Difference between revisions of "Talk:Religion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→buddhism: I have steel caps.) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:: Will do, sir -- just started on the talk-page to avoid stomping any unforeseen toes:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:13, 22 August 2007 (EDT) | :: Will do, sir -- just started on the talk-page to avoid stomping any unforeseen toes:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:13, 22 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
::: I have several pairs of steel-capped boots! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 22 August 2007 (EDT) | ::: I have several pairs of steel-capped boots! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 22 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::: Aussies with steel-capped boots are ''not'' to be messed with:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:37, 23 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:37, August 23, 2007
David R: This site is SUPPOSED to be for Conservatives and Christians (says so right on the front page). Why are you lumping the One True Faith in with all the false religions? --Fullmetajacket 23:46, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- Because for every one Christian who says their faith is the "right" one, there will be one Muslim, one Jew, one Sikh, on Animist, one Hindu, one Buddhist, one Scientologist, etc. to disagree. --Hojimachongtalk 01:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Definition of Religion is inconsistent with dictionary definition. Added and cited. --Dikaiosune 12:13 am (CST) 19 March 2007
- As a minor point of information, it seems likely to me that neither a Buddhist nor a Scientologist would describe their knowledge of their respective applied religious philosophies to be a "faith", a "true faith" or even an important "faith" Terryeo 01:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Regardless, the comments of Fullmetajacket were out of line, and may well be sarcastic. --Hojimachongtalk 01:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Spelling
Actually, I think his spelling was correct. How do we go about handling this dispute? Is there a procedure? Bohdan
- I'm assuming that "his" is a reference to Luke314 and that you are alluding to my reversion of his edit with the comment "Spelling was correct".
- If so, I'd agree that his spelling was correct, and point out that I never said that it wasn't. What I said was that the previous spelling was correct, implying that there was therefore no need to change it. Can you figure the rest out from there?
- Philip J. Rayment 05:08, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
buddhism
i don't think buddhism can reasonably be described as pantheistic -- it is, for all intents and purposes, non-theistic ... Ungtss 10:26, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- When I categorised that list, I put an edit comment of "please check and correct". Please do. I included it under pantheism because I believe that Hinduism is pantheism, and Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, but for no better reason than that. Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- Will do, sir -- just started on the talk-page to avoid stomping any unforeseen toes:). Ungtss 11:13, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- I have several pairs of steel-capped boots! :-) Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- Aussies with steel-capped boots are not to be messed with:). Ungtss 09:37, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
- I have several pairs of steel-capped boots! :-) Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- Will do, sir -- just started on the talk-page to avoid stomping any unforeseen toes:). Ungtss 11:13, 22 August 2007 (EDT)