User talk:Thrydwulf

Welcome!

Hello, Thrydwulf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key).
Always cite a source for any new information, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Perry[edit]

Hi, re the paragraph added to Rich man and Lazarus interesting but is this really a notable view? It's just someone's PhD thesis by the look of it. Does this covenant interpretation of the parable have any precedent in the views of more notable writers? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks. I just reviewed the revised book version of this PhD thesis which has only just come out. Perry is a theologian at Cambridge University - I just added the book reference rather than the Phd citation. Kreitzer comes closest to Perry's view but doesn't join the dots - and he's no more notable anyway...