User talk:Ic2705

Greetings

Gavin, I appreciate your contributions to the Leaders of Christianity page and I acknowledged my misstatement in the discussion page (which you will see in my answer to your comment).

However, if i might say one thing. As a Catholic, do you think it more your duty to be faithful to Wikipedia or to Christ? I am not saying you can't do both, but to me I do hope that in helping Christians to see themselves in a historical, ecumenical light this will bring glory to Christ. Christianity has been in schism for too long now and if it can be presented in a light where all the leaders of the various churches are seen together it may help people to think more of unity and to accept one another more than continuing the schism. I know Wikipedia is not a forum for evangelization, i don't believe I am doing that. I have tried hard to be fair and to provide refrences. But to say that "this article is not meant to promote Christianity but to present the facts," it sounds like something a secular person would say, someone who does not believe the facts to promote Christianity. I admit I must becareful how I frame my statements for the sake of Wikipedia standards, but perhaps you might want to think about how you frame your statements.

I am not trying to be offensive, as I don't believe you were trying to be, It's just that as much as we would all like to believe Wiki is objective i have seen my fair amount of promotion of secular agendas to know better. Have you read the Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens page and then compared it to the Mother Teresa page. You would think those atheist had been the ones who had helped millions of people and were awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize. As a Christian I would think you'd be thankful for a fellow Christian who holds views more similar to yours than many of these secular unbelievers that often get the final say in this encyclopedia. I would appreciate any comment you might have and I really do appreciate the editings you have made to the article. Peace. Isaac Chavez. --Ic2705 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ is the truth and thus the truth reflects Christ. Ergo the goal of wikipedia to provide unbiased facts in itself gives glory to Christ. Regarding your motives, whatever they are or are not you should keep them to yourself or you seek to undermine all the good edits you may make. I am proud that Mother Teresa has an article which reflects the fact that she has a controversial legacy as opposed to the biased dross found in other articles such as Richard Dawkins. She doesn't need to be deified by fanboys- the facts speak for themselves- she was and is a Saint! If Jesus is truth then you have nothing to fear from some secularists submitting an agenda into Wikipedia. However, many people on wikipedia have agendas which are counter productive to the project and that includes Christians.

Also the reason Christianity is in schism is because people like to cling to their own interpretations of Scripture, Tradition and so on instead of submitting themselves to the infallible Magisterium of the Church that Christ instituted and the Holy Spirit guides. However, these are views which should be kept apart from the unbiased editing we make on wikipedia. Gavin (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference between me and you is that I realize I am human and have a POV and you seem to think you've escaped yours. Even some of the edits you've made to the article reflect your POV. You've edited out Roman Catholic which is fine but it is a Catholic POV, for many Protestatns believe that Roman Catholic is a fair designation to distinguish between the Church in Rome and the actual Catholic church of all time and places. I am not going to argue over semantics and I have not attempted to change your edit because I see your point since there are other churches from the East which are under the Pope. However it is your POV. And I'm sorry I don't have as much faith in Wiki as you do. I don't believe Wiki in anyway is following the Christian mission and it's understanding of truth is a post-enligthment secular understanding of what truth is and Christians should not accept other definitions of the truth outside of Christ himself. Christ is the truth, and everything else is only truth in relation to him. Since Christ and the apostles, the church has preached against herectics and has not simply layed down upon lies by herectics and unbelievers. They have defended the truth by stating it properly and proclaiming it.They would never befriend it or promote things which willfully attack it. And by the way, Mother Teresa isn't a saint yet according to the Catholic church. She has yet to be canonized.

You really are a very funny and naive person. I know I have a POV and I think I am able to edit around it quite frankly. Regarding the Catholic Church edit- I edited out Roman because if you go to the wikipedia article it is titled Catholic Church not Roman Catholic Church as it once was. If you check the archives you will find I actually argued that it should be referred to as the RCC- egro you have attributed a POV to me which I don't hold. Also, she has not been canonized and therefore is not officially a saint. However it is still permissible to refer to her as a saint because it is very likely that she is. (One could call Pius IX a Saint if they wished, its just not official). Gavin (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I was called naive, I think I was 8. I know forsure that I don't spend all my days on Wiki and only see it as a tool that has potential both postive and negative. So I don't know everything about wiki but I do know about people. And for anyone to think that they can get around thier POV, this is naive, and prideful. I have tried in doing the article to be humble, that's why i asked for help and admitted my ignorance of how to do even basic functions on wiki. I was glad that you corrected me when I misspoke about trying to promote Christianity, but I felt you were rude when you told me that you'll edit how and what you want. This was uncalled for. As a Christian brother i would have hoped you would actually have been willing to help me to develop the article into giving it more substance such as pictures, refrences, etc. Instead you acted like a good old wiki editor who acts more like an elite than like a servant. Telling me "we'll be watching" and "we'll edit how we see fit." I'm sorry sir, but I see nothing Christian about this attitude and it seems to me you see your "ministry" more to Wiki than to anything else. I hope you'll be more welcoming to people in the future who are only asking for help. --Ic2705 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Imagine, you go to an article on Jesus and make an edit to that article which another user disagrees with. They will look at your postings on the Leaders of Christianity article and then use that against you. They will say your committed to a biased Christian view and thus your edits are in breach of POV policy. Of course I edit with a POV, everyone does. However you don't state to people what your POV is in an article where they can find it and use it against you. Also, Try to assume the good faith of other editors...However thank you for giving your opinion on what and was not Christianly. As brothers in Christ we should not shy away from reminding each other of our duties to God and others when we breach them. Gavin (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're correct about being careful about what I say in order to not be discredited. I appreciate that, and I definitley spoke wrongly when I said the article was promoting Christianity. I will try as hard as I can to present the facts with good refrences though at times I know either my POV or my ignorance of certain topics will need to be corrected. Hopefully we can all look out for one another since in some way we're all in this together. You do seem to be a good editor and I'm thankful for the discussion. --Ic2705 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Comments of a 12 year old

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
You're edits at the Nontrinitarian article read like they were made by a 12 year old, as though people who call themselves Christian have to come to you to get their confirmation. Stick to citeable statements, your opinions are not needed or welcome in an actual article. - Jesus Christ

While the above comments are themselves not themselves necessarily in total keeping with wikipedia policies and guidelines, I do have to agree that your own comments regarding nontrinitarianism are clearly only a personal opinion, and as such in no way contribute to the building of the encyclopedia. There are a number of active Christian groups, some of which have over a million members, clearly making them extremely notable, which do not actively adhere to a trinitarian view. There is also a long history within Christianity of individuals who do not adhere to the trinitarian view. On both those bases there is more than sufficient cause for such an article to exist, although either one in and of itself would be reasonable cause for inclusion of material regarding nontrinitarianism. Please refrain from such comments in the future, which seem to be in violation of WP:CIVILITY, and also seem to be pushing a particular point of view, in violation of WP:NPOV. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are merely giving your opinions of what makes something relevant or Christian. I gave citations which date back to the earliest church councils, the proclamations made my the vast majority of Christian churches such as Roman Catholic Catechism, Anglican 39 articles, Eastern Orthodox councils, Lutheran Book of Concord, And so many other Chrisitian confessions which proclaim the Trinitarian God to be the only and true God of Christians. It is not me making these things up, but you and the editors of this article which want to create your own categories and definitions. The fact is the historical understanding of Christianity since at least the 4th century, and I would argue much older as shown by the Apostle's Creed and the early fathers, is that Christ is God, and that he revealed the Triune nature of the Godhead. Even if you disagree with this analysis the historical definition as it has come to us today is that Christianity is belief in Trinity. In an article about nontrinitarianism it is a NPOV to state that most Chritians, historically and contemporarily as seen by hundreds of proclamations do not view nontrinitarians to be Christians. This is simply an historic fact and only an article that wants to promote another view would reject this historical fact from being part of the article. So as much as you come claiming WikiLaws you are far from neutral and have decieved yourselves the both of you.