User talk:The DataRat

Just let you know again: Reformed Soteriology doesn't read like a real encyclopedia. Reads more like a religious tract. I can assure that someone is going to go through this and put in big changes and, quite possibly, just delete this article. WpZurp 03:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for your anti-Christian bias. Unfortunately this prejudice is all too common.

Reading "like a real encyclopedia" doesn't mean a secular-humanist skepticism.

The article shall present Reformed Theology from the perspective of Reformed Theology, and NOT the condescending false-'objectivity' of those who hate religion.

As for your threat ...fully expect you or another bigot to tamper with the page.

DR


 * Ok, I'm not making myself clear. There are plenty of articles that present much information about religion and these articles are quite excellent. And this article also has some good information also. However, this article is not using full sentences. Here, let me quote an example:


 * Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone as proclaimed by Scripture alone.


 * Where is the verb in this sentence? The "proclaimed" verb is part of a phrase; so, as a whole, this line isn't a sentence but only a part of a sentence.  Also, why are all the words capitalized?  "Christ" should be capitalized.  Plus, what are all these "br" tags that have been embedded all over the article?


 * Ok, so what would be an encyclopedic line? Let's try this:


 * One doctrine states that salvation cannot be achieved by grace alone but, instead, only through faith in Christ as proclaimed by scripture.


 * I'm just making a suggestion here and I don't really want to change the article because I'm sure the original author can do a better job.


 * Anyway, see the difference? The first line is from a sermon or religious tract.  (I've read some religious phamphlets so I know whan I'm talking about.)  This article reads in a really weird way and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  My suggested change gets across all the information of the first line but reads like something from an encyclopedia.


 * If you want parts of the article want to capture the "flavor" of some religious phamphlet, that's fine ... but those lines should be quoted to distinguish them from the main body of the article.


 * Now someone has gone to a lot of hard work to make this article. I would not like to see this work get wasted.  Even though I personally am not a believer, I do appreciate reading about the beliefs of all religions because I want to understand the world that I live in.  I do appreciate the effort being put in to make this article.


 * But ... others will take a quick look at this article and will either take a meat cleaver to it or ... just delete the article all together. Do you think I control every other Wikipedian out there?  Far from making any kind of threat, I am trying to protect the work being done here.  By the way, Christian Wikipedians would tell you the same thing.


 * Finally, after going through this effort, I am a bit peeved at being accused of having an anti-Christian bias. Indeed, I don't believe that you read my original comments in a proper Christian frame of mind.  You have chosen to assume my protective comments as a threat.  Anyway, even though I'm not personally a Christian, I have met Christians whom I do respect; I now follow their example by patiently explaining myself as they would.  Following their example, I will assume that you were a bit hasty in assigning negative motives to my comments.


 * Wikipedia is a cooperative effort and it's I've found that many Christians find this venture fits their beliefs quite well. Indeed, many Christians are responsible for setting up the style of Wikipedia; you and I must follow their guidelines if we want our edits to be incorporated into Wikipedia


 * One more thing: I urge you to read NPOV which says "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". Wikipedians, including Christian Wikipedians, stand by NPOV and even Christian Wikipedians will change your work to be NPOV.


 * WpZurp 15:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Where is the verb in this sentence?"

It's formula. Where's the verb in E = MC2 ?


 * The verb is "equals", or "is equal to", if you read the formula orally. David.Monniaux 16:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Let's try this: One doctrine states that salvation"

Let's not relativize the article. It's about what Reformed Soteriology holds to ...NOT a Post-Modern statement that all religions are the same except for the details !

"Wikipedians, including Christian Wikipedians, stand by NPOV and even Christian Wikipedians will change your work to be NPOV"

While providing these theological articles it was understood that people here feel free to destroy them. Have taken precautions to restore the articles as necessary.

DR

Please include only facts in Wikipedia articles. Public domain source texts should be moved to Wikisource. --Hemanshu 16:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Public domain source texts should be moved to Wikisource"

The entirety of the article is original material by this contributor.

DR

It doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. --Hemanshu 16:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * DR &mdash; you need to read the policy of NPOV; we cannot "present Reformed Theology from the perspective of Reformed Theology". I'm a Christian, so be assured that I have no anti-Christian bias. &mdash; Matt 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why did you delete my last comment ?

DR


 * I'm not aware that anyone did, not looking at the "History" of this page. Also, you might like to sign your comments using four "tildes" like this: ~ . &mdash; Matt 16:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)