User talk:MonkeeSage

[T]he knowledge of God is the only dogma, the sole content of the entire field of Dogmatics. All doctrines treated in Dogmatics — whether in regard to the universe, man, Christ, etc. — are but the explication of the central dogma of the knowledge of God. Everything is treated with God as center and starting-point. Under him all things are subsumed. To him all things are traced back. It is ever God and God alone whose glory in creation and redemption, in nature and in grace, in the world and in the church, it must meditate on and describe. It is the knowledge of him, of him alone, which it must display and show forth.

Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979), William Hendriksen tr., ch. 1, §1(B), p. 13.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, MonkeeSage, 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:Where to ask a question, 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! -- KHM03 ^(talk) 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KHM03, thanks for the welcome. :) --MonkeeSage 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a few seconds to breathe, I thought I'd drop by and say hi! Good to have you on board. I appreciate the well-reasoned comments on the Jesus talk page. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CST. Thanks for the friendly welcome! --MonkeeSage 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me echo that welcome - it's always good to have another editor with knowledge and a sense of humour. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks shophia! I don't know if I have much knowledge, but I do smoke a tobacco pipe, so at least I look like I know something, heh. ;) --MonkeeSage 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestries and other fun stuff

I liked the gag - I do tapestries! Also the other editor is Drogo - Drago makes him seem like a dubious stage performer! Sophia^TalkTCF 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! "Come see the Mysterious Drago, with his amazing, astounding, world famous, wiggling fingers and toes! They bend -- they wiggle -- they bend and wiggle!!! Yes, ladies and gents! It's a feast for the eyes! Tickets are only $5.99! Hurry and get yours while there's still time!" :D --MonkeeSage 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need external help with the Jesus/chrisianity/historical pages etc. The same ol' arguments re scholarship and minority views is coming up endlessly and is causing edit wars and frayed tempers. Not good for editing at all. The christian editors may not mean to but they do look remarkably like a "cabal" at times like this - give them a doctrinal dispute and they are at each others throats and the illusion disappears! So I've decided we need external help. I thionk it should be a positive process and hopefully it will calm things down.

Just keeping you in the "loop"! PS when's Drago's next performance - I gotta see this! Sophia^TalkTCF 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As you say, getting external review is sometimes good for balance, 'cause they might find problem points that people who are more actively invested in the issues might not see (as the good Mr. Pope said, "all is yellow to the jaundiced eye"). Of course, one can question whether anyone is actually non-committed, but that's more of an epistemic issue dealing with psychological "neutrality," not "neutrality" as WP:NPOV uses it. Thanks for the update. :) --MonkeeSage 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Drago, but I once called Drogo "Frodo." Drogo Underburrow has a Hobbitish ring to my ears. As for the Christian cabal, I heard the trumpets at Jesus-Myth say that there is no athiest cabal, either. Cabals are in the eyes of the beholder. Oh, and I'd love to read the rest of 1 Hesitations if you ever decide to post a copy (come back to Talk:Jesus to see what this means). Personally, I feel we need peer reviews more than RfC since the problem is trying to answer, "What is a scholar?" (How would Plato and Socrates answer that question?) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! "Drogo, of the nine fingers, and the ring of doooom~~" hehehe (only makes sense if you've seen the old animated version). We should just define "scholar" as "a taller, slightly uglier version of a hobbit," request comments, and sail away to the land beyond the Grey Havens leaving the silly humans to sort things out. ;) Oh, I almost forgot TINC, especially not one composed of hobits or Christians. --MonkeeSage 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Where there's a whip, there's a way!" Yes, the animated versions were my first exposure to JRR Tolkein, and this was long before Peter Jackson made his 9-hour movie. The last time people were butting heads I said I felt like I was Bilbo trying to avoid the Battle of the Five Armies. This whole debate over the definition of "scholar" is a joke. When they called me a scholar, it was because I got good grades, paid $30 and was handed an AX. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your smart, but then I only paid $10 and all they handed me was a GED! :) --MonkeeSage 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was also summa cum laude, but I wonder why people have to abandon English when they give you honors. If they must, why not use Spanish? I'd love to be honored as hombre muy macho. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbit Names

Hobbits are cool. Only those who are not cool would disagree. Hobbit names are also cool. People who go to conventions dressed as hobbits are not cool. Not even when they have hobbit names. Anyhow, I found a Hobbit Name Generator and I decided to make a little spot on my user page for people to share them if they want to. If you go to LOTR conventions dressed as a hobbit, do not post your hobbit name, unless you also dress as a hobbit in your daily life (the coolness of that aspect outweighing the uncoolness of the convention fanatic aspect).

My hobbit name is: Olo Cotton of Overhill Nifty!

"There once was a hobbit named Cotton, who ate cabbage and 'taters au grotten, after taken a bite, he sensed something not right, for it seems that the 'taters were rotten!" --MonkeeSage 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call me Ishmael. Nope, sorry, wrong book. Call me Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenborings. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you got a really cool hobbit name! I don't know half the Brockenboringses half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of them half as well as they deserve! Scholars the whole lot! ;) --MonkeeSage 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're obviously related to Farmer Cotton. I think I'll shorten my name to Brocken. I don't really think I'm all that boring. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, your not boring. I'm Rose's half-brother twice removed...and I'll never steal taters from old man Cotton again, his 'taters are rotten. But I think you're related to Meri, ya lucky stinker! ;O --MonkeeSage 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of checking, seems you were right Mr. Deepdelver!

Drogo → Father of Frodo Baggins.

Underbarrow → City of Cumbria County, England.

Quite a hobbitish name indeed. :) --MonkeeSage 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, check out some of these names from Cumbria: here. I'm going to build my hobbit-hole in either Eskrigg End, Far Arnside or Dappley Moor. --MonkeeSage 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Pansy Brandybuck of Buckland wishing you a "Good Morning" - just off for second breakfast. Sophia^TalkTCF 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS if you haven't already done so click on my user page to see my hobbits and wizardly companions!Sophia^TalkTCF 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandybuck! Yet another fine hobbit name. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mornin' Sophia! Well, late night here...and I should really go to bed soon...ah, but 4 or 5 hours is all one really needs...specially us hobbitses. BTW, I saw your page several days ago, and I was going to comment (but forgot!) that you have quite a bit on your philosophy to-do list...especially all that Kant! Just reading Strawson, Grayling or Wilkerson, let alone understanding them...distinguishing between transcendental arguments and polar concept arguments...trying to figure out if the Refutation is Kant's transcendental argument, or if its the Aesthetic and Deduction...ACK!!! Oh, yes, and Labs are the greatest! I love doggies. --MonkeeSage 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Kant do can't. I'm still stuck in ancient Greece. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The secret to reading Kant is you have to be drinking good German beer (as a matter of fact the same goes for Luther or Melancthon or Calvin -- just don't tell that to the Baptists!) ;) --MonkeeSage 10:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant's hobbit name → Posco Smallburrows of Sandydowns

Martin Luther's hobbit name → Berilac Burrows of Tuckborough

John calvin's hobbit name → Olo Knotwise of Michel Delving

This is fun! Or...mabye I'm just a nerd. I do have almost all the original Image comics...Spawn, Shadowhawk, WildCATS, &c...I think I'm just a nerd. I don't go to Cons yet, though, so mabye there is still hope! ;) --MonkeeSage 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can call me a Burrowan (read: Lutheran). Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, a Reforemed fraternizing with a Lutheran?! You better not tell our congregations or we'll get kicked out! We'll mabye it was predestined! ;) ;) -MonkeeSage 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm also fraternizing with an athiest and an agnostic (click "TCF" for more details). Several years ago my mother feared I'd lose my immortal soul by fraternizing with Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm also in a fellowship with some Jews. So,"Reformed" is mild by comparison. It's the ELCA in me: we like to be ecumenical. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Jews and Calvinists and Atheists! You are truly the anti-hobbit, come to claim my soul! ;) Oh well, let's have a nice German beer together anyhow. I'm buying, and its Spaten Optimator. :)--MonkeeSage 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the anti-hobbit. You must be thinking of Smeagol. ((gollum)). Excuse me. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never make a joke again...EVER!

Well, I guess some people don't appreciate my humor...I've been told not to make a joke again. I'm going to give it a shot, but I think this edit might have already flunked me...doh! Oh well, what can I say...I blame my great-great-great grand-uncle on my father's side. Scholars, the whole lot! --MonkeeSage 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the boring b****ds grind you down! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I missed it because I've been busy elsewhere. I think you got your point across, though. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I'm just playing. If I took myself (or anyone else) too seriously, then I'd probably burst a blood-vessel. After all, I am a fundimentalist Christian of the worst sort. I learned long ago that I'm not going to change the world, so I might as well have a laugh along the way. :) BTW, that's a neat site Mr. Deepdelver! Theopedia is similar (though currently down). --MonkeeSage 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theopedia's okay, but sometimes a little too Calvinist for my taste. The Christianity Knowledge Base is broader, and I'm there to make sure that Lutheran beliefs are respected. If not, I'll nail something to their church doors! Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well, you know, one of my favorite quotes from Luther starts out: "It was all very easily said, either because you knew that you were writing, not just to Luther, but for the world at large, or else because you failed to consider that it was against Luther that you were writing! I hope you credit Luther with some little scholarship and judgement where the sacred text is concerned? If not, behold! I will wring the admission out of you!" Gotta love 16th century polemics (I know I do! :D). Calvin has some good ones too, like "How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense?" Sometimes I wish people nowdays would just say what they mean like they did back then, without all the euphemism and PC "happiness". --MonkeeSage 01:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some old-style Lutherans around. Check out the row Drboisclair got into on the Jesus-Myth page. It started with the question of what the appropriate historical standard of proof was, but, well, read for yourself. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now! I have a hard time reading such discussions, just because I want to put in my two pennies worth (and of course, my views are right!), but on the other hand I enjoy the back and forth. :) People often seem to think that "scholarly" discussion amounts to everyone going on tiptoe and always qualifying disagreements with something like "well, you have a lot of good points, however, you might possibly be mistaken here and here" -- I personally prefer good old-fashioned fisticuffs (within tasteful bounds of course). If you think I'm wrong, just tell me! I'll return the favor. ;) And now I'm rambling... *goes off to read* --MonkeeSage 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke you made on the Talk:Jesus page: "And don't use "BC" everyone know that means "Believe in Christ you horrible heathen!", and that's mean, POV-pushing! Use BCE, which means "Believe in Christ, Everyone else does"...much more PC.-Agoodperson

Yup, that was the joke. I liked it, but I guess not everone else did. :) --MonkeeSage 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Jesus

Thanks for helping with the documentation. With you and Andrew helping, I do not feel so alone. --CTSWyneken 14:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great new items. Could you, um, sign them? 8-) I'm throwing a fit over two anonymous editors working on the names of Jesus talk page, so I do have to ask my friends to do so, or, well, I might not be NPOV! 8-) Bob --CTSWyneken 02:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I meant to sign them, I really did! Sorry 'bout that brother. --MonkeeSage 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind words

Thank you very much for your kind and unexpected words. I've enjoyed the discussion very much, and feel likewise about your conduct during the back and forth talk, it has been respectful and enlightening. I do completely agree with you that qualities Christians are supposed to have are sorely lacking in the world - imagine what the place would be like if people showed Christ's spirit in everything, not that I do very well myself. It's a very hard thing to do, though one can try. I appreciated the scripture as well, that's a great one. --Oscillate 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Gospel

This is a distinction that is important to Lutheran theology, but we're trying to expand the article to include other denominations' interpretations of Matthew 5 and Galatians 3. All we have on the Reformed perspective is a brief reference to Karl Barth. Please, come share what you can.

The article is also available on the CKB. I'd like to keep the Wikipedia and CKB articles in sync as far as is possible. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thanks for the invite brother. I've done my damage. ;) See the talk page over there. --MonkeeSage 02:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some factual corrections to make on the article tomorrow, and I haven't forgotten CKB, I just haven't had much time to go online today! --MonkeeSage 09:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busier on Wikipedia lately, but it would be nice to clean up the CKB article on Ressurection before Easter! Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. I know you don't know me, and you might have a viewpoint in life that is different from mine, but maybe not that much. However, you know about the fact that I was never opposed to consensus. There was no consensus. I would appreciate your neutral view on this Rfc. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added my outside view. I don't know enough to comment in any detail, but I just said what I know: that from what I have seen, you have been following the policies and have been respectful of others. HTH. --MonkeeSage 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, paragraph 2

Please check my proposal. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Gospel!!!

You constantly remove the part of Gospel of Judas-article which points out that the Gospel was used by a group seeing Yahweh as an evil god. If you read: 1) The gospel and see the name used for the creator (Saklas = the foolish one) 2) The articles about Gnosticism 3) The statement from Iraneaus 4) The article about the Cainites

You will see that the Gospel of Judas is against Yahweh. Since the early Christians attended the temple, the synagogue and presented Jesus as the promised Messiah and even called themselves after the Messiah (Christ) it is quite clear that the early Christians followed Yahweh. It is you who add personal values into the text by removing every statement that displays the differences! Please stop doing that! /DK

As you can see from my user page, I'm one of those stuffy fundimentalist Christians — worse still, I'm a Calvinist! I'm not removing your edits because I believe that Gnosticism is correct, or because I necessarily think you're wrong. I'm removing them because: 1.) The article already mentions the denial of YHVH a little bit below, 2.) The article is about a Gnostic gospel, not the (hostile) relationship between Gnosticism and orthodox Christianity, and 3.) Even if the relationship should be mentioned somewhere in the article, it shouldn't be in the introduction (undue weight). I would suggest starting a section on the article's talk page, and getting input from the community about the matter, as I'm just one editor and we should really seek for consensus. --MonkeeSage 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had the thought to put the text further down. The document is clearly written against the Church and to show how is really one way of presenting the stuff, just as marxism would be impossible to present without mentioning capitalism etc. How about a paragraph with the heading Message of the Gospel? /DK

I would suggest raising the issue on the article's talk page and getting input from other editors. Without consensus, I think you'd just keep being reverted by other editors. --MonkeeSage 19:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question of Trinity Post

Sir, I am curious as to why you removed my complete post to the Trinity, as most of my references were exact scriptural quotes. I would feel free to discuss any differences with you, but as this is an encyclopedia, and is open to facts, I feel that bias should be set aside and facts revealed.

Thank you for your time,

Raredesign 23:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I removed your edits because they were a somewhat lengthy argument against the Trinity, in a section that is meant to summarize the Trinitarian baptism formula as understood/used by most Christians. There is a footnote explaining that Oneness views on baptism are different. Your discussion, if you attribute the POV, should go in the "Dissent" section (start a new Oneness subsection mabye?). But you can't just assert interpretations of passages which are controversial, even if you think they are factual — you have to attribute them (either to a person or a group), and you can't give them undue weight by placing a long discussion of them in a section dedicated to the majority view, especially not when there is a section dedicated to the minority view (see WP:NPOV on attributing rather than asserting and undue weight). There is also an antitrinitarian article, BTW. --MonkeeSage 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am new to this, and am learning. What you said makes a lot of sense.

Thanks again,

Raredesign 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm still relatively new also, and I did the same thing. I was editing Atheist articles and adding long apologetical arguments. Doh! The main things to remember are attribute not assert, and give due weight relevant to the article in question. Welcome to Wikipedia, and have fun! --MonkeeSage 19:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from an old CGR person

Jordan,

I just wanted to say hi. I saw your posts in the "Christian Knowledge Base" and figured there could only be one MonkeeSage in the world. Back in the old days at CGR, I went by the handle of Ted Logan, but you may not remember me-- I think you disappeared shortly after I arrived. Anyway, it's good to see that you're still active in cyberspace, defending the Gospel, et cetera.

Grace to you and peace,

Aaron "CGR turned me into a Calvinist and a Van Tillian" Adams/ Aaronimo 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron! Good to see you brother!! I do remember you. I was still around for a bit while you where there. I think we were part of a discussion on the historicity of the person Job where we basically decided that it didn't matter to the meaning of the book of Job one way or the other. Anyhow, nice to see an old CGR'r! » MonkeeSage « 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been three years? Aaah, the good old days. Wasn't there a branch off board, ALWAYSREFORMING, or something similar? --Simplyreformed 22:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's been awhile! Jonathan started AlwaysReforming.com, but it went down pretty quickly. Probably cause there were only like 6 people there, lol. They had some good papers that John Roberson wrote for school posted there, but other than that it was kind of boring. ;) » MonkeeSage « 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I sit and think about it, it's been nearly four years ago, now. I couldn't remember Jonathan as the founder of AlwaysReforming, but I remembered something starting. I also didn't know it had failed. It's good to see ya around again. --Simplyreformed 11:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors' posts

Please don't delete other editors' posts from the RfC. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they have no content other than to quote me as an underhanded way to launch into an attack on another editor? » MonkeeSage « 15:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're allowed to remove clear examples of personal attacks, but that one's bordering on fair comment, although I see what you're saying, because it isn't polite. My guess is that people will keep on restoring it, so it's probably best left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I don't want to start en edit war over it. » MonkeeSage « 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, JoshuaZ left a note on my talk page agreeing with you, and I realized you were both right, so I've removed the comment myself. I apologize for getting it wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate your diplomacy. :) » MonkeeSage « 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buried in a tomb

Thank you. I knew I could count on you for references! Now I don't have to bother CTSWyneken. He's busy enough as it is ;) BTW, what does a Presbyterian think of Talk:Martin Luther? There's been a heated discussion on categorization going on there. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Hell

It is seen as both a condition which humanity has created for itself, as well as a place. I don't like the quotes seeing that this makes one question whether "Hell" is seen as a real place and it is. It is not seen as a place of torment and punishment (by God) though, since it is believed that a loving God wouldn't make anyone suffer if they didn't want to. It is seen more as a self imposed prison, which involves self imposed suffering, but not eternally, since they eventually learn that acting out causes pain and so they revert to fantasy and spend a lot of time alone, lacking anything really good in thier life. So in this sense they suffer, but not as imposed by an angry God. Jasonschnarr 14:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the New Church position. I don't think the quotation marks need to be there in that case. » MonkeeSage « 23:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting short read about the New Church. --Simplyreformed 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CKB has finally moved

Hi Monkee,

Just wanted to let you know that CKB has now moved as per the discussion of changing servers. I am hosting it myself now on a really good server. I have more control over extensions and stuff. Incidentally, the name has changed to ChristWiki because CKB was so unweildy and long. ;)

We are just about ready to go live!

When I transferred everything over, it worked out pretty well. However, you will have to recreate your user. Your user/talk page should be intact. The reason is that for privacy issues I didn't copy the user table over because that would give me access to passwords (encrypted, mind you) and personal information stuff. Thus, the user table is blank and you need to recreate yourself :)

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! I'm pretty excited for that, and I wanted to thank you for your contributions thus far. We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please join up and re-register at the new domain: http://christ.relately.com/

Drop me a message on my talk page once you've done that so that I can +admin you.

-- nsandwich 04:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'll be back later today and sign up again. :) » MonkeeSage « 17:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrail theory

Hi, your edit on Chemtrail theory left me scratching my head. Here is the definition of Pseudoscience given on the Pseudoscience page:

Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research.

It seems to describe Chemtrail theory exactly. San Saba 10:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrail theory is often a conspiracy theory, but it does not claim to be a scientific hypothesis. In other words, it is an alleged phenomenon, not an explanation of a phenomenon (e.g., "I see a car in the driveway" vs. "I see a car in the driveway because reflected light stimulates my ophthalmic nerves"). Now the explanations offered by chemtrailers may involve pseudoscience, but the theory itself does not, I don't think. Granted, there is the guy who claims to have collected samples from ground-sites where chemtrail activity allegedly occured, but AFAICT, his method does not diverge from the scientific norms and standards; and the last clause of the definition is ambiguous (viz., "is unsupported by sufficient scientific research"); in one case it means "enough scientific research", which makes it purely subjective, and chemtrailers obviously believe it is "sufficient" in that sense; in the other case it means "scientific research carried out correctly", which gets back to the previous clause about scientific standards. » MonkeeSage « 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justification article

Hi,

I left some comments on the talk page on the justification article about the first section, and I was hoping you might provide your thoughts.

Thanks, jrcagle 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit to Historical Jesus

Initial iota followed by a vowel becomes consonantal in Greek (as well as Latin), i.e. the IPA j sound (English y sound), see also Greek_alphabet. 63.201.24.208 08:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, obviously this is gonna need a reference. I'm pretty sure Meier's A Marginal Jew, vol 1, has all the details, unfortunately I don't have one handy. 63.201.24.208 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (that's why I used /i/ rather than /ɪ/; to denote the quantitative or long iota). The iota-eta is a false monophthong: it is not a digraph, but it isn't a diphthong, it is somewhere in-between. It has a slight glide, but not as much as a diphthong; kind of like the difference of degree between a diphthong and a diaeresis is the difference between /j/ and /ie/. An approximant (/j/) would work just as well (Robertson says iota-eta is partly-consonantal, a "half-vowel"), but in that case I don't think the eta transcription should be included, and iota-eta should be treated as a digraph. But none of my grammars give IPA, so this is just my approximation based on the English words they give to show the Greek phonetics and their descriptions of phonetic quality and quantity (e.g., long iota = police, intrigue = /i/, omicron + upsilon = soup, food = /uː/). Feel free to correct my transcription.

I don't own a copy of Meier, so I can't really help there. it would be great if we could find a transcription given by a reputable third-party though. I'll see if I can borrow it in the next few days. » MonkeeSage « 10:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Greetings my fellow mono-shapist. Let not those who deny the Holy Triangle get you down. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL!!! Here is our Sacred Icon → Δ LOL! :D

BTW, I'm still going to make my way over to CKB soon. I'm working on a simple Bible progam in Python+GTK right now; that, plus WP and work is taking up all my time at the moment. I'm almost finished with it though. It reads plain-text verse-per-line files and allows for lookup and search and is portable between Win/Linux. I know there is already e-Sword and Sword Project, but I'm trying to learn Python anyhow and I've got a case of "Not Made Here" ;) » MonkeeSage « 13:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't know that the CKB has split in half? There is now Christianity Knowledge Base as well as ChristWiki. The main difference is that ChristWiki has about 9,000 out-of-date Catholic Encyclopedia articles. Nsandwich insists that this is not a schism, but I can't help but be reminded of 1054. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:niv

Did you intentionally blank the talk page for Template:niv? If so, why? –RHolton ≡– 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword

An article to which you contributed was deleted in what i feel was a rather rapid and unfriendly way - particularly as during the unfolding debate it became obvious that all and everything faulty could be remedied . I have therefore relisted this article for a review of deletion and would appreciate your comment. See here [1] Refdoc 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism

The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hey there. Miss you. What have you been up to lately? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calvinist hobbit

The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense.

Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation,

I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you?

I am suffering from lung cancer that invaded the human brain and required brain surgery. Trying to coordinate information in my environment is like waiting for the Pony Express. (Coordination is going to be difficult suce the lung tumor invaded my brain through the Cerebellum-Spinocerebellar tract complex. Oh, joy! Not to mention that I heard the doctors here at Skilled Neurosurgery discussing with my sis that they were planning to remove a bone from my skull and let my neck muscles support the back of my head.

Wow... :( That must be really scary! I can't even imagine what it's like for you. We already know that we are all mortal, but it must be quite a shell-shock to be punched in the face with it. Pardon my french, but I bet it feels something like a cosmic "bitch-slap." I know I'm not supposed to talk like that, but I'm just being honest. You're in my heart and my prayers. All I can say is, trust that God has a purpose for everything, no matter how it seems at the time. Yeah...just another "canned" consolation--I'm not sure what else to offer you--I'm just a worthless pile of meat like you. Maybe a simple anecdote will help you carry the burden. A young child was strapped down to a table--he was screaming in pain. Three men stood over him with various steel implements. One of them began inserting one of the steel pieces into his eyeball and the child screamed out in anguish. If we stop here, and take this as the entire picture, we may rightly conclude that these men are sadistic monsters, whose only purpose is to harm the child. But suppose that we delve deeper, and find that the child had fallen down on the slide, was suffering from cranial hemorrhaging, and that the thee men were doctors, trying their best to alleviate the swelling and save the child's life? We have such a fleeting perspective on this world, and we don't know all of the "details"--what looks horrid from our ignorant perspective is all part of a greater plan. I know that sounds like I'm just handing out platitudes, but I'm really not. I can't empathize with you, because I can't come to grips with my own mortality--death is the last enemy, and I can't honestly face it...but I can offer you my prayers and moral support. Please feel free email me at MonkeeSage@gmail.com.

God's love and peace to you,

Jordan

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Jschram.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jschram.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Jschram.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jschram.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bottom-Panel.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]