Difference between revisions of "User talk:Wycliffe"

Latest revision as of 19:37, January 11, 2012

• Welcome to Conservapedia! Glad to see another Anglican member --IScott 11:57, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Editing

We get far too many vandals here, so please be careful with your edit notes, and make sure if you state an edit is "minor" it is indeed minor, okay? Thanks! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:18, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

paragraphs

Some paragraphs have been missed in your edits. Could you please reinstall them or support your deletes? --Joaquín Martínez 19:45, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Hi. The Calvinism paragraph seemed overly long in a long article, and it repeated some material already found on the page. But that was the only issue with me there. My changes mainly went to to either correcting grammar and making for easier reading OR replacing language that could be considered somewhat slanted with more neutral or balanced wording. I have read the guidelines and try to abibe by them all. Wycliffe.

Church

I wonder why some material was missed. Any comment? --Joaquín Martínez 14:25, 12 December 2010 (EST) ..........................

Could you specify?

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church&diff=832422&oldid=760252 --Joaquín Martínez 17:32, 13 December 2010 (EST)

........................................................

Well, that (above) links me to the entire article, so I'm not certain what "missing" material is of concern. I can find only several lines out of a long and repetitious article that appear to have been edited out for the sake of avoiding redundancy. Those lines basically reasserted what had already been stated (and which is still in the article).

Mainly, sections or paragraphs were rearranged for easier reading, not eliminated. Wycliffe

Sorry, please see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/+Cathedral --Joaquín Martínez 08:59, 17 December 2010 (EST)

Seems to be fine. You may sign here using the button next to the red circle in the upper bar (edit window); like this: --Joaquín Martínez 08:02, 14 December 2010 (EST)

Thank you, Joaquin! I had been looking for the way to sign like everyone else does, but until I had your directions to trust, I didn't see how the symbols that appear become the signature and date.--Wycliffe 09:40, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Merry Christmas!!!

Merry Christmas!!! --Joaquín Martínez 14:47, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Edits to Virgin Birth

While I appreciate the copy editing and amelioration of wording whenever possible, I took exception to this edit because it clearly adds doubt where there isn't any. Does that make sense? While I realize that we do "believe" this occurred, it is more than simply a "belief" and "we believe it so therefore it's true." Seeing as it's documented in the Bible, I don't see a reason to introduce extraneous doubt that in turn casts doubt on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me know if that all makes sense. Thanks! Tyler Zoran ^Talk 23:46, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Hi, Tyler. If it indeed is a matter of casting doubt on the Bible, I'll admit to having been overly (and wrongly) concerned about using neutral wording. But that only applies to the Virgin Birth being undeniably supported by the Bible. So we agree there.

You also changed other edits which dealt with doctrinal matters that are not clearly and unquestionably settled by recourse to Bible wording. On them, I feel that presenting both sides is clearly desirable...or at least let's agree that we can't justify describing the belief in the way that only one side prefers.

In that category are 1) Catholics worship Mary. Despite tbe Catholic denial, the Protestant cannot be treated as flatly wrong. It's still a matter of dispute. It depends on how one defines "worship," and I was fair to both sides there. And 2) when the line says that mainline Protestant denominations believe or don't believe X, we'd better be sure that every last mainline Protestant denomination actually does take the position described. That was not the case as the text stood before I edited it. Thnx. --Wycliffe 13:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Thanks, Wycliffe, your changes are excellent now! Sorry if I reverted too much; your current version is more than satisfactory, though. Thanks again! Tyler Zoran ^Talk 13:47, 31 December 2010 (EST)

I request that Wycliffe justify the scandalous claim that Catholics worship Mary. He assert it as fact. It is most often a hoary lie that is told to deride and scorn Catholics for hundreds of years. I note that Wycliffe accepts there is a Catholic denial, but gives it no credit and does not acknowledge the Biblical source of Catholic's adoration of Mary as well as of all Saints with whom we have communion. That is not fair and it is part and parcel of the anti-Catholic nonsense that goes on on this site. I won't stand for it. We are directed by no less than Paul himself to venerate saints. They are of Christ himself. Mary is my personal protector and redeemer yet it is the Father or her Child, who you might also know as God that I and all Christians worship. Catholics and I assume many protestants adore and venerate Mary. We do not worship her and we are not pagans or idolators. I will appreciate some justification of the claim that we worship her or expect Wycliffe qualify or retract this assertion. Nate 15:05, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Calm down, Nate! According to the article as it stands now, it reads: "Many Protestants identify Catholics as worshippers of Mary. Catholics vigorously deny that they worship any being but God." which seems to present both the Protestant and the Catholic view equally. This phrase indicates that Protestants believe something about Catholics, and that Catholics deny that Protestant belief (in other words, they do not hold that belief to be true). What's the problem here? Tyler Zoran ^Talk 15:10, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Stating flatly that Catholics worship Mary. It's false. Nate 15:22, 31 December 2010 (EST)

The only thing that sentence states flatly is that Protestants identify Catholics as worshiping Mary. It's merely an attribution of a belief. Pardon my metaphor, but red-green colorblind people identify red as a grayish color, but stating that "People with red-green colorblindness identify red/green as gray" is clearly not stating flatly that red/green are the same color as gray. Does that make sense? The sentence appears very straightforward to me. If you still have a problem with it, what alternative do you propose? Tyler Zoran ^Talk 15:27, 31 December 2010 (EST)

"I looked at the article. It's fair about the dispute Reform theology people have with Catholic faith. But the claim on this page that Catholics worship Mary is false. That's the only thing I was talking about. Honestly you really missed my point unless I was unclear about referring directly to the statement Wycliffe made on this page. The article is Ok and now that I see it I will make a note to work on it to include more material explaining the Catholic perspective. Thanks. Nate 15:28, 31 December 2010 (EST)

"I assumed you would be referring to the article itself, since if a claim is made on a talk page but isn't presented in any way in the article (which you seem to agree that it's not) then it's irrelevant. Even on this page, Wycliffe states that it is still a point of dispute. Is there anything more you want? Tyler Zoran ^Talk 15:34, 31 December 2010 (EST)

You're not reading what I wrote. It's a false claim. He hasn't justified it. All he did was state it and say there's a dispute. Nate 15:55, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Then go find us some proof that it's false, please. I'm genuinely curious now. Tyler Zoran ^Talk 16:22, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Well, we all agree that some Protestants do believe that way. And we are in agreement that Catholics deny the accusation. There is no obligation on anyone's part to prove either party correct, even if that were possible. But may I also point out that (IMO) the issue doesn't belong on that page anyway. The article is entitled "Virgin Birth" and it deals with the Virgin Birth, not all things that in some way relate to the Virgin. I'm willing to include an explanation of WHY those Protestants who believe Mary is worshipped feel as they do, as well as the reason why Catholics believe that their veneration (Nate's chosen word) of Mary does not constitute worship of her. However, a better way to go would be to strike the line altogether for the reason explained above. How about that? --Wycliffe 16:57, 31 December 2010 (EST)

The article is fine but I would appreciate it if you go for it here because I asked you to justify your position. There's no other page here whether it's a discussion or article where the Catholic position on this important issue is set out. I will talk to a priest buddy for guidance on this discussion if you want to talk about this. I'm just a regular guy when it comes to anything but what I believe. I sort of know the best argumnets but I need help on the theological stuff. I'd love to speak with you. Nate 18:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Going going gone to a party and then to celebrate mass in the morning. Anyone in NW IN is welcome to email me to attend a special new years day devotional mass at the Shrine of Christ's Passion in St. John Indiana. Email me. Nate

Just pointing out something.

Sorry I'm bothering you. I just wanted to say that your recent edit on Premillennialism did indeed clarify many points. But one thing I disagree with is that you wrote that Premillennialism is of fairly recent origin. That's actually untrue, for the church fathers who lived before the 3rd century believed in Premillennialism according to their writings, until Amillennialism became a popular theory.

The writings of Didache and the early theologians, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ireneaeus, etc, all believed in Premillennialist Postribulationism.

Sorry for bringing this up. Take care. :)

(User:Nashhinton)