User talk:Midnite Critic

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

The Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari
In my humble opinion, the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari truly pertains to the Oriental Orthodox. Yet, I see you have removed that category from the article. Please enlighten me... --Sophroniscus 22:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I shall give it some thought... --Sophroniscus 23:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response
Your question was, "which is the greater enemy, liberalism or neoconservatism?" My answer is that liberalism is a greater enemy domestically, while the neocons are the greater enemy internationally. Alright! -- OldRight 00:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist
Congratulations on your work. Lima 05:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

RWH: party or pre-party organization?
My understanding is that the RWH considered itself a "pre-party organization," yet you have categorized it as a Communist Party, not once, but twice. Why is this? I understand that there may be some leeway here, but do we want to change the categories to something like "Communist Parties and Organizations"? In solidarity and struggle, --Midnite Critic 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Midnite Critic. The problem was that Category: Communist parties was becoming too large (more than 350 articles), and several users, including me, decided to split it by continent. So we moved all parties from "Communist parties" to "Communist parties in continent", and after that was done, I noticed that the USA parties could form a category of their own, so I created Communist parties in the United States and moved the relevant parties. So this was only an effort at splitting a large category, and RWH got moved because it was already in that category.


 * Now this category tree is clearly for established political parties, so if that's not the case for RWH, I think you are welcome to move it to another category, or possibly discuss it on the talk page. Resistenza. -- Ze miguel 08:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. Please keep up the good work. -- Ze miguel 16:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, tolerance, and equality
This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have sought help from several trusted comrades including yourself. We'll see if anyone can make any suggestions which stick; as I said, the original author is quite protective (of this and several other similarly POV articles).  Thanks...KHM03 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible
 * Internal consistency and the Bible (which I keep trying to merge w/"Alleged inconsistencies...")
 * Criticism of the Bible
 * Science and the Bible
 * and probably a few others. KHM03 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jesus
Please consider looking in on this article and the recent changes; I cannot revert again. KHM03 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good edits re: the atonement. KHM03 18:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also...good job at reverting the blatant POV on Christianity. You may want to check out Justin Martyr, which has had some similar additions...but I'm no expert on Justin Martyr, so I thought you might be better equipped to look at it.  KHM03 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Doctrine Police?
So who died and left you folks the keepers of the doctrine police?? Midnite, you completely destroyed valid facts regarding Paul because those facts were not in keeping with your traditional view and perspective. The presentation of the facts were completely NPOV. Just because you disagreed with them somehow makes them a biased POV? Poppycock.

If you're going to be doing edits, please keep YOUR BIAS OUT of the articles and allow the FACTS to be stated. NPOV does not give you or anyone carte blance to edit articles as you alone see fit.

As a lay-author and Biblical scholar in my own right in both the Greek and Hebrew and Church history; I am no slouch when it comes to such facts. Just because we don't like the facts is no reason to remove them from an article.

I don't mind minor edits if you must. BUT LEAVE THE FACTS ALONE!

-SolaScriptura


 * I feel that your edits were completely valid and have left a warning on User:Solascriptura's talk page to watch the accusations. KHM03 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perspective
Midnite,

I guess my point was that not everyone who provides additions to articles is going to be 100% passable to your personal erudite standards of what constitutes NPOV or "facts". I attempted to provide the facts. I suppose, to you, my quoting of published statements of historical fact means that these are somehow my "opinion"?

Clearly, as a priest, your NPOV is in and of itself biased and no where near "neutral". I find it rather hypocritical that one would just automatically assume that their majority viewpoint is the wholly accurate and inerrant one; when in fact, Messiah and the Disciples represented quite a minority viewpoint throughout His ministry and Judea. Yet, you follow Messiah, do you not? I guess by your own standards you would not have followed Yahushua in the first century because He was a "minority"?

I hope you can see the hypocrisy here.

The fact is, I came to Wikipedia to offer some additional insights that are well documented by numerous published authors from history. You've rejected those viewpoints and facts because they didn't fit YOUR personal religious views.

So which one of us is really being biased?

The problem quite definitely is one of personal perspective; or more to the point, a "Christian" or "orthodox" perspective vs. the bare facts from history. Sometimes, even slight changes in our personal perspective (if we have the ability to see these facts as they indeed are) can lead one to greater understanding of the Scriptures and the people who actually wrote them -- the Hebrews. While we as mainstream Christians think we understand the Hebraic oh so well, the fact is, we really have very little understanding of Yahweh God and Messiah as the people who indeed wrote the Scriptures did.

Tradition, unfortunately, colors our perspective in ways that actually prevent us from better seeing the Character of God as revealed through the Scriptures.

After being a "Bapticostal" Christian for the better part of 40 years, I found myself beginning to look at the Scriptures from a more Hebraic perspective. Oddly enough, my church was not practicing what the Scriptures were teaching. Rather, Protestantism was more or less just Roman Catholic "Lite"; all bound up in traditions of men that had no basis whatsoever within the Scriptures. Ironically enough, Messiah criticized the orthodox leadership of His day for doing exactly what mainstream Christendom is doing today -- creating man-made traditions and holding them up as the truth of God.

I am not a member of any church at this point, although I do teach a Sabbathschool at a local Sabbathkeeping church. You would likely label me a "Judaizer" because I follow exactly what Messiah Himself and His Apostles did -- such as keeping Yahweh's Holy Festivals. As such, I have also long since abandoned the man-made pagan Roman Catholic ones.

I have written four books totaling some 2,500 pages on the differences between what passes for mainstream or orthodox Christianity and what was at one time true Apostolic Christianity as taught by Messiah and lived by the Apostles. The differences are indeed quite huge.

Too many times we as individuals and indeed Christians get so caught up in our tidy little boxes of doctrine and tradition that we fail to see that truth is actually outside of what we have been taught to see from only one (Roman Catholic or Protestant) perspective.

I thought Wikipedia was all about offering the facts of history. Sadly, this is not the case. It would appear that you, Midnite, and others like you have well sewed up these various articles and have made it your purpose in life to edit, obfuscate, spin and censor any perspective of fact that doesn't fit within your personal orthodox or mainstream religious construct.

So much for the open exchange and relaying of the facts of history ...

-SolaScriptura


 * Wow. KHM03 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Christian theology
Please look at this when you can; it could use a touch of the East. Thanks...KHM03 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality
Thought you'd be interested in this. KHM03 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links...I agree...good stuff. KHM03 12:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Clemente Domínguez y Gómez
Regarding this edit, maybe it just needs more context, but I don't even understand the sentence you added, much less the relevance. Could you perhaps explain it further? — Mi ra  04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for the laugh, but I still don't really see why that is relevant to Clemente Domínguez y Gómez. Perhaps the article on Saint Malachy's prophecies would be a better place for it. — Mi ra  05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with regards to his claim to be pope, his Wikipedia entry should remain as serious as possible. Glad this worked out. — Mi ra  05:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 01:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CEC Page
Hey, thanks for correcting my edits to the CEC page. Are you a non-member of the denomination? I'd like to be sure and get some corrections and feedback from a lot of angles so the biases cancel out. Do you agree with my decision to trash the timeline? Was it bad ettiquette?


 * Midnite Critic, The whole article has a decided negative slant to it. I have read all of the discussions concerning this article and it appears that only items that paint the Patriarch and the leadership that have remained faithful to him in a negative light are considered NPOV.  Virtually every item that sheds a positive light on the current leadership is promptly deleted by in the name of NPOV. I simply don't get it.  Why is there such a reluctance to allow any positive input on this article?
 * -Justanotheraccount

Sorry, Just, I don't see it that way, and I just now re-reviewed the article. In my perception, the article as a whole is positive. The section on "The Present Crisis" is, I think, neutral. I only wish there was MORE information forthcoming about the situation from the ICCEC itself and/or its supporters. Simply taking the position "there is no problem" is not helpful. --Midnite Critic 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting denial. It is simply obvious that there are at least 40 different versions of the "facts" concerning the "present crisis."  If all the contributors cannot figure out what the "facts" are, then it should be dropped until the TRUE FACTS sort them selves out for all the world to see.  The "present crisis" section employs what is popularly known as "SPIN" in the political/media world.  That is all that it is.  What is going on is likened to ongoing marriage problems.  Who in their right minds would want a blow by blow account of one's marriage difficulties expounded by third parties who don't know the full score?  The "present crisis" is nothing more than gossip.  It also sounds amateurish as well.
 * -Justanotheraccount

"Where there's smoke there's fire" and there is definitely smoke in that bishops, multiple bishops, are clearly dissatisfied with the leadership, and this is what is being reported. Beyond that, it is hard to ascertain the facts since the leadership is not forthcoming. So IOW, what is being reported is the presence of the smoke, while we await the finding of the fire. --Midnite Critic 20:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist
I noticed your edit summary in Eucharist. I'm getting the feeling that it is purely a Straw man (ie, look at the crazy Baptists). Please feel free to comment on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. I'd like to build a consensus rather than having a revert war on the subject. I have removed the change a second time from Independent Baptist where it is obviously irrelevant, but I'm not going to revert the other two again - I'd rather discuss than have an edit war. BigDT 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacobite / Nestorian
Midnite, I agree with you about the use of these terms in the Christianity article. However, even if it gets changed back again, I would suggest not reverting again until a consensus is reached on the talk page. This is in your best interest, and will help us avoid an edit war on the page. Pastordavid 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your proposal should work ... we'll wait and see. No, I'm not from Blair, but I do have family there.  My great-grandfather Theodore Marcus Hansen was president of both Dana College and Trinity Seminary in Blair, and I have distant cousins still in that area.  Pastordavid 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1917 Code of Canon Law in English
I have in the past looked in vain for an Internet site to refer English readers to when I quoted from the 1917 Code, and it seems there is still none. I have instead now found at the statement that, apart from translations or paraphrases given within English commentaries, there has never been an English translation until "The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law" by Dr. Edward N. Peters (Ignatius Press, 2001). Since 2001 is so recent, it seems unlikely that that translation will be made available soon for free on the Internet.

I find there is an Italian translation at and French at. Lima 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On Eucharistic Prayer III I have not found any alternative translation. I remember once seeing on the Internet an alternative translation of one of the Eucharistic Prayers, which I bookmarked for a while as a curiosity, but must have eliminated at some stage, since I cannot find it now. I suppose you know that the new translation already prepared and approved by at least some English-speaking bishops conferences will be more literal. Earlier this year, an unnamed prelate (I suspect it was Cardinal Pell) said that he was sticking to his original estimate of when the new translation would be in use (an estimate he made three years or more ago), namely, "in about two years' time"! Meanwhile, you may be interested in the following Adoremus pages, if by chance you are not already familiar with them: and in particular. Lima 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

39 Articles
What status would you suggest they have? They are printed in the BCP itself, they were adopted as the defining doctrines of Anglicanism. What adjectival modifier should one use? "Anglican-dostrine-rejecting" Anglicans?HarvardOxon 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic
Which is the point -- your changes to the "priest" article state baldly "Anglican," which is in fact by your own admission factually untrue: this is not the positon of the Anglican Church or of Anglicans in general, but by the very words of the "Anglo-Catholic" article, is the poasition of a PART of a group which is itself a small minority within the Anglican Church. It would be just as false to say that the Catholic Church "permits the ordination of women," becausr you have organizations which identify themselves as Catholic who engage in such practices.HarvardOxon 22:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If the 39 articles are therefore menaingless...if they do not contain Anglican theology, if they are in no way normative, and one can remain an Anglican while rejecting some rather specific, emphatic passages in them, why are they printed in the BCP? I'm not as ignorant of Anglicanism as you seem to think, and I never said it was monochromatic -- I wasn't the one who stated in the article that "Anglicans" -- which means "all anglicans" when it stands alone -- hold for a Council of Trent theology of the sacrificial Eucharist and the sacramental priesthood.HarvardOxon 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So because a Catholic blogger tells you that the Articles have never made any sense, you have decided they are no longer normative to Anglicanism? Then respond to the question I, and he, have continually asked: what then is the definition of "Anglican," and what is the theological basis for it? That is, beyond, "we don't need no stinkin' Pope," why would not an Anglo-Catholic of your stripe (and in my experience, Anglo-Catholics themselves are not as "monochromatic" as you paint them), not simply either become RC or Greek O? Further, if one rejects the Articles and adheres to your line of thinking, one must be prepared to hold both that Anglican orders were invalid at least into the 1800s and that the validity of modern orders and sacraments depends on a nexus of both the apostolicity of the ordaining bishop and the mind and attitudes of the ordinand, and one must concede that most Anglicans always were, and are, in heresy.HarvardOxon 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for the heads up about Litany and Liturgy. It was either really early or really late when I typed that and after a while all "L" words start looking alike.... And that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. =o)     Reverend Mommy 12:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

agreement
about the inclusion more rites in that list of mine. I'm more aware of how the Western rites fit into the scheme of things and not so aware of how the Eastern rites do. In fact, I would love to know more about the Eastern church, especially about how soteriology is view, Christology and so on. I'd love to know more. I do know that during the debates of how to rework the current Methodist liturgies, the authors were deliberate in trying to balance Western and Eastern thought. Most of the current trends in Arminianism seem to reflect more of the Ancient Eastern ways of thinking. After all, IMHO, Christianity was at it's roots a Eastern Religion. I would love to know more about your journey from Nazarene to Eastern thought.... I've journeyed from extreme Calvinism to Wesleyan thought -- and that was a huge journey.... Reverend Mommy 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Corapi
The link seemed to work for me Does this change your edit? Mccready (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Response
I have not had an opportunity just yet, but probably tomorrow I will look at the article you referred me to. Pastordavid (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ACCinA
Thanks for showing confidence in me. I have had an occasional look at the article you referred me to. It seems to have settled down and, I think, requires no further attention on my part. With best wishes. Lima (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...
Say, have you ever heard of this site...

http://christianforums.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.252.163 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)