some not Hebrew". That is only the case for the Catholic version. The Protestant Old Testament is identical to the Tanakh except that some books are merged into one book, and they are not in the same order. Wjhonson 13:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why I've now changed the parenthetical wording to simply "see also", to imply not that they are necessarily identical, but that the article on Tanakh has at least the same power of information as the one on the Old Testament. "Old Testament" is considered a pejorative term by Jews (a put-down), by the way.  Having both articles referenced, seems more neutral. Wjhonson 14:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I was the one who put in the Hebrew Bible link, I think that was there before. I might have reverted to it ;)  I don't disagree about using the Old Testament link in place of the Hebrew Bible link.  At any rate, the wording now is fine.  As to whether the Tanakh should be linked in a paragraph that starts with "Christian views", you have to remember that every one of the first thousand or so "Christians" were Jews.  It was only later, that Gentiles started to be preached to, and even then Christianity was only a movement, inside Judaism.  It was later that the Jews started expelling the Christians from the synagogues. Wjhonson 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as a nontrinitarian
LC, I don't imagine that certain other editors are going to let me add anything about Jesus portrayed as a nontrinitarian to the Christianity page. Would you please do me the kind favor of formulating a few sentences that are factually accurate and that inform the reader that this viewpoint is out there? I've tried over and over, and you can see for yourself where it's gotten me. As for the Jesus Seminar, while I don't think they live up to the hype, they at least represent a viewpoint that's common enough that Robert Funk was able to assemble over a hundred scholars that agreed with the seminar's premises.

As to your suggestion that I buy myself a good book on the topic instead of doing quick Internet searches, I could take that as a slight, except that, ha ha, said book had already been ordered and came the next day. Jonathan Tweet 14:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating me. I was about to nudge you. Jonathan Tweet 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your new version. It never addresses the fact that a substantial number of contemporary historians (alternatively, if you prefer, "fellows of the Jesus Seminar") portray Jesus as not teaching the Trinity himself. That's the viewpoint that I wanted to add. Do you think you could add such a reference in, or should I go back to pitching it myself? Jonathan Tweet 14:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would really appreciate seeing this added: "The view that Jesus did not teach his own divinity has found agreement by the contemporary scholars of the JS [ref]" and here's the online reference: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm. I think it understates the case (because there are lots of scholars other the JS fellows who agree), but I'm happy to see it included. Personally, I prefer writing that's more direct, as in: "The contemporary scholars of the JS agree that Jesus did not teach his own divinity," but the sentence should fit the style of the rest of the paragraph, so suit yourself. And thanks. Jonathan Tweet 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle Ages
Hi, the group is pretty informal and mostly serves as a way to announce new articles related to the middle ages. There are some discussion groups mostly where people announce things or ask questions but not very active. It's low noise to have on a watchlist to keep track of anything that comes up. Happy to answer any questions. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

and Resurrection of Jesus article
Lost, you may be better than I am at some of the mechanics of WIKI. The footnotes for the article have a a problem. The format an editor was using causes inappropriate language to pop up and I corrected many of the references/links for scriptures in the article proper, but the footnotes are still in error. Any assistance would be appreciated. THanks. Storm Rider (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed the scripture links that I corrected. I think some may be uncomfortable with them given that they link to the KJV at an LDS site.  It may be better to change them to another site; any suggestions?  Storm Rider (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused by your comment/question. LDS use the same KJV that is available to all other churches; it is not unique.  There may be a confusion about with the Joseph Smith translation, which is owned and published by the Community of Christ church.  Though we use it as a reference, the canon is the KJV.  I am not aware of any significant differnces between the KJV and the NIV except for the use of common language.  Storm Rider (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Joseph Smith translation actually "translated" several verses throughout the Bible; not just in Genesis. LDS use it as a reference just as we would use various commentaries.  I have found it helpful in certain situations, mostly some New Testament verses; though none come immedately to mind.
 * Let's see how it goes and respond appropriately should someone raise a concern. I am partial to the KJV; it seems more like "home" to me.  Thanks for the assist!  Storm Rider (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thy words ring true and warmeth the heart of the pilgrim in these distant lands. Good Cheer to thee in all that thou doest. Tis a fair turn of the tongue, lol. Storm Rider (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul
I notice that you and an unregistered user have put back all my deletions. I know that you and I agree the article needs some improvement. I have to say that quoting the 1910 Catholic Encyclopaedia does not help. This is said to be a former good article. I have been trying to improve it. You ask whether Acts and Galatians are really inconsistent. I beg you to consider the huge volume of litereature on the subject. Balance is not achieved where a ton is on one side of the scale so one puts a small bag of feathers on the other side. Sticking all those references to a dozen editions is not scholarly. We don't do it with secular articles; why should we be doing it when bibles are more common than any other book?

If articles are to become credible then somebody had to know what the literature is in order to achieve a scholarly balance. My view is that what you and 75... have been doing has not added to the quality of the article very much. I am sorry to say that.Roger Arguile 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. There was a lot of activity yesterday. I confess I didn't check who had done what. Roger Arguile 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you removed a reference to the resurrection from 2 Corinthians. I am not sure why. I have reinserted it with modifications. You may want to comment. Roger Arguile 10:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your last comment, I am more co ncerned to record what St. Paul wrote and to note that he distinguishes quite clearly between a spiritual body and a physical body. Those are his words. How we interpret this, and how we understand the metaphor in 2 Corinthians is a POV matter. At least if we record his words we are in less danger of supplying our own interpretation. I could easily speculate, and do in my sermons, on the relationship between the two notions of body. If I were a Roman Catholic, rather than an Anglo-Catholic, and member of the Episcopal church, I might be more constrained than I am. But, as I have said before, the teachings of the magisterium may need to be recorded as the teaching of Holy Mother church, but given that there are others not in fealty to the Holy See, particular interpretations have to be held in check when presented with what Paul wrote. We could argue about bodily resurrection but that would be a long and detailed argument. I prefer, in an encyclopaedia, to advert to the words cited and to leave it to articles on the teaching of the Holy See to set forth the interpretation of the magisterium. I believe this distinction to be one which is not observed in many articles on the faith, and very often by members of all manner of Protestant sectaries, many of whom are sure that they understand St. Paul in a particular way. Tom Wright Bishop of Durham has it when he says that Luther's view and Calvin's view have to give way to the words of Scripture themselves, a view that both Calvin and Luther and the Holy Father would subscribe to. Roger Arguile 14:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you help?
There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am so sorry for my late reply. I was waylaid by other concerns. It seems that mediation resolutions are not followed. You might want to give comments. Thank you and God bless. Arturo Cruz 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OD: Thanks for your help
LC, thanks so much for your help at the OD. Most of your edits were absolutely stupendous. I think this has the makings of a FAC.

In particular, I thank you, and apologize, with regard to the 8 cites in the Hitler sentence. Your solution of putting interspersing them through the sentence is absolutely ideal, and I cringe when I think a reader might have thought all the sources were just about Hitler. It started out as just 3 cites, but then there was a request for more, and the result ultimatley looked like a reference bomb, although I totally didn't intend for it too.

I removed your addition of the phrase "penitential mortification". OD does not choose to call it "penitential mortification"-- their term is "corporal mortification", though it's often shortened to mortification. This as it turns out seems to be a pretty common misuderstanding. I had never really heard of OD much until about six months ago, and while I've learned a lot about them since, I still don't know as much as I'd like. Anyway, when learned the use of mortification was something real, my first thought was the same as yours-- that it was penitential.

But, when you really listen to the members of OD describe their very-limited use of mortification, it really doesn't come out that way. It doesn't seem to be done as a penance (and certainly not a punishment!) for specific sins. They liken it not so much to the Sacrament of Penance, but instead discuss it more as a way of kinship with Christ who also suffered. A way to achieve closeness with God and a way to offer their suffering up to God.

Similarly, the mention of the use of the metal cilice isn't actually at all controversial-- OD is rather open about it. Now, the images of a screaming albino monk, feriously pulling his cilice as it digs into his skin causing streams of blood -- that's pure, laughable nonsense. But it is true that OD members do make limited,safe use of the metal cilice. Mortification actually has a long history within The Church (and throughout other religions as a whole). It's just something the members of OD choose to do as a way to bring them closer to God, and it's not controversial of us to mention that the do choose to engage in the practice.

What is controversial, however, is to claim that OD's practice of mortification is somehow "wrong" or "bad". Certainly, that is the opinion of some, and while we must make a mention of that POV, we need not treat it as anything but an opinion.

Anyway, thank you very much for helping out on the page. With your help and everyone else's, hopefully we can all look at the Wikipedia frontpage one day and see Opus Dei on the front page, and that will be a day where a lot of people throughout the world will learn about OD and the teachings of St. Josemaria Escriva. This has been a tough page to get right-- we have a lot of editors who come to the page after reading the Da Vinci Code one too many times and are convinced OD is some nefarious, secret organization out for world domination. We've had 1-2 disgruntled former members or the family of members come and want the page to reflect that OD is some sort of a "cult". And we have a number of current members who have objected to any mention of criticims at all being directed at an organization that has had such an inspiring and uplifting effect on their lives. And the one thing all those groups have in common are very strong feelings that their POV is correct. So-- welcome to the circus, glad to have you on board. The more eyes, the merrier: I've tried hard to chuck out the "secret organization destined for world domination" stuff since it's not mentioned in any notable source. There are some criticism that do get mentioned a lot in the notables sources so we have to at least mention them, but I've tried to keep them to a brief mention and worked hard to keep those from "taking over the article" so that more of the discourse is about the criticism than the organization itself.

And again-- thank you for all the edits you made-- especially the hitler sentence. I know I'm nobody's perfect, but there are times you just have to shake your head and ask yourself "why didn't I see that?". --Alecmconroy 07:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec,I am glad I could help. Let me run through a few of your comments.
 * About the sentence on Hitler – that sort of thing just happens. A controversial sentence appears, and so people scramble for refs to back it up; eventually we end up with eight or so that may or may not match.  Its just how it goes.
 * As for "penitential mortification", my experience with this is in its medieval form (I study medieval history), in which it was a penitential monastic practice. The most famous mortifier I know of is Radegund, though perhaps better known are the flagellants.  I assumed that OD practiced the same (albeit a milder form) of this penitence – but I have never talked with anyone in OD about it.  Perhaps it was a mistaken assumption.  My apologies.
 * Now the cilice, this is a bit different. In medieval Latin cilicium means hairshirt.  They were uncomfortable garments worn originally by Egyptian monks and brought to southern France and popularized by St. Martin's, Tours, very early in the Middle Ages.  Its name derives from the Cicilian goat hair that they are made out of (Cilicia is in Asia Minor - where St. Paul was from).  Maybe in a modern context it has come to mean any uncomfortable mortifying item, but I think we could use a source for this.  As for the image, I still have some problems with it.  It strikes me as using a picture of JFK's motorcade after the assassination from a group called "Oswald Innocence Organization".  So I am still a bit uneasy about this.  Some reliable sources all around would make be feel much better.
 * As for mortification in general, I think we can structurally improve this matter a bit in the article. At present, we say who mortifies under a list of positions on OD, but we don't introduce mortification until after.  We should probably define something before we mention it, especially something easily misunderstood.  Also, I wonder if it is really central to that section, since mortification is one pious act, and we don't mention any other pious acts that some members might do.  So perhaps we could cut it from that section or, if not, then introduce mortification earlier.
 * Overall I think the article is doing well, despite the challenges of such a sensitive topic. Critical pov's are generally well handled in a proper section without too much weight given them, and I am glad the article does not cite fiction as fact.  There are some areas to improve on.  Most of the sources are Internet articles and, though fine, these could be better.  For example, we cite an online book review a couple times concerning the content of the book, when the much better thing to do would be to cite the actual book.  But this will clear up in time I hope.
 * I really appreciate that you took the time to look over my edits. Sometimes, when I clean up an article by moving a paragraph here or removing bullet points there, co-editors will see a lot of red and, without reading to notice that the content is the same, jump to the rv button.  This conversely has been a nice experience of collegiality.
 * Cheers,
 * Lostcaesar 10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * THanks for the kind words.    Yeah, OD mortification's is different for some reason.  I usually think of it as exactly like what you said-- hairshirts and penitential.  And, I mean, I'm sure that as a penance has to be part of it, but oddly enough they don't use the term.  Your comment about the "Oswald Innocence Project" made me laugh--  I feel so sorry for all the admins who have to deal with all the nonsense that comes up at the 9/11 pages-- apparently everyone from "The Jews" to Bush to Opus Dei was 'really' responsible for it, but mean old Wikipedia just won't let them tell the world. lol.    So yes, your skepticism of "ODAN" is most wise-- I know that if they were the only ones talk about metal cilices, I wouldn't believe it for a second.
 * I've been trying to find some better pictures for you-- I doubt we'll find a GFDLed one, but i have a couple from elsewhere. Part of the issue is that OD doesn't have much of a presence in the English speaking counties--- you get better luck if you look search for the word cilicio.  Ones I have been able to dig up: From some japanase magazine, From some italian site, Some italian site, Argentian I think?  I wish the History Channel and CNN broadcasts were  downloadable!  Cursed copyright.
 * About mortification-- no, we absolutely don't need to mention the mortification in the types of membership section. My main purpose in doing so had actually been to point out that the Supernumeraries, the bulk of the membership, do NOT practice it, but if you think it's having the opposite effect-- beating people over the head with the word mortification, absolutely-- cut it. :)  We can just add a note in the mortification section specifying that Numeraries, Numerary Assistants, and Associates are the ones who practice it. --Alecmconroy 10:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! I've struck oil.  Check out Image:Cilice-CNN.jpg-- it's from a CNN broadcast.  It's not free-license, so we can't use it in the article itself, but at least now we have someone other than ODAN's word for it.  The full broadcast is available on YouTube here.  --Alecmconroy 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for uncovering that weblink to the CNN article. That is the sort of source I was looking for. We still have some technical problems with the picture, but it seems less urgent now. I suppose if we end up without a picture we could still describe the item well enough. I have a few more points to make about the article. Concerning the controversy section. First, I think the bullet point is bad style for an encyclopedia article, and I think if you look at wikipedia good articles, you will be hard pressed to find such a presentation (bullet point of criticisms). I really think, stylistically, we should make this a paragraph. Also, I notice that you did not prefer my edit, which presented the material slightly differently. My attempt was to represent the sources properly. They were mostly from ODAN, and if not, then from new articles which vaguely said "critics", unnamed, and whatever the case had far fewer accusations than ODAN. I noticed in your edit commentary that you said that there were other critics besides ODAN. This may well be the case, but at present the article does not support its general claims with references. I understand if you need time to get more sorces, and I am willing to be patient. However, in the meantime it might be preferable to use the edit I made. We could preserve the older version on a userpage sandbox until it can be better referenced. Lastly, as to the section on mortification, I think some of the criticisms can be better handled in the criticism section, especially those made by ODAN, and we might was just a general sentence in the mort. section describing criticism. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, let's see. The image itself is fine-- just a minor case of copyright paranoia, hehehe.  About the identities of the critics-- as luck would have it this old version of the Controversies article has a giant "yellow pages" of the most-vocal critics, as it were.  ODAN is basically code for the DiNicolas, who are two, but only two of the critics.  So far, I don't know of any criticism that is being made only by them-- in general, the criticisms predate them.  Between the Hutchison book, the del Carmen Tapia, and the Walsh book, I think every single criticism is in there.  So, no, no-- it's not just ODAN.  If you want for the purposes of citation, I can look around try to find web-accessable citations of non-ODAN people making the specific criticisms, just for the sake of ironcladness, but let's definitely NOT say that ODAN is the only one making the criticims-- that would takes us from sentences that are true,cited, and possibly web-citable, and transform them into sentences that are false. lol.


 * About the bullett points list, I'm less sure of myself. I can read a book that tells me for a fact ODAN isn't the only one making a certain criticism-- finding a book telling me whether or not the section is better in bulletpoints is harder. heheh.  Let's see what Bish, Doc, Baccyak and some of the others think.  Bulletpoints are briefer, which I know was a big concern of the OD members.  If we go to prose, we have to include topic sentences and explanatory sentences, and the like or else we'll sound schiziophrenic.  On the other hand, the bullet points are style we don't use elsewhere in the article, so maybe we shouldn't use them here either.  Let's see what they think.


 * What I'm really stymied about is the Controversies about Opus Dei. Right now there's basically no organizing scheme to the thing.  I'm trying to decide whether it should be organized "by faction", "by topic" or "chronologically".  If you have a chance to look it over, I'd majorly appreciate your suggestions on it! :)  --Alecmconroy 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First off-- cool! thanks for making that! that's helpful. But you see, it illustrates my point-- bullet points are allowed to be jumpy and totally change topics every sentence, but paragraphs can't--- they come of sound a tad schizoid, changing topics with each sentence.  What you need to make paragraphs flow are topic sentences, concluding sentences, explainatory sentences.   I could be done-- it's just not as easy as taking the text and deleteling the bullet points.


 * That said, there is a prose form that would sound okay and would convey the same content that we could make if people really don't like the bullet points. I'll do some askin' :) --Alecmconroy 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Side note-- GOOD JOB with this edit! I laughed out loud when I saw that we hadn't ever bothed to mention mortification is done on yourself!  See, you look at something for so many hours and after a while you get where your eyes can't even see it anymore. --Alecmconroy 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want it to be a good article I think you need to drop the bullets; do some asking, I will work on the paragraph's prose. Lostcaesar 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See, yeah, I've got a sneaking suspicion you're right that. We're already a "Good Article", but we also want to be a good article-- FAC good.  Just help me out if we have to verbositize it a hair-- the bulletpoints were a mediation compromise that let us convey things in an ultra-brief manner, and I expect to take a bit of flack on the length issue if we make them into readable prose. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)