User talk:Eddie Tor

Welcome and suggestion[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Eddie Tor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! I noticed your dummy edits commenting. I would recommend using Talk:Modern English Bible translations to describe detailed edits. Otherwise, your edit summaries were adequate; people can look at the page history in detail if they want to know, for example, when exact dates were changed. --J. J. 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Thank-you, JJ, for your welcome and helpful tips. ET[reply]

I think this is the best place for a message or could I email you? I think by and large your edits are a vast improvement to the page. I've got some concerns regarding Protestant-bias terminology used, esp in opening sentence. Consider that your audience may not be just your peers who are familiar with these terms, but also peoples of other cultures and religions. To say Protestant, non-denominational may not locate the movement properly for them. Slofstra 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more stuff on my user page -- not sure how to link this so I'm placing this note here.Slofstra 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had much time for wiki the past week. I'd love to do some touching up of the article; I like the direction it's going. I wanted to revise my preface to the Discussion and wondered if I could quote a couple of your comments. You could always delete or revise if not satisfied with my quotes. (Or, I could post here first).
I'm a little concerned by the recent vandalism on the page. Can anyone 'revert' or how is that done? Some edits were reverted but not the most recent ones. I really think that wiki should: (1) not allow anonymous edits, and (2) make users pass a test before editting. The latter would have saved me some embarrassment. Finally, is there a way I can email or private message you? Slofstra 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you intend, but anything wiki is "fair game" to be quoted, so you should feel free. I am glad that the recent non-NPOV edits were reverted. They were quite obviously from the "anti" viewpoint. Good to keep in mind that those on the "pro" side need to be equally as vigilant against inserting their own "pro" bias in the article as they are against correcting "slander." The subject of the section that was added entitled "Cult Status of the Church" could be discussed under "Criticisms" in a paragraph outlining why many people consider the church a "cult" due to some of its "non-orthodox" beliefs.Eddie Tor 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back doing a little work at Christian Conventions. Wrt your question on names, the original paragraph, if that was your work I do not know, was successively edited into such a mess, which I ended up deleting. Are you fairly certain about the senior workers still using some of those names? Regarding your touch up to beginnings paragraph have a look at how I worded this in the Irvine article, which is just a precis of Jaenen's writing. IMO, the key is to ensure we're truthful about Irvine's involvement without using the loaded word, 'founder'. The articles on Irvine, Cooneyites, Cooney and Christian Conventions are all of a piece, and could use some simple re-alignment between them I feel (see my talk on the Cooneyites page).Slofstra (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Slofstra, I am "certain about the senior workers still using some of those names." In fact, just a little over one year ago I saw a formal "letter of invitation" for four Canadian workers to visit the USA for Special Meeting rounds. This letter was typed on the usual "Christian Conventions" letterhead with the lists of Conventions on either side. It was signed by the overseer of the State doing the inviting. This letter mentioned the "faith having been active in the USA for over 100 years and that these four ministers are ministers of this faith" (words to that effect). Eddie Tor (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reference formatting. I think you want to place that in 'Further Reading' unless you are trying to back up a specific point or two. The 'References' section picks up in-text references and footnotes them automatically. Also, your reply just above is disconnected from what I said or meant in the preceding paragraph, but it is interesting all the same. Slofstra (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding faith and Jesus[edit]

Dear brother Tor,

I have a question for you regarding the theological stand of the churches as mentioned in the article "Christian Convention", on the "deity of Christ". Does this movement believe that "Jesus" is (and was) God? Is it true that diffreent churches at diffrent places hold different views even on serious Biblical truths such as whether Jesus is God or not?

For example, Here in North Dakota, during this last month convention, one of the brother spoke that "Jesus was only a good man" (which is dead wrong and hurting to hear); and when I found that later from my notes (taken during the Convention), I went and asked this to some of the brothers and sisters. It seems to me that here in the North Dakota - Minnesota (or at-least in my area, Hunter, Fargo, Jamestown, and others), this group doesn't believe in the deity of Christ! Please reply on my talk page or here (doesn't matter); I am very hurt and distressed by this. But reply in honesty and truth. Jesus is the Lord and the very triune God. In Christ. HopeChrist (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HopeChrist -

As far as a general consensus, I believe that most of the people who belong to the "Christian Conventions" faith group believe that Jesus existed in the eternal past - though unlike the Father, the Son had a specific "beginning" as the "first creation of God." They believe that the Son came to Earth and dwelt in the form (body) of a man. They believe in the conception by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin birth. However, there seems to be some variance as to whether they believe if Jesus had the Presence of God (the Holy Spirit) "in him" or "with him" until later in his life. Many seem to believe that he was mainly dependent on the guidance and influence of his family and his family's home atmosphere until he came to an age of reasoning or understanding, at which point he began to follow the direction of his heavenly Father (God). While this line of thought is sometimes taught, at the same time I have never known any to teach that Jesus was NOT the Son of God at any time during his life. The few scriptures that specifically refer to Jesus as "God" are usually explained away as meaning that Jesus was only "LIKE God (the Father) in every way." Some go as far as to state emphatically that "Jesus is NOT God." They say, "There is only one God, the Father. Jesus is the Son of God." But most in the church do not think to deeply on this subject, nor make a thorough study of the related scriptures. Eddie Tor (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed church article rename[edit]

Hi, I'm contacting you because you were involved in early discussions on the Wikipedia article name for the topic currently at Christian Conventions. It has been proposed to rename to Two by Twos. Please join in the discussion if you have an opinion on this at Talk:Christian Conventions#Requested move. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]