User talk:Homestarmy/Archive 1

Archive 1, Jyllands posten fun, lots n lots of Christianity stuff, and so on and so forth.

Your reason

Says who, the reason their offended was reportedly from something not even supposedly from God anyway - what is that supposed to mean? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that might of been a bit unclear, what I meant was that it is not a PoV violation to show the picture because many Muslims probably don't even agree it is blashpmey, when I read that apo-whatever article about that Blashphemy law, I saw something about how the rule was quoted out of something that top Islamic cleric type people wrote up about 200 years I think about the Qu'ran was compiled, so technically, it shouldn't even be considered divinely inspired anyway, and thusly shouldn't technically be such a huge issue for Islamics. I think they even asked for someone to bring a quote from the Qu'ran, but I don't remember anyone finding anything. Plus, we reached consensus to keep the picture up, so either way, that picture deletion would of been reverted.

Not all arabics are Islam, therefore, it can't be racist. I understand how much you don't want people insulting Islam, but this is an encyclopedia article, we're only reporting the "insults" - I couldn't tell whether you were misinformed or whether you just made a mistake, but I wanted to point out that Arabic is a language, while Arab describes the people who speak Arabic. joturner 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know that, but I guess I do now, thanks :) Homestarmy 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed every time I see on the news that hundreds of thousands of children in the african city of Nairobe are starving, are riddled with worms, and are succumbing fast to AIDS. Yet do I turn the television channel to piece of garbage shows like Will and Grace, or Friends, or any of that other nonsense, and just drown everything out? No, I acknowladge the existance of evil in this world, and show empathy for it, rather than just ignore it. To not help show those pictures and report on them is first a violation of Wikipedia policy, and secondly and more importantly, deceptive, since I would be deliberatly hiding the truth for deceptive purposes I.E. a possible violation of the 9th commandement and definently opposed to several later letters in the New Testiment which order us not to use deception. By ignoring what is going on, I show hatred for all those who want the truth, and further hatred by indirectly acknowladging that I consider Islam as a religious idea acceptable. I do not care if it is an insult to Islam either, I am not Islamic, and I am too much of a Christian to harbor any illusions or ridiculous liberal interpretations of the Bible to say that Islam will save anyone or anything. I will not deny Christ's words, no matter how much Islam wishes to pervert them and discredit them, as Christ has directly and distinctly commanded that we affirm what He did for us and said to us. when Christ says He is the way to life, Islam is cut out of that definition immedietly due to its denial of who Christ really is, so I cannot in good conscience care for Islam at all, much less whatever blashphemy laws that are contained therein; if it's not in the Bible, it is not relevant. I care about Islamics, which is different than caring for Islam, in a way that I know it is wrong and "must" be opposed, not in a spirit of hate, but of love. And im afraid love hurts sometimes, especially when it is opposed to pride, which appears to be the main impetus for Islamic anger, namely pride in their prophet. The Bible is quite clear pride is unacceptable, and in fact, is often the reason why Evangelism can be so difficult, or just plain speaking the truth at all to those who do not know Christ, as they often hate it for no reason. And as i've pointed out earlier, hiding the truth is not love, it is hate to those you hide the truth from, plain and simple, no matter how much ignorance is considered bliss, it can never last. Sometimes doing nothing is the most hateful option of all in this world. Also, I cannot respect Islamic law in a single degree as I cannot put up Islam's law's on the same scale as Christ's love and actually call myself a believer in any sense of honesty whatsoever, or someone who is saved for that matter.

Furthermore, "rape" is a very interesting word to use here, very interesting indeed. As I understand it, before the U.S. took the Taliban out of power, any woman who was caught out on the street without the proper 500 pound outfit could legally be gang raped by any men who walked by? As I understand this, it is a principle component of more radical Shariah law? Posting images of Muhammad in Charicature is certainly not rape of the mind on an Islamic scale therefore, and the Bible tells us that whosoever lusts after a woman is guilty of adultery of the heart, not whosoever looks at the picture of any person, such as assumption is not even close to Biblical, and from what i've seen of what's in the Qu'ran, not based on that as well. And finally, the Bible tells us that we are slaves to Christ, not to Islam. Therefore, I will not obey Islam's edicts, creeds, policies, etc. etc., so that I may fully practice having a spirit of slavery to Christ, who is the perfect master. And I will not succumb to deception and cowardice, and will not let it influence how Jesus commands us to stand up for the truth, and I will not recognize Islam's authority out of a spirit of hatred for the real truth, the truth that only through the Son will any recieve eternal life, and nothing else. I assure you I am not stretching Biblical interpretation either. I hope i've made myself quite clear, I do admittedly have a problem with occasionaly getting off-topic in long essays like this. If you have any questions, feel free to reply, the printed word is often bad at showing the real emotions of the user on the other side of the internet, so we might be able to have a productive conversation here if you want. Homestarmy 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

and now for a break

Don't let the fundies get to you.

STOP! Hammertime!

Swatjester 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) I don't know what that means, but im a fundie too, just not Islamic :D. Homestarmy 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh.....you don't know MC Hammer?

Well now I do heh, Wikipedia sure is good for that kind of thing :D. Homestarmy 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Defending Anno Domini

I strongly agree with you concerning the continuation of the use of AD/BC at Wikipedia. I am just writing this comment to assure you that I will back you up on all your edits regarding this, and I hope we can work together in defending the 2,000 year old system and its usage. User:Robsteadman is convinced beyond a doubt that all reference to AD or BC should be replaced with the discriminating common era system, which is the exact same as anno Domini except it removed reference to why the system even exists and to whom it is based on, Jesus. I hope you and I and other users can work together to continually revert his nonsense edits regarding this matter. Thank you. Darwiner111 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, but the funny thing of it is, reading the CE article, CE was first invented by Christians to represent "Christian era". If Rob replaces BC or AD again, we can put that in parenthesis next to it and see what he thinks :D. What I'd like to do is get this back to Featured article status, if this gets back to the main page, maybe some people who have never heard about Christianity might do a little reaserch on their own, and perhaps be saved, now THAT'S effective use of Wikipedia :D. Homestarmy 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

I completely agree. I also forgot to mention that you should vote in favor of AD here, where they're voting on which system to use on the Historicity of Jesus page. The vote is currently 2-2 for AD and CE. I hope our similar views will ensure we work together to stop pro-politically correct POV edits on Wikipedia, keeping the NPOV policy intact. Darwiner111 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Might need your help here. In order for me to avoid 3RR on the Jesus page I'll need your assistance reverting Robsteadman's vandalisms, thanks. Darwiner111 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Ok, it's just every 12 hours or so I go to sleep for awhile heh :). Homestarmy 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your edit about the birthdate of Jesus at the top of the page. Since it is traditionally believed for Jesus to have been born 25 December 1 BC (Dionysius Exiguus' believed intent) and then to have died at age 33 on 3 April 34 AD, maybe we should put those dates at the beginning since it is scientists that predicted 4 BC as a rough estimate (other scientists say 8 BC), but the original and traditional intent was 1 BC. — Not to mention, saying that Jesus was born circa 4 BC also just looks stupid and presents a good reason why to replace BC with BCE (because we're saying Jesus Christ was born 4 years before Christ). What do you think? Darwiner111 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem, quite frankly, is that the December 25th date was created by the Catholic church, probably with good intentions, but they probably didn't have any idea of the birthdate themselves. Part of it was because they wanted a nice holiday to remind people of what Jesus did, and partly to counter-act the pagan Winterfest of the day. The Bible doesn't tell us anything about Christ's date of birth specifically, but one thing that's most likely is that it probably wasn't in December, as then there wouldn't be any Wise Men out in the fields in the dead of winter, Israel gets cold -___-. The death of Herod apparently is a date people like to use as a stop-date since Jesus would have to of been born before Herod's death, but at any rate, the exact value doesn't really carry amazing importance, an approximation of mostly accepted dates should be good to keep things simple for the intro. If we make the first sentence too long over dates, it's gonna get a bit slow, and then it'll look kinda weird. We could put in a footnote somewhere explaining the date controversy more, but isn't that already explained? Homestarmy 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and wasn't really suggesting we include the specific dates of 25 December and 3 April, but that maybe we rewrite from (circa 4 BC/BCE – 30 AD/CE) to something like (circa 1 BC/BCE – 33 AD/CE), basically because nobody, even scientists (their estimates range widely), can be sure as to when exactly Jesus' birth actually was therefore it would be reasonable to assume a circa date of 1 BC given that Exiguus apparently assigned that date as Jesus' birth (it was either 1 BC or 1 AD). However, I also would agree with a (8–4 BC) concept for the birth, but really it's not a big issue I'm just throwing around ideas. Darwiner111 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To weigh in on this, Dionysius took the year of Herod's death as the starting point of AD. This year was given in relation to the reign of Augustus, but Dionysius forgot to reckon the period 31-27 BC into this Emperor's reign, and hence arrived at what we call today 1 AD as Herod's death year. BTW, Dionysius never wanted to set up a new calender era for universal usage - he just wanted to avoid using the old Diocletian era when setting up tables giving the Easter dates for various years (and hence his error was of no great importance to him). AD was only adopted into historiography by Bede and into actual diplomatic usage by Charlemagne.

Whether 25 December actually was considered to be Jesus' actual birthday is quite doubtful. It was chosen as the day to celebrate this because of its astronomical symbolism (solistice).

Str1977 11:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

His mistake was fo

Sorry to butt in on this conversation but the fact is that many historians and historical organisations have been using BCE/ACE for decades - they used it when I was studying history at University 10 years ago. For Wikipedia to change back to AD/BC, there would first have to be a change in the study of history at university level world-wide.

I'm an evangelical Christian... but I don't think that AD/BC is a fight that needs to be fought with the world. --One Salient Oversight 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

I have a suggestion. Click "Show preview" before you save your edits. This way you will be able to see the fact that you have missed your signature at the end of your comments, and it saves you time. Just a suggestion. Thanks! Deskana (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just my internet gets slow sometimes and previewing stuff takes a couple seconds, but thanks for the tip! Homestarmy 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

No, Homestarmy, I was not aware of that. This happened due to a glitch. However, it is better to post such messages to the user's talk page, as this way he will be notified of the problem, even if he doesn't come back to the article talk in question. Cheers, Str1977 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, ok, :/. It's just the convo between me and rob was seriously messed up was all. Homestarmy 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Homestarmy, I'm going to try to get a consensus statement so that we can get a paragraph that would withstand any exam by an admin, allow us to simply revert with a see talk and move one. If we get enough users on board, we can be done with this and move on. --CTSWyneken 14:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough, semantics can wait anyway heh. Homestarmy 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting Help

Thank you for all the help you've given me in the recent past, I am asking for it again if you don't mind. I recently suggested that Common Era article be merged with Anno Domini due to its minor significance outside Wikipedia as an independant era. If you agree with me I encourage your vote here. Thanks alot, Darwiner111 01:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Hochtief AG

Hey, I noticed you promoted my article to WP:GOOD - thanks, whoever you are! :) I don't think it's ready to for a nom at WP:FAC yet, though thanks for your compliment in the edit history! It could probably do with more detailed financial information. And some of the redlinks desperately need fixing, there are really comprehensive articles on the German WP but it'll take a while to get them translated. In the mean time, I'm letting it go through WP:Peer Review, hopefully that will throw up some stuff that will help get it up to FA. For an article only a couple of days old I would say it's doing pretty well! I'll let you know as and when it reaches FA nomination, I expect it'll be a self-nom. TheGrappler 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All I know is, just looking at some of it, it certainly looked cited enough, neat enough, wiki-linked enough, it had pretty pictures, and had history, it seemed really nice to me :/. Homestarmy 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment...

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I not tell them on the Comment page that it would only be a matter of time before the Jesus editors took Rob to ArbCom? Why is it that only two of three (like you) even listened to me the first time, and the rest seem blatently surprised that Rob is still trolling the page? Just shoot me now. =P --Avery W. Krouse 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article

Were you alluding to my edits, Sir? Эйрон Кинни 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even see yours, I meant Hadriks, we spent forever gaining consensus on the exact wording of that paragraph and personally I don't see anything really bad about his edits, but I think it's very likely somebody else will revert them. Homestarmy 06:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, you had me worried, lol. Thanks for the peace of mind. Эйрон Кинни 07:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, could I ask you a favor? Do not engage Rob's repeated arguments. Let him blow off steam, if he wishes. Just engage new points and new arguments. It'll save a lot of time. Since we have enough editors to revert him, to quote Luther: "howl fierce as he will, he can harm us none." --CTSWyneken 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok :/. It's just i've been waiting to use that argument about Evolution for so long, if the people there can pound consensus, why can't we pound consensus here for our side? The two situations are diametrically opposed yet united by apretty much the same cademic standards. Homestarmy 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I feel that theistic evolution is a good synthesis. Acknowledging that scientific knowledge is subject to review, but God is forever. Also acknowledging that the wisdom of God is the foolishness of men. Arch O. La 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC) PS: You'll notice that Rob agreed with my "teach the controversy" remark. Ironic?Arch O. La 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: "Truth cannot contradict truth"--Pope John Paul II. That said, we know which kind of Truth is superior, so we can step back and let others debate the other kind of truth. Arch O. La 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But if we step out too long, who's to say people will find the truth, and the meanwhile, will have gained almost ultimate consensus for a lie? Homestarmy 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a dilemma. But, I leave it up to this guy, this guy and this other guy. The rest of us have our limitations. Arch O. La 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

and this guy told us with this commision to lend a hand so to speak :D. Homestarmy 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Well, you do what what the Holy Spirit compells you to do--just do no more than the Spirit compells you. To do God's will is good. To go further is pride, and a trap set for the unweary. Remember Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Sheep should be careful. Wisdom will help you to avoid traps. And we need to remain innocent, or our lack of innocence will be used against us in the court of public opinion. I give you the same advice that KHM03 gave me: step carefully..Arch O. La 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, im using The Way of the Master, [|1] [|2]! Homestarmy 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with some of the theology behind Left Behind, but I will not debate that with you here. (It's a specific theory of the Rapture that conflicts with my own Lutheran theory, but, I leave it up to God). I'm just saying that there is wisdom in considering how others see you. I look back to Matthew 10: preach to those who will listen, but if they prove hostile, just shake the dust off of your feet and move on. To put it another way: don't feed the trolls. No matter how fiercly they howl.Arch O. La 17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Left Behinds a nice movie, but I won't say that it's Biblically accurate, because it apparently isn't :/. that page just advertises it, not says that it's absolutly useful heh. Homestarmy 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The movie was alright, but I liked the books better. Arch O. La 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'll calm my crazy ass down and go looking for a link. 132.241.245.49 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

my bad

I saw that Bearcat had aproved of it so I though it was a different source.

Well to be honest I have a bone to pick

With the asshole kook author of left behind for his scaring old people.

Jesus article

It is ironic that our Jesus article is more developed than the Theopedia article, considering how many here do not believe. All you and I can do is keep the faith. Or, as CTSWynekan put it, We -- will -- not -- be -- ASSIMILATED! Arch O. La 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Well, if we can stop this annoying edit war over the second paragraph and figure out a way to stop everything from being a big old consensus vote to go 2 inches or something down the page, then maybe we can get this article in front page view, where anyone who sees it might wonder "Hmm, I notice there seems to be a bit of controversy over this fellow, I wonder what these "gospels" have to say that's so interesting....." :D. Homestarmy 00:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Arch O. La 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We can move along if we follow the pattern of:

1 -- not even answering repeated arguments by the same people. We all take the bait too easily. 2 -- when consensus has been achieved, enforce it. If there's something new that would change the consensus, they certainly can try to convince us on talk pages. I'm optimistic because the CTSWyneken gambit has at least four players, totalling 8 reverts a day without getting even close to 3 RR. As long as we are reasonable, there will be stability. 3 -- Which is why we ourselves need to obey our own agreement. While I do like the Alito Barnstar, I do not need a collection of 'em! 8-)

Bob --CTSWyneken 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen again. Arch O. La 20:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

December 25

Hmmm... another fight! 8-) I'm not sure if I'm up to a new fight at the moment, but maybe I'll go by, drop a bomb and run! 8-)

I actually wrote an article on Jesus and Dec. 25th, but it won't appear until *rats* December! I'd love to quote myself. Bob --CTSWyneken 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably against the rules, but I'd love to try it! 8-) Or just let you all quote me. 8-) --CTSWyneken 16:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hysterical

For saying "Oh snap", [1] I hereby award Homestarmy this Surreal Barnstar for cracking me up when I was having a rough day. Gator (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even realize why like half the article was missing when I clicked submit at first, I commented the whole thing out :D Homestarmy 19:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Judaism/Christianity/Jesus article

In your summary for a recent edit on the Jesus article, you said this: Considering Christianity has Judaism as it's foundation, it can only be people's viewpoints that Jesus was not God, rather than the Bible. followed by I mean it can't be Judaism that specifically says Christ isn't God, because Judaism is contained fully in the Bible and therefore Christianity. Your edit was to a paragraph talking about Judaism's view on Jesus being the Messiah or not. I'm not seeing how your edit summary matches with that edit. Are you saying there that if people say Jesus was not God, then it's just their viewpoint and not what the Bible says? There are many who would disagree to that. Judaism originates from the Bible as Christianity does (a portion of the Bible, clearly), and so because some say the Bible supports Jesus being God, that means Judaism supports Jesus being God? This is your claim? --Oscillate 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, it was unclear at first, that's why I went and found a grammer mistake so i'd have an excuse to try and clarify it. What im trying to say is that you can't say that Christianity was intentionally created out of deception, the current wording made it seem like it was an absolute truth that Jesus did not fulfill scripture, rather than what just some Jews believe. The New Testiment defends itself in numerous places in the gospels to prove that Jesus was fulfilling all of those prophecies that the OT predicted, I mean it directly cited them, im not saying that therefore no Jew can believe that Jesus wasn't God, im saying that we can't put in there "Because Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies" when it's only what many Jews seem to believe. They can disagree with Jesus's word, but regardless, it is what they believe on the subject, and not absolute truth, and the article should reflect that. The Bible definently supports that Jesus was God, but if much of modern day Judaism believes that it does not, it should be clear that it is what much of Judaism believes, not that it is absolute fact that Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies. Sorry if that was unclear, it's just I couldn't write an essay in the edit summary :/. Homestarmy 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I strongly disagree on the Bible supporting Jesus being God and was wondering where you were going with your edits and summaries. Thanks. --Oscillate 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you disagree? :/ Homestarmy 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, my reason and source is the Bible. But that's all another discussion entirely, I was just wanting to clear up what your meaning was in those edit summaries. --Oscillate 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I like discussions :). Besides, it's my sacred duty to answer objections.....literally :/. Homestarmy 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, remember Ecclesiastes 3: everything in its season. Remember, the section starts, "According to Judaism...," so it's factually accurate. It says nothing about whether or not Judaism is correct (that takes faith). Also, the differences between Judaism and Christianity are complex and it helps to study the differences. Here's a good place to start: Why Jews don't believe in Jesus. Arch O. La

But if Judaism is not correct, then the OT is a lie, and Jesus could not of existed because there could be no God in the first place. Judaism isn't just the consensus of the people known collectively as "Jews", it's the Old Testiment, a Christian can't just ignore that section because it is a part of Christianity in addition to being the sum total of Judaism. This part of the article hasn't been like this forever, it just got changed today by Haldrik, that's how this all began, it was fine before because it said the "Jewish" opinion, which refers to the people of the religion of Judaism, but now it says "Judaism", which isn't just the people, but the actual religion, which includes the message of the Old Testiment, which is what Jesus's Christ-hood depends on. Homestarmy 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is their interpretation of the Old Testament, which is a different interpretation from ours. For example, that passage from Isaiah that you alluded to, Chrisitians take as a prophecy of the Messiah and thus Jesus Christ, while Judaism the religion takes it as a prophecy of the people of Israel (i.e., Jews). But, I'm not going to argue the other side. Take it up with your local Rabbi (most Rabbis I have met enjoy a good debate), and if you can win him over, you can certainly do the same for Wikipedia ;) But I don't want to be caught in the middle between Judaism and Christianity, because I am Christian. Hence, I withdraw. Arch O. La 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But here's the kicker, the articles doesn't say that it is Judaism looking at the OT through a different viewpoint, it simply says that Judaism states that Christianity is wrong. It doesn't define the terms, how are we supposed to guess it is the common, Jewish interpreation of the Old Testiment, rather than the real one? I don't see how someone reading the article from a perspective that hasn't been in this debate is going to pick up on that. Homestarmy 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, most Jews take it as "the real one." For one thing, the passage in Isaiah does not use the word "Messiah," it uses the phrase "Suffering Servant." Homes, you're preaching to the choir. I myself had to deal with this a while back. Even sticking to the Old and New Testements, and verses Christians and Jews agree refers to the Messiah, here's a summary of the arguments: Jews: Jesus did not fulfill prophecies a, b and c, therefore he is not the Messiah. Christians: Jesus will fulfill those prophecies at the Second Coming. Jews: The Messiah will only come once. There is no Second Coming. Christians: You say that because you don't believe the New Testament, where the Second Coming is directly mentioned.

So, yes, Jews say that Christianity is wrong about the Messiah, because they don't have the New Testament. Do you see where the problem lies now? What it all comes down to is that there are Old Testement prophecies that point to the future, and Christians interpret these prophecies through the New Testament. Jews don't have the New Testament, so they interpret their own Testament differently. Then you get into the whole matter of the Talmud and all that. I would say that Jews do have the correct interpretation of the Tanakh, but lack the New Testament, hence they don't acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. Arch O. La 02:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What you say is almost exactly what the article said before. I thought it was pretty good before. It was changed so that it may mean, by some definitions apparently, to be what you say, but now it is much more open ended, so that it can very easily mean to people like me what im saying it means. As far as I know, there wasn't even any debate on changing that word, Haldrik just came in and changed the whole thing, I tried NPOVing it, nearly blanked half the article because I didn't know how to close comment tags, and then Haldrik or someone else I think changed it back to "Judaism says". If it is the commonly held view of Judaism among Jews, it should say "By the commonly held view among Jews, Judaism says...." I am not denying that we should put their POV in their section. I am fully accepting of their POV being represented in this section, as it is important background information and helps give a bit of understand of the relationship between Jews and Jesus. But when it is "Judaism" that inherintly includes the Old Testiment. Without the Old Testiment, Jesus could not of fulfilled the law, as there wouldn't of been a law. The New Testiment did not cause us to start looking at the Old Testiment through a radically different filter, it didn't turn into one big open-ended metaphor, it means what it means, Jesus said not the least stroke of the pen would drop out of the Law, and never said that the Law ever changed it's meaning. If the Jewish people as a near-whole interpret the OT to mean "Jesus was not the messiah" then the article should say "modern Judaism generally interprets the OT and prophecies concerning Jesus in a way that they believe....", I see absolutly no reason why the article would suffer so badly through a bit more clarity. If the mass consensus of Jews could suddenly change the definition of their religion, that's like saying the mass consensus of Christians can change Christianity to mean "it was a dark and stormy night....RAINING WITH THE BLOOD OF INFIDELS AND THE HEARTS OF SINNERS!", and that would be ridiculous. If most Jews believe that Judaism inherintly means that Jesus was not the Messiah, then we should note that most Jews believe Judaism inherintly means that Jesus was not the Messiah. Yet, the article does no such thing, and merely says "Judaism says...". Either way you take it, it's too open ended, and my fundamentalist alarms are blaring a defcon 5 emergency alert over this section of the article :/. Homestarmy 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, from his edit history Haldrik knows quite a bit of Judaism, and is likely a Jew. I like to let Jews tell us what Judaism says, and we Christians tell what Christianity says. ;) I think you're reading more into the change than is there. For a Christian, Judaism is like the first three chapters of a five chapter book. Ever see the story take a turn at the end? The Talmud and Mishnah and all that complicate things further, not to mention the Nicene Creed and the Church Fathers. Frankly, Rabbi Singer makes a pretty good case for what Judaism says (although I don't agree with him because I do believe the New Testament. But he has read and critiqued the New Testament).

Judaism has not been invalidated, and neither has Christianity. From a Christian perspective, though, Judaism is incomplete because it doesn't recognize Jesus as Christ. That's all that it comes down to. Arch O. La 03:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But if it's down to what the Jews say Judaism is, then the article can at least spare the trouble of adding a couple words to the effect of "Judaism, according to Jewish consensus, says...." or the like, the Old Testiment does not literally say Jesus is not the Messiah, this idea has to come from people's personal interpretations.....or if they've got a copy that just striked out the Isaiah prophecy, then the idea has to come through the oppresion of Judaism by the publishers or whoever ordered that verse deleted. And even if people argued the Old Testiment did literally say this, all we have to do is put in "Judaism, based on the interpretations of the Jewish people, believe the literal meaning of the Talmud/Torah/OT/whatever they call it indicates that Jesus was not the Messiah." What is the big problem with a little clarity here? If Judaism is such a huge abstract definition, terms need to be defined. Even Christianity nowadays is considered more abstract because people on the outside are sometimes to accept anyone who calls themself a Christian as being a Christian. Terms need defining there between trinitarians, nontrinitarians, oneness pentecostals, etc. etc., why not here? It wouldn't take but a couple more words to clarify this. Homestarmy 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one word: change the link from Messiah to Jewish Messiah. Arch O. La 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But look at that article, it says there is a great amount of debate within Judaism about the qualities or something of the Jewish Messiah, we still have to define things further. Homestarmy 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, there are disagreements within Judaism about what the Messiah is, and this of course differs from Christianity because Jews do not have the New Testament. There are also debates within Christianity whether God is a Trinity. I suggested the Nicene Compromise in paragraph 3 because there was some dispute among Christians about whether that should be included. After that, the only serious challenge from a non-Christian came from Jim Wae, who asked if God had two hands and a face ;)

So there was disagreement between Christians about whether to include the Trinity, but there were finer points of theology that did not make it into the paragraph. There are Jewish people editing the article who see no need to include different interpretations of "Messiah." It is enough for them to provide a link to "Jewish views of Jesus" and (perhaps) Jewish Messiah. The Jewish people are satisfied with the way the section reads, which after all is meant to be a summary to point to another article. Judaism simply says that Jesus did not meet the requirements for the Jewish Messiah, which leaves room for the Christian response I gave above about the Second Coming (there are other responses). The implications have been debated among Jews and Christians alike. Some Jews have indeed argued that Christianity is a lie, which is what you and I take offense at. But that's not the only implication, nor is it strictly what Judaism says, hence Jews debate whether Jesus was false Messiah or false Prophet, or even an observant Jew. Some even say that he was a Pharisee. The Jewish view of Jesus is broad enough to cover all of these, because it simply says that Jesus did not meet the requirements for the Messiah during the first century.

Remember when Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I am?" Well, Judaism has one set of responses, and Christianity another. Arch O. La 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Arch O. La 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But only because people made that response for Judaism, Judaism did not have the knowladge beforehand to say "This Jesus guy wasn't God." It doesn't matter whether they had the standards or not and intended to royally hate on them until they only meant what they wanted them to mean, they didn't know who Jesus was, Judaism did not reveal Jesus's name, therefore, Judaism couldn't try to assert before the fact that Jesus wasn't God, whether the definition is based off of Judaism or the consensus of people's views of Judaism. Homestarmy 04:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but once Jesus became incarnate and began his ministry, Judaism had to consider the question: see Matthew 16. Sometimes I wondered whatever happened to those other first century people. ;) Arch O. La 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See, there's the key, "Once Jesus became incarnate...." Not "Judaism has always maintained as a religion that...", there's a clear difference between what we're saying and what Judaism (Or whatever definition of Judaism this article is using) has supposedly always said. Homestarmy 04:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said "always"? They could only maintain anything about Jesus once he became incarnate. They judged whether he was the Messiah, and the distinction arose in Matthew 16. I have the feeling that you're fighting against 2000 years of history. Well, good luck. Arch O. La 05:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking it back to Matthew 16 helps to clarify the difference between Judaism and Christianity. I can tell you are eager, but proceed with caution. I am a Lutheran so I know what kind of trouble Martin Luther ran into when he tried to evangelize to the Jews.]] Arch O. La 07:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is, when I was fixing Haldrik's entry because he added a bunch of stuff about the Nicene council, I put in there when it said "Judaism", "Most Jews" instead. He changed it back to "Judaism". This indicates to me the definition of the word in that position no longer means "Most Jews". Concievably, it could also no longer even mean "All Jews". It no longer has anything to do with people's consensus, it has everything to do with the concept of Judaism. The concept of Judaism does not inherintly imply a change of concept when Jesus was born, and if it does, then why can't the article spare a few words to clear up that point? Because of Haldrik's change and what it means when he reverted what I said, the word "Judaism" there no longer means what I think you think it means. Christianity depends almost 100 percent on Judaism, because Judaism is essentialy the Old Testiment and everything based off of it. There is no literal word in the Old Testiment that says "Jesus is not the messsiah". It requires the interpretation of people. Judaism is not merely what people interpret it to be, if that's how religion worked, can't we just go to the Christianity article and delete all mention of Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, scientologists, and whatever we want? Homestarmy 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And Lutherans and Catholics and Baptists and Pentecostals, etc? --Oscillate 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, most of the differences between those are all in the things that the Bible says we can have different views on, such as the "One person considers one day more than the other, one that all are like, let each person be convinced in their own mind" sort of thing, and even when there are big differences, (Supposedly, Roman Catholicism really gets different when you cross the atlantic) that's not the point im trying to raise here. Im trying to propose a way to say this in the article the way we all want it to be said apparently, that most, if not all, Jews believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, or that Judaism, as defined by most Jews in modern times, does not consider Jesus to be the messiah. Without the personal actions of the Jews, Judaism would not say that Jesus is not the Messiah. The people have to be mentioned, simply saying Judaism doesn't do it, what is so bad about changing words around so it is more clear on this point? Why must we assume the reader knows exactly what Judaism means when just 3 or 4 more words or something can clear that up? Homestarmy 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There are much larger issues that are not conscience matters, though, and many would say those religions I listed above are viewing things from their own interpretations. I'm just replying to your comment about removing others from the Christianity article. --Oscillate 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

oh :/. Homestarmy 18:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the Nicene Council mentioned in the section on Judaism's views, but it does raise a point. Prior to the Nicene Council, there were all these paleochristianities running around that competed with each other. This is even in the New Testement--Paul kept writing letters to all these other churches to debate these other paleochristianities. After the council there was one true Christianity and all the rest were heresies (as the Church says). Guided by the Holy Spirit, but not everyone has the Holy Spirit so they don't see that.

Take the Ebionites. They followed Jesus in his lifetime, but were not what we call Christian. I dare say that Judaism would agree more with the Ebionites than modern Christianity. So Judaism debates Paul and debates the later Nicene Council. Christianity has also debated later Judaism developments. As I said, you have 2000 years of history to contend with. Arch O. La 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore, there's good citations in there now, even though it's a bit ambiguous still to start with the section clears up who is saying what and where Judaism is coming from and who and what made this Judaic law and...bleh, that's a mouthful, but the point is, even though I get the feeling nobody really understood what I was saying from start to finish, it looks fairly good now to me. Homestarmy 18:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether or not I understood your point, I just thought that you were opening up a can of worms. Or perhaps a diet of worms ;) Arch O. La 19:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh that's bad dude. Ugly. Very ugly. LOL.Gator (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, im supposed to be Lutheran, but I never signed any forms :/. At least, im pretty sure I didn't.... Homestarmy 19:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am a genetic Lutheran, so for me it's as much a matter of family idenity as it is of religion. I didn't mean to fight you; I was just urging moderation. To quote God's last prophet, "It's all Christianity, people!" Arch O. La 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

-________- Homestarmy 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Drawing a blank? I was just saying "Let's not fight" by aluding to an episode of the Simpsons. Arch O. La 20:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you seemed to be relating Christianity to the Simpsons :/. Homestarmy 20:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. The point is that whether you believe in this or this, it's all this. Arch O. La 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I saw the episode where Ned Flanders broke down and commited adultery with some pop star, he says something along the lines of "well, I found a few verses supporting what we want to do, (and he holds up a few little verses) and.....this many verses saying it's bad (Holds up a tremendous stack of verses)". Then the wind blows the big stack away and they commit adultery, that was just sad, I mean, you already knew Lovejoy was pretty fake, but Flanders? That's where the line is drawn, the Simpsons clearly isn't Christian :/. Homestarmy 22:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was also disappointed that Flanders gave into temptation. (Technically it was fornication as Flanders was a widower). As for the Simpsons, well, only Christianity is truly Christian (and some Christianities are more Christian than others). ;) Arch O. La 03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Was this before or after mammon (Mr. Burns) invaded the church and drove Lisa to Buddhism?

I don't remember, I don't watch the simpsons anymore, too mean of a show for me, i'd rather watch the Trinity Broadcasting Network, more Way of the Master videos, or evangelize on the NationStates forums, or help improve Wikipedia to the point where people who look at Christian-type articles will get more interested in Christianity, or evangelize in SubSpace, there's lots of things for me to do :D Homestarmy 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm stuck because I usually only get two channels (Fox and WB). I do watch Pax when I can get good reception. I haven't seen TBN, so I can't comment on it. Arch O. La 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they show some shows pretty well off the deep-end Biblically, occasionally some prosperity gospel stuff and some of the pastors seem obsessed with Tithing, but all in all it's not half bad, James D. Kennedy is on it :/. I even got to look them up on Wikipedia heh, couldn't correct much though...... Homestarmy 03:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Um....

The artful way in which we reach NPOV is difficult. I do not claim to be the best at it, but I do believe my edit is better than what was there before. Please take your disputes regarding the prose to talk. --ScienceApologist 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Steven Levitt AfD Discussion

Your presence is requested at the Steven Levitt deletion discussion. Wikipedia needs to be streamlined, and we can't possibly document every godless crackpot who comes up with some inane "theory". By creating articles on people who are out of touch with American values, we only give them a platform to preach their otherwise non-notable message from. Thanks for your time. :)

Peace in Christ, Steven Taylor 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, the discussion seems to of ended, I don't see how this guy's assertions are that bad anyway, what he was arguing is more of a grotesque "There are less Jews in the world....because of mass genocide by Nazis" sort of observation, I don't see how it necessarily argues that abortion is good, I can certainly see it swinging to the opposite interpretation that the reason the crime rate seems lower is because an unspeakable atrocity caused the situation to radically changed. Homestarmy 19:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I also got there after the article was speedily saved. I didn't know what the point was anyway. Arch O. La 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly affirm this. In fact, check the message I left on CTSWyneken's talk page. Like I said earlier: Truth cannot contradict truth. Do not confront Rob on his views of religious "faith," not even in jest, or it will work against us.

I realize that you are eager and I admire that. I just don't want you to get into trouble. Yours in Christ, Arch O. La 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I stopped really answering the same arguments that first time you told everyone to stop. How many hours do we have left? Homestarmy 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's slow. Rob will either get into further trouble, or he will calm down and we will listen to his views and move forward. I do understand his frustration. Arch O. La 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

With the new person, make your arguments once for each angle he cites, but do not reply to his arugment the second time around. Revert as I recommended for Rob. --CTSWyneken 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Should we work to fix this problem first, or should we go on to the third paragraph, and if so, when shall we start? Homestarmy 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Please take a look at the Talk page (Talk:Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy) of this article. —Aiden 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, I think you might enjoy this one. I'll be watching the page, but probably not participating. Arch O. La 05:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Very informative, looks like plenty of room for expansion, I think a title change might do it some good, but it certainly helps show people that false prophecy from people is real and that it comes from the craaaAAaaAAaziest sources :D. Homestarmy 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

False...is real? Arch O. La 04:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, real people can make false prophecy Homestarmy 14:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It just looked odd to say "False prophecy from people is real." I guess it's similar to our discusion over whether the Gospel of Thomas (And Hercules:The Legendary Journeys) are mythical...these exist, but contain myth. Arch O. La | TCF member 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. Homestarmy 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Has Rob reverted three time today?

Am I counting right? --CTSWyneken 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it, this day has been so long I haven't even noticed heh. The other person seems to only have one more revert as well, I think I still have 2 more, and KHM seems to have 1 left. Homestarmy 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A Fast One Trying to be Pulled on Jesus Talk Page

Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Coming! Homestarmy 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk

Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Binary Jesus

I had to admit, your post made me laugh and helped to ease my frustration. I'm just glad I didn't say, "stop being hexadecimal" FA34B7C2. ;)

I might actually of been able to convert it from actual speech if you had said hexadecimal :D. But what are we going to do now that there's support for both sentences? Homestarmy 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What I really meant is that binary thinking is deeply offensive to a radical centrist like myself. I find this even more offensive than all that anti-religious stuff we've seen, because I know they speak without the Holy Spirit, and God must have a purpose for that. But binary thinking is the Gates of Hell. To put it another way: I just cannot tolerate intolerance.Arch O. La 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Escape from the Hell of Eternal Ineffective Voting

I had fun escaping Hell with you. I just wish more people on that page had a sense of humor. By the way, how goes the hunt for extant contemporaneous false prophets? Arch O. La 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe :D. We're going to have I think a week long vote to decide what to do with the title first on that article, im personally hoping we can go away from a timeline and more towared a paragraph/historical format that can let us be more flexible and report on more. Like I told the other guy, making a list of false propecies, that's....that's almost Biblical. "Beware of false prophets..." and all. We have to find a bunch of citations for alot of them though, the stuff in that article so far wasn't reported quite properly for Wikipedia standards :/. Homestarmy 13:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to find an article that keeps jumping around. Around Talk:Jesus there have now been vandals and alleged sockpuppets that only throw gasoline on the raging Hell...Of course, some of us are engaging in silly humor while the Tempest rages around us ;) Hmm...now I hear Shakespeare calling.Arch O. La 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My advice: Use the Tracts of Much Hilarity for now. Evidence Bibles may increase the chances of conflict. Save the Evidence Bibles for when we move on to Christian views. Arch O. La 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I should even be getting a real one for my birthday on March 2, I might even be able to use it as a citation :D. There are many flavors to the tracts of much hilarity as well, sometimes I can upgrade them to more serious varieties if need be :D. Homestarmy 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For God so loved Catholics

Actually, I don't know exactly what the Roman Catholic (Radio-Controlled?) position on John 3:16 is. However, from what I know of the Catholic doctrines of Limbo and Purgatory, JimWae isn't telling the whole story. I brought this up on Talk:Jesus (BTW I created a separate "Catholic Doctine" subsection). Arch O. La | TCF member 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried Googling for this for a bit, I can't find anything :(. A lot of stuff comes close but I can't find any Catholic sources that say unequivocally that whosoever believes in Jesus will be saved :(. But then again, I haven't seen Jim come up with anything that totally deny's it either. I have a feeling this will bear some reaserch to get to the bottom to, I asked a catholic friend of mine to help out when I e-mailed him, but I don't know when he'll be able to respond. Homestarmy 02:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What about AnnH (User:Musical_Linguist)? She's been on the Jesus page and identifies as Roman Catholic. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooooo, this could be helpful. Do you want to talk to Ann or should I? Homestarmy 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on her page. I don't know any other Roman Catholic Wikipedians (because for most I don't know their religion), but feel free to contact as many Catholics as possible. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What if we just re-word the thing to say "And most Christians believe that belief in Jesus is a pre-requisite for salvation, if not the only pre-requisite."? Homestarmy 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not sure if this gets around JimWae's debate on necessary and sufficient causes. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Str1977 is also a Catholic and has just responded. I suggested "Christians believe that Jesus provides salvation." This whole John 3:16 thing can go either in a footnote or, expanded to John 3:1-21, discussed in another part of the article (either "Life and Teachings" or "Christian views of Jesus"). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 10:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you know, im almost ready to start Bible thumping in that discussion if he keeps going on about how it isn't a necessary clause, because you "must" be born again according to the Bible, this gains you eternal life, Jesus also said that belief in Him gives one eternal life, so they must be related, hence they each must be necessary. But I would not be horribly opposed to moving it to it's own section about John 3:16 interpretation, as long as a little note or something is put inside the intro linking to that part of the article, the article is a bit long as it is and it will seem a bit out of place to just randomly put that kind of a section somewhere. Homestarmy 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate when they lock the database on us :( Well, born again is John 3:3, so you can see why I prefer to refer to the whole section, rather than just one verse. CTSWyneken has also pointed out that the various denominations debate what is necessary and what is sufficient, so it's not just JimWae. Frankly, that gets us nowhere. Finally, to a Lutheran, faith is an act of Divine will; acceptance only comes later, and is more recognition than decision. We don't want to make it sound like we're taking credit for God's work!

BTW, how did your birthday go? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well none of the stuff I ordered from www.livingwaters.com came in on time, and neither did Empire at War, I had a plan to evangelize through that game too, dunno if it's practical though.....But seriously, if we find sources that says there's an active debate on the really very crucial matter concerning the necessity of faith in Christ and who says what, either there needs to be improvement to the John 3:16 article about it and have it linked in the intro of the Jesus article, or if we find just short stuff, put it in the article somewhere and link it from the intro so it doesn't seem out of place. We haven't even talked about trinitarians vs. non-trinitarians yet, am I the only one who thinks that that's also going to get really touchy whenever we get around to it? Homestarmy 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We shall see. Talk to one of the people with "Rev." before their name; they're the experts. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

God and Jesus

Hey Homestarmy, long time no talk. I just wanted to talk to you about something I've come across recently that's changed my life and my spiritual beliefs. Prior to 25 February, I was an atheist, even though I was editing in favor of Christianity. I wanted people to respect Jesus and God, but I myself had no respect for them for some reason. After looking through the Near-death Experiences website (see links below), apon reading the thousands of accounts of NDEs by people from across the world I have come to certainly believe not only in God and Jesus, but in the afterlife. If your faith is ever low, I very much reccommend visiting the site. It has alot of information including the account of a man, Ned Dougherty, who actually predicted the September 11, 2001 attacks through speaking with the Virgin Mary, and his words were published 6 months prior to 9/11. Also, it has the prophecies and reveleations of Edgar Cayce, one of the most renowned psychics of the 20th century. His explanations to the origin of the universe seem perfectly plausible and factual to me. He even explains how evolution and God co-exist You really need to read his prophecies (predictions for the future), which over 20 have already come true!. Including the Great Depression of 1929, Hitler's reign, World War II, and much more. I'll provide links below to all the sites I think you should see. I hope you can see that the afterlife certainly does exist after you follow these links, if you've ever had any doubt of the afterlife.

Links

• NearDeath.com's Main Page
• NearDeath.com's Main article on Edgar Cayce
• Cayce's explanation of Human/Universe Origins
• NearDeath.com's article on Ned Dougherty–incl. his 9/11 prediction
• Wikipedia's Article on Edgar Cayce
• NearDeath.com's article on Jesus & his revelance to NDEs
• NearDeath.com's article on Reverend Howard Storm, a former atheist

I really hope you visit these links, they're extraordinary. Explore the site all you want as well. Have a great day. Yours in Christ, Darwiner111 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for all this :). Homestarmy 23:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, I also forgot to add this link: Edgar Cayce's FUTURE PREDICTIONS—this lists all the future predictions that Cayce has had, including the ones that came true. Cayce also predicted that Jesus Christ would return in 1998, as a newborn child. Thought this is currently unverified it would be amazing if it were true. Darwiner111 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Uhhh, I think it's pretty obvious it's false since we're all still here and it's 2006 :/. Homestarmy 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but read the articles closely; he notes that Jesus would return as a baby in the unsuspecting womb of a middle-Eastern woman and thus he would only be 8 years old in 2006, so it's quite likely he wouldn't be known as Jesus just yet. The website also explains that the Bible interprets Jesus' Second coming as not being in the sky while angels are singing and he raptures all the Christians—it would be identical to his First coming, in which he didn't tell people who he really was until a much older age. Darwiner111 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Ummm, Cayce's article makes him sound like a total New-ager, Karma and reincarnation and everything, are you sure he's a trustworthy source? And im pretty sure it's a wee bit hard to come like a theif in the night if Jesus came from making Himself born again....explanations or no, it doesn't sound Biblical. Homestarmy 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Understandable that you have different beliefs but I should remind you that I was an atheist and have become a born-again Christian due to both his words and the Near-death website and other accounts. Though he may talk about Karma and reincarnation, he apparently got this information from God and Jesus as well as the Virgin Mary apon having a Near-death experience. And since ALL of his future prophecies have come true to date (the Jesus one is unverifyable) I have reason to believe him. Again, I understand our belief differences. At least they're not as different as Robsteadmans:)Darwiner111 23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Well you read the Bible, right? :/ Homestarmy 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the basics of the Bible but admit I am not completely familiar, and know that Cayce's claims of human origin work right alongside the interpretations of the Bible, simply not taking them as exact literal. Cayce explains that God first created the universe including Earth, but all souls still lived with him in Heaven. When he thought it was right he sent the souls to inhabit living beings on the Earth, and they entered the bodies of pre-historic humans around 3 billion years ago and thus the souls strenghthened and were saved by the soul of Jesus Christ when he first entered heaven in the 1st century. Cayce also has this paragraph from the Near-death site:

• "The evolution of the human body occurred partly through the soul's influence on the endocrine glands until the ape-man was a three-dimensional objectification of the soul that hovered above it. Then the soul fully descended into the body and earth had a new inhabitant: the homo sapien.

Homo sapiens appeared in five different places on earth at the same time, as the five races. This evolved human is what the Bible refers to as "Adam". When souls incarnated into physical form, it would bring the divine consciousness (i.e., the spirit) in with it."

Although it's confusing and somewhat contradictory at certain intervals, must we consider it possible considering that "evolution" is an almost certain fact of the Earth's history? You don't deny evolution do you? This also explains how animals don't have consciousness. Darwiner111 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Another link here, seeming to explain evidence toward Reincarnation. Darwiner111 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that reincarnation is likely not what you think in terms of this link's evidence— you can stay in Heaven prior to reincarnating as long as you want....there's no time limit and theres no time at all in Heaven Darwiner111 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(This took so long to write im 2 comments behind) Not only do I deny the Theory of Evolution, I categorically reject it's assumptions as biased and untrue ftw! :D. Bacteria have often changed, but the question is, was the change random, or was there something.....hidden inside these bacteria giving them the chance to change not because they did it by accident, but perhaps, just perhaps they were....designed to change, not out of their species, but into a new form of the exact same kind? I've even read that some frogs in australia have grown larger legs over time. Well, just because they have longer legs doesn't mean their a new species. It's totally feasable that change within species isn't the same as modern-day evolutionary theory, i'd think that they started growing as the result of activiation of super-recessive genetic traits, but that's just the idea that popped into my mind when I decided to think about it. The scary thing is, whenever I used to think about things, Mr. Cayce's almost exact idea on when we got souls entered my head as well because all the schools taught was evolution evolution evolution....but I knew I was merely speculating, and I almost never read the Bible back then, so of course when I actually read it some more I just forgot all my old, personal ideas. Some of my ideas were quite idiotic, I remember one time I speculated that maybe God was a member of a super advanced alien culture and sent a pod of DNA to land on earth to start up life. Maybe one of the biggest waste of my brain cells ever thinking that nonsense up -____-.

Besides, think of it this way. Let's say you were in love with someone, and they sent you love letters professing their love for you. Would you ignore the letters because they were a bit hard to understand, and just throw them in the trash? I'd hope not, you'd tried to read the letters to understand how much the person loved you, even if they didn't make sense at first. Well, the Bible is almost God's love letter for us. [[2]] How can we get around if we don't read the Bible ourselves, to be constantly reminded of what God did for us and how much He loves us, and what He wants us to do to spread this love around to others? 2 Without the Bible and it's constant reminder of what Christ wants us to do, how can one be reminded of the truth? Besides, i've heard the whole "The Bible is full of mistakes!" mantra myself, [[3]] yet I have yet to come across a single so-called "contradiction" that somebody did not have a perfectly reasonable explanation for. Sometimes their so silly I can actually think them out in my own brain, that just shows the people looking for mistakes in the Bible to discredit Christianity really don't try very good sometimes. Besides, that part about souls pre-existing I think comes from Mormonism, that's sort of a signal somethings wrong, and reincarnation just seems so ripped off of Buudhism and Hindusim. Besides, if you don't read the Bible, you can sometimes forget the reason Jesus came in the first place and be easily lead astray by people, we should always be able to explain to people why they should believe after all. [[4]] Homestarmy 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that the "theory" of Evolution may not be correct, but how then do you explain that the earth is over 4 billion years old and the Bible says its less than 10,000? There is certain scientific proof that the Earth is that old by the way, and I can show you it. Also, I agree that the Bible is an amazing scriptire and I intend to read the Bible myself someday. Given your strict interpretation of the Bible, what are your views on the afterlife? If you disagree with Cayce's views and such, what do you think about Near-death experiences? What about Ned Dougherty who predicted the 9/11 attacks from an NDE? Do you dismiss NDEs as simple dreams before someone dies? If so, why do they feel so real and unexplainable to the experiencers? I'd like your views on the afterlife, Homestarmy. Darwiner111 00:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

Tecnically speaking, the Bible doesn't specify the age of the earth. Most figures come from an approximation of geneology tracings going back through Genesis, which is more like 6,000-8,000 years ago as I understand the current figures, but there's some argument over the literal meaning of "day"....because there apparently isn't much of one unless you look in context. Technically speaking, to avoid turning things into metaphors which really shouldn't become metaphors, (I.E. "and then there was evening, and then there was morning, the first day.) it appears to be 24 hour-ish periods. If your plotting to launch a debate over C14 results, i've got to warn you, i'm prepared for such a conflict. :D[5]. But honestly, debates over evolution this and age of the universe that really are not conducive to Biblical evangelism, even if I did win the argument, would that make you read the Bible any faster? :/ As for the afterlife, it's what the Bible says it is. Heaven....or Hell, with appropriate descriptions of each. None of this Limbo or Purgatory nonsense, Bible truth all the way! If I didn't read it, I wouldn't know Jesus's words on the subject, so then i'd merely be working in the unverifiable :/. Besides, what does Cayce getting his prediction/prophecy right do for anything, (especially since many people might say America has not really changed, unless you count people supposedly panicking about wire-tapping and the like) does it make him more special? more important? more trustworthy? NDE's, if the testimony is to be trusted, (And it seems to be pretty trustworthy) seem quite real, but the Bible neither confirms....nor denys them, it's a pretty non-important issue. I won't be draining my body of almost all of my blood to have one to get the chance to give out a prophecy, assuming I don't kill myself. I've heard of some people predict some wild stuff before, as I understand it, using an ouija board, a group of people predicted the asian tsunami and a couple earthquakes, including something about nuclear technology. But ouija boards are notorious for occultic references, I don't see how one would confirm where the source of the prophecy came from. If you don't feel interesting in reading the Bible now, may I at least ask you go to here: [6] and tell me if it takes on any more importance for you after that? :) Homestarmy 01:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI WP:Censorship

You might be interested in this: "42 Please Follow Along"

Haizum 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Huge word, John 3:16 and conditions for salvation

Parthenogenesis is a biological term, based on Greek, that literally means "Virgin Birth" As for John 3:16, all our debates have been part of the larger issue of salvation; the linked article explains the various interpretations, based on John 3:16 and other verses. I still prefer the phrase "Jesus provides salvation" for the intro. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Saying "Jesus provides salvation" is exactly the same as saying "Jesus is the Savior." This is exactly what Christianity teaches! The "why" leads into the doctrinal divide that should wait until later in the article. The salvation article already goes into detail about the doctrinal divide. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, your's and Aiden's suggestion seems fine as long as "Acceptance" is changed to something more clear and accurate, I mean, who knows what "accept" could mean? Salvation from sin works, and since John 3:16 is still linked, it seems to get the message across. Homestarmy 13:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it'd Aiden who's holding on to "acceptance," based on an earlier compromise we reached. I'm an eventualist so I was willing to wait for CTSWyneken to finish his current work so he could challenge "acceptance" himself. But, since JimWae suggested additional points, I decided to bring it up anyway. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno how it would be a complicated challenge because who knows what accept here means? accept into your heart? accept that He existed and that He died for one's sins? Simply acknowladging what Jesus did is not the same as believing in Jesus after all. Homestarmy 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My (and CTSWyneken's) point is that salvation rests on divine action, not human acceptance. God chooses whom to save. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point is it's downright obscure and can mean anything. And I hate to sound like a...well...hater, but what your describing as far as I know is not in the Bible :/. Why would God make someone be born again just to kill them twice, earthly and soulfully? As the way of the master puts it, someone who is not saved is born once and dies twice, and someone who is saved is born twice and dies once, where does being born twice and dying twice come into it? Homestarmy 17:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, for many of us being born again comes through baptism. One saved we do not die soulfully, so I'm not sure what you mean by dying twice. But there are hypocrites out there who claim to be saved, when really they're not! That's from Matthew again. We cannot save ourselves, even through acceptance; God saves us. For many of us "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are saved by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." That's based on the words of Paul, I don't have the time to find the exact reference right now. But, we agree that "acceptance" is too obscure. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well with the dying thing I meant your born once when your, well, born, and then if your a Christian you are born again, so even when your body dies, your soul does not, so born twice, die once. When your not saved, your born once from being, you know, born, and then die physically, and then die spiritually, so born once, die twice. Im not exactly sure what your trying to say about God saving us, are you saying even after being born again through the spirit and believing in Christ, we can still be sent to Hell if God does not want us? Homestarmy 18:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying once saved, always saved, but I'm also saying that there are those who lie about being saved. My point also is that the Holy Spirit and faith in Christ come from God's will, not our own. Faith is not a human choice, but a gift from God. The rest Luther referred to as "a great mystery"—something God has chosen not to reveal. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh :/. Well if faith is only God's will, then how are we supposed to become slaves to Christ if we don't have the choice to stop being slaves to sin? Homestarmy 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, mind if I join in the conversation here? Sorry to barge in, but this is interesting. I submit the following texts in regards to salvation:

Matthew 10:22 (endure to the end to be saved), 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (run the Christian race so as to attain the prize, Paul had to work so as to not become disapproved), 1 Peter 4:17 (obedience required for salvation), Matt 16:24 (Jesus says to continually follow him), 1 Timothy 2:3, 4 (God wants all sorts of people to gain salvation), 1 Chronicles 28:9 (search for God and He will let Himself be found), Luke 13:23, 24 (exert yourselves) and even good ol' John 3:16 (that whoever believes/excersices faith may be saved).

Now, I've never agreed with the "once saved, always saved" line of thinking, for much of the same reasons Homestarmy mentions above, and from my reading of the scriptures, I don't see any support for such an idea, either. Salvation is a gift from God, definitely, but we can excersice faith and change our path - toward salvation, or away from it, depending on our actions. --Oscillate 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Oscillate seems to bring up works righteousness, which certainly many Christians hold to but which leads back to Homestarmy's die twice objections. Frankly, the relation between faith, works, baptism, absolution, atonement, justification, santification and salvation is a conundrum that has been answered differently by each denomination of the Christian church. That's why I want to keep it simple for the intro--either "Jesus is the Savior" or "Jesus provides salvation." Homes, I came here to say that I have no problem with having the Virgin Birth in the intro. However, if we are going to get it past JimWae, we need to establish this beyond either our own personal beliefs or official church doctrine. CTSWYneken has said that he has some sources which can help establish that belief in the Virgin Birth is still held by a significant majority of Christians. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: The relation between divine will and human free will is a similar conundrum, which is complicated by variations on predestination. Again, various denominations and theologians have wildly differing opinions. Martin Luther chose to call it "a great mystery." John Calvin said that God also chose who would not believe, which I have trouble accepting. Apparently Catholics invented Limbo and Purgatory to cover the spread.

The usual popular explanation is that God allows human free will by simply not exercising His own will. Then everyone disagrees on when God is acting. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Always saved, we exercise faith

How does CTSW get all this done for us and still work as a teacher in collage? He's done a whole lot of work for the article after all and yet still keeps going :/.. And the only thing I thought you were saying Archola was that we don't end up having a choice as to whether or not we can be saved, I wasn't trying to say that we can be saved simply by our own effort, I mean that once you have faith in Christ and are born again, your saved, rather than being born again but only being saved as long as God feels like granting your born again self eternal salvation, and from there, that God might just send people to Hell anyway despite being born again. I don't see the need to make everything so complicated and drawn out theologically when it wasn't like that in the Bible, I mean, if you just read the Bible literally, you don't see all the stuff about relationships between everything in such a complicated and drawn out manner. Jesus told us what we needed and the rest of the Bible is generally based on that, so that's pretty much the end of it, you know? It seems to me like nobody needs to cover the spread anywhere if people just start evangelizing more :D. And finally, with JimWae, if we've got the Catholic doctrine on the subject and we get some statistics on that from the Catholic church, I think we're set as far as the "most Christians" part goes. I can go look up some figures right now if we need it. Homestarmy 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure that there is really a distinction between what I said and what Oscillate said. If you're saved, you have true faith and you will exercise it. If you don't exercise it, then it's not real faith, it's dead according to the epistle of James. Say Joe is going to Heaven. If Joe never arrives in Heaven, then was Joe really going to Heaven? If you're saved, than you're saved. If you're not saved, than you weren't saved. I don't think that God is going to change his mind. The Bible gives us signs so we will know who is saved, but these are effects rather than causes. And nobody who is truly born again will ever go to Hell.

Of course, God is omniscient, so He knows ahead of time. We can intend to go to Heaven and not make it; in fact, we cannot make it without God's help. Without God's help, we cannot be born again.

The complication comes because there are things that God chose not to reveal to us. Catholics, of course, rely on church tradition as much as scripture.

As for JimWae, I think we just need to find some actual, verifiable, factual evidence that we can cite. Sound familiar?

As for CTSWyneken, that's what evenings and weekends are for ;) But, he needs some help. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, that sounds about right. But I don't see how one wouldn't notice whether your born again, I mean, it's not something you just don't notice and all. And I've imitated Robsteadman a few times myself, "Ve must haff ze PROOF, ze NPOV, ver-i-fiable PROOF of zis claim Rob -____-" Though I don't think I embellished it quite enough :D. I'll go see if I can find some numbers on the Virgin Birth. Homestarmy 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more than noticing. It's more a matter of distinguishing who is born again from those who claim to be born again but aren't. Time for another doctrine: spiritual discernment. Kind of like what you're doing with your hunt for false prophets. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I meant like to personally know if your born again, I mean, nobody can actually prove beyond all doubt to an ordinary person that their born again, and even if they could, Matthew 7:1 works all ways, we can't judge people at all, not just judging people's evils :/. And I guess you've noticed all my bantering on the Timeline of Unfulfilled prophecy article than :D. But anyway, on to the subject of citations in Jesus, im running into a bit of a problem, i've found plenty of polls of Catholics and Christians in America, but I can't find a thing about the virgin birth and hard numbers in Europe or in Catholicism in Europe :/. Shouldn't Europe have like a euro-Gallop poll system or something? I can't find much, but I can keep looking. Homestarmy 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the UK uses Reuters, and France uses Agence France-Presse. Not sure about the rest Europe. However, it would probably be better to use a sociological survey than a journalistic one. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I get why some over the top Admit would put me on block but why would they "temporarily removing block"? 132.241.245.49 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

lostprophets

lostprophets is not captialized because that is the correct representation of the article's name. See the lostprophets article for further details.

Cedars 07:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism on Jesus

WikiThanks

A WikiThanks--for catching and reverting the vandalism I missed on the Jesus article. Justin Eiler 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Its just so many of the latest edits were all vandalism, it looks like you reverted to a vandalised version :/.

Way of the Master

Hey, thanks for all the help you've been giving with all the article about Way of the Master and those associated links. Just a heads up, tonight Kirk and Ray will be on Nightline, so we might wanna just make sure to watch those articles carefully over the next week or so. I know I've got 'em in my watchlist, and I've got little else to do, but just wanted to touch base with ya. --MessengerAtLWU 04:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, i'll try to find nightline myself :) Homestarmy 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They do have a Nightline podcast. I'll have to make sure to podcatch a copy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrrm, I dunno actually where to look for this nightline thing, does anyone know? :/ Homestarmy 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Nightline homepage. And here is an audio copy of the March 17 nightline. Does that help at all? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so its on ABC, that helps, thanks! Homestarmy 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. BTW it looks like they haven't posted the audio file yet ;( Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There are Messiahs, and then there are Messiahs

I don't know if you read Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus#DISPUTATION ON NEUTRALITY, but BRBurton has some good points. If you consider all the verses that prophecy the Messiah, you either have two Messiahs (a Davidic Messiah and a Josephic Messiah) or you have one Messiah who comes twice. As I understand it, first century Jews largely accepted the Davidic Messiah, Samaritans largely accepted the Josephic Messiah, and we Christians know that Jesus is the one Messiah who comes twice. Of course, Christ is both the Messiah and more than the Messiah: He is the incarnate Word of God! The Jewish Messiah is pretty much just the Davidic Messiah. So, when Jews and Christians (and for that matter, Samaritans) talk about the Messiah, we're really talking about different things. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the person you debated with had at least one good point, the "There is no reason to doubt their assesment" bit really is not NPOV at all :/. But hey, there's nothing in the Bible that says the Messiah would fulfill everything immedietly or on Rabbinic Judaism's timetable, it just seems to me a case of God not fitting Himself in boxes for people's whimsy. Homestarmy 15:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they had reasons not to doubt their assessment as well. Of course, you are right about God not being boxed in. There are just different ways of sorting and categorizing the Bible prophecies, which leads to differences of interpretation.

Of course, Isaiah is the source of one of these differences. If you look at Messiah#Traditional and contemporary Judaism , the "suffering servant" is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as referring to the Messiah. (Of course, the Talmud doesn't say this is about Jesus!) Well, Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about the "suffering servant." Hmmm. Of course, in Isaiah 52:1-12, God is talking to Zion (Jerusalem) and those He calls "My people" (Israel). In Isaiah 54, God is talking to Israel again, but Jesus was quoting Isaiah 54:9 when He said in Matthew 24:37 that the Second Coming would be "Like in the days of Noah." Of course, Jews don't believe in the Gospel of Matthew. So, maybe Isaiah 52-54 are all about Israel, and maybe those chapters are telling Israel about the Messiah.

So, is Isaiah 53 talking about the Messiah, or not? For the most part, Jews say "no" and Christians say "yes," but what does the Talmud say about the "suffering servant"? Here's a bunch of stuff on Isaiah 53: [7] Then there is also Deuteronomy 13:1-5 to consider, part of a long passage warning against idolatry, and part of the reason that Jews are wary about Jesus.

What it all comes down to is that if you are going to talk to a Jew about Jesus, there is a lot of ground to cover. Jews often accuse Christians of taking Isaiah 53 out of context, but of course you can also look at chapters 52 and 54. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Which are all good reasons for me to look forward to the 3rd season of the way of the master, they've got a Judaism episode in there :D. Homestarmy 21:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Do we even need to talk about the Virgin Birth and the Trinity? Not to mention Yeshu ben Pandera. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if I didn't understand how Jesus fulfills Biblical prophecy, it wouldn't matter, I wasn't born again by trusting in a false savior. :D Homestarmy 23:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The point about Yeshu is that the Christian church long banned and censored passages from Jewish literature that both Jews and Christians believed were saying bad things about Jesus of Nazareth. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles - proposed change of look...

Hi there, I see you've been active around the GA pages. You'll see a new look proposal for the GA page on the talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you take a look and post your feedback. TheGrappler has done some sterling work on categorisations within the section which I think will make it much easier to find articles for viewing, and easier for editors to include and remove articles. Cheers SeanMack 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [8] is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever.

Christianity Knowledge Database

I think Aquinius is the same person as 83.31.227.192, he just needed to create an account to move pages. I'm also beginning to wonder if the Number of the Beast is really 666 or 83.31.227.192. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You made a good attempt to reason with this guy, but he just isn't listening. Also, your talk page was moved to R23435frsd. I left a message on Nsandwhich's page, but of course that was quickly blanked out. Hmm, perhaps I need to leave a message for Nsandwhich here. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Aquinus is a bot run by 83.all the other numbers: see here. We definitely need an admin to deal with this. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think all his page moving messed up the link cus I can't click on it and make it go anywhere right now. Someone can just do a database revert anyway, its no problem. Homestarmy 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I responded he moved the link to "Archola is a slut," which NSandwich deleted. That was originally your talk page, though. So, I guess we lost your evangalism ;( Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doh :/. Well, he said he'd find an administrator or sometihng to find a rollback so maybe it'll all come back. So what did you say to him? Homestarmy 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I said we're not racists, we're Christians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I ressurected your old talkpage at the CKB and linked it as a subpage, Check it out when you get there. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you also having trouble logging into the CKB? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Something seemed like the welcome page was messed up, I just clicked "browse" and it let me log on in the corner :/. Homestarmy 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to switch to Firefox to log in. I guess there's no more surfing Safari. ;( Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am having fun making the recent changes page have a big row of "Homestarmy" down it....Homestarmy 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. —RJN 10:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That editor on CTSWyneken's talk page

Which editor are you talking about? If you mean 64.12.117.6, those edits were considered and rejected (see Talk:Jesus/2nd_Paragraph_Debate#64.12.117.6_edits). If you mean 192.160.64.49, that conversation is about politics within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and it seems to be a private matter anyway. If you mean someone else, then I'm not sre who you meant. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed that 192.160.64.49 also made the edits to Sacramental Union (Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist) that drboisclair and I are discussing. This seems to revolve around the word consubstantiation, which has different meanings in philosophy or theology. Beyond saying that the substance of the bread and wine is present with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the whole issue of local vs nonlocal vs impanion vs substance vs pneumatic vs whatever else seems rather esoteric to me, and perhaps beyond human understanding as a divine mystery. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PPS: Anon editor 192.X is from Concordia University, Seward (an LCMS university) and has made several controversial edits about Lutheran topics: Special:Contributions/192.160.64.49.

Anon editor 64.X was an AOL member who made edits to Jesus that removed references to Pilate and the charge of sedition, and added references to prophet and Messiah. That person seems to have moved on. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems things got a bit odd :/. The Lutheran Synod one, if what he wrote on CTSW's talk page was accurate, makes me glad I don't really want to join a denomination, yeesh, scary sounding stuff. Homestarmy 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wheras I am a member of a denomination (Lutheranism) but am caught between sects. Before my parents died, I spent roughly half my life in the ALC/ELCA and half in the Missouri Synod. Since my parents died I've been attending, but have never officially joined, a Wisconsin Synod church, which has only added to my confusion. It's bad enough that different denominations interpret the Bible differently. In the past few years I've been learning that the different sects of Lutheranism interpret Martin Luther differently, sometimes in very fine, confusing, hair-splitting ways! For example. I've been discussing with Drboisclair why some Lutherans accept the term "consubstantiation," while others don't.

Why must we divide Christ? (1 Corinthians 1:10-17) I do believe in One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church. Christ is the head as the Great High Priest (Hebrews--pretty much the entire Epistle!), not the Pope or the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA or the President of the LCMS or anyone else. Yet human politics continue to divide the Church on Earth. Paul must be embarrassed, if not ashamed. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 01:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Thanks for your concern Homestarmy, but I did intend to use the "reincarnation" userbox. As I believe I mentioned to you before, I believe in Edgar Cayce's reveleations and he reports that karma and reincarnation are a part of the afterlife. Now don't get me wrong it's not immediate reincarnation as you would suspect, Cayce said the afterlife (heaven} is timeless, therefore you have the choice of staying in heaven for basically "eternity" if you want, and eventually reincarnate into another body, but of course your new body won't recall your earlier life. I was of course skeptical at first of this, but recently I saw a documentary on A&E television network about a young boy who has vivid memories of an earlier life, to which he describes in perfect detail past events he couldn't possibly have known. Why do I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and in reincarnation, you may ask? Well I don't consider myself "Christian" in the sense of going to a Christian church or following the Bible, but I do believe that Jesus died for human sins and he lives in the afterlife. Anyway, thanks for the comment. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Being a former strong atheist, I don't particularly follow the Bible nor believe most of what it recounts. Some sections, yes of course, but quite a bit of the Bible such as the account of Creation (which the Bible says was 10,000 years ago) and Noah's Ark I have a hard time believing. The existence of stars alone prove that the universe is well over 2 billion years old (the light of the stars, being so far away, would've taken millions of years to reach the Earth for us to see). When referring to reincarnation I am talking about simply the revelations of Cayce alone, I don't believe his accounts were covered by any other religion or the Bible. He says we go to heaven, stay there as long as we want to (eternity in heaven can be like 5 minutes on Earth, time is only a factor in our three-dimensional world) and eventually return to Earth as another human being to continue a cycle of replenishing the soul/spirit through life experiences. This viewpoint covers alot of things that the Bible couldn't give me, such as a reason for the existence of the mentally retarded and deaths of very young children. Cayce says that The handicapped are less able to express themselves, but have a higher knowledge of God and the spirit world (though are unable to express this). He also says souls that choose to live as infants that die young do so to make profound impacts on the souls of others. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Spring holiday

Hey, I recently created an article relating to the political correctness surrounding the Easter and Christmas holidays and suggest that you join in the Talk Page and maybe apply some edits. There is currently confliction about some POV material, maybe you could help out, thanks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this edit comparison, you can see that User:Thumbelina removed specifically decided apon information regarding the assurance that these terms are only documented within the USA and Canada (this agreement can be seen at the talk page), and also he added other non-Christian holidays to the mix of examples, regardless of the fact that only Christian holidays are documented as being "under attack". Unless he can provide the citations, his information is original research. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

File:Cristo Velázquez lou2.jpg

Rejoice in Christ's resurrection

Wishing you all the joys of the Spring holiday season! Happy Easter!!!
. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

SAB and the Christian Counteresponse

Glad to see your response at Talk:Jesus. It is, of course, good to get all POVs for the sake of NPOV, and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is only one POV. Are you aware of The Christian Think Tank? It's the best I could find on such short notice.

I notice the SAB has also started annotating the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an as well as the Bible. This might get interesting.... Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, if they keep citing Wikipedia articles which don't say what they think they say, there won't be much to try and help convince Muslims or Mormons of the truth :(. I was planning at first to just google up the Quirinius and date thingy, but then when I saw the Wikipedia articles had the answer already, I decided to deal with the skepticisms personally :D. Homestarmy 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles get edited all the time. I have no doubt that when the SAB was written, the Wikipedia article read exactly as the SAB site says. (That's why you should always cite a date for a website!). But then people had other things to add.... Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)