User talk:Drboisclair

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Please place new messages below: 3 Sorry about the wholesale revert 4 Five solas 5 What changes do I need to make to my user:drboisclair user page 6 Luther GA Nom Comments 7 Your "Holier Than Thou" claim= 8 Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church 9 Johannes Andreas August Grabau 10 Martin Luther 11 Riapress and The Black Arrow 12 Personal versus Actual 13 Sola scriptura 14 Glad your attention was caught! 15 Diocesan Infobox 16 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Drboisclair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
• The handy Manual of Style
• And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 01:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Please place new messages below:

Thanks. To be honest, I've never even seen the movie, I'm just editing for formatting. Keep up the good work though. I hope you don't mind if I take some of the details out of the Golem article. I think things like the production company aren't so relevant in that article. Ashmoo 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the wholesale revert

Dear Tom: Thanks for your work on the Luther page. Sorry I put that error back into the article that you removed. --Dave,Drboisclair 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

No problem, sir.--Tom 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ps, It was actually user Bailan who changed that quote so no apology was needed but thanks anyways. Cheers! --Tom 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to me, Cheers back to you!--Drboisclair 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five solas

Could you review these changes to Five solas from a Lutheran perspective? --Flex 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What changes do I need to make to my user:drboisclair user page

Your changes to my user page have again caused it to appear messed up in the worst way. Why can't it be left the way I fixed it?--Drboisclair 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I replaced a redirect with the template to which it points, I can assure you that my change had as near to no effect on the way your user-page as is possible. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I responded on your talk page: I will simply remove all userboxes from my user page, since when they are properly formatted as you have formatted them, they do not work on my user page.--Drboisclair 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther GA Nom Comments

The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the rest was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your "Holier Than Thou" claim=

In the Talk section of the Martin Luther article you make a statement which I must challenge. You claim that the LCMS is "faithful to the Lutheran standards" and that the much larger ELCA "has not made it a practice to follow what might be considered authentic Lutheranism." I reject this slander. I have seen the LCMS in action by virtue of worshipping countless times over the past 30 plus years in several congregations of LCMS in various parts of the country. I have not seen greater doctrinal purity there than in ELCA congregations, but I have seen some amazing examples of the classic authoritarian personality at work in the LCMS. Edison 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That the LCMS is faithful is a waning truism. At least, for now, we do not ordain women, although that may not legitimately be done in orthodox Christianity. How is the ordination of women faithful to Lutheran standards? It undermines the entire Church, turning it into a Gnostic sect. You are probably right in this last statement: "I have not seen greater doctrinal purity there than in ELCA congregations ..." I would have to add that these must be congregations in which priestesses are not placed over them.--Drboisclair 15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reply indicated that you felt the LCMS had become too liberal. If so, there is always the Wisconsin Synod? They are convinced they are more Pure and Holy and Devout than the LCMS. But those who think the Wisconsin Synod is too liberal and not Pure enough can join the Church of the Lutheran Confession. I expect there are some in the CLC who feel a greater need for Purity because the CLC sometimes talks to the Wisconsin Synod, and so on. There is always a regress toward greater "Purity" usually accompanied by hatred, authoritarianism, arrogance, putting on blinders to avoid reading all that is in the Bible, with a simultaneous diminution of love and compassion. The old LCA said Love Compels Action while recognizing that salvation is by grace and not by works. Arrogant Holier Than Thou factionalism is true among Jews (Orthodox vs Conservative and Reform), among other protestants (Baptists have horror stories about how liberal the Methodists are), Catholics (Archbishop LeFebvre started a breakaway faction of Roman Catholics because of the Latin mass and other factors), and Islam (the Sunni's and Shias kill each other daily over shadings of historical interpretation). This authoritarian factor turns into "Women and youths, hold your tongue. If I think you need an opinion, I will give you one." I know an LCMS congregation which was horrified at at churchwide convention to see a woman teaching a Bible class, because at home women could only teach the children's class. Supposedly women can now vote in the LCMS, but some congregations have apparently not heard the news. LCMS professes "Biblical inerrance" but then says that the detailed Old Testament rules do not apply, so they freely plant different seeds in the same field, or wear garments made of different fabrics. The Bible is an inerrant rule, but they freely ignore the parts they disagree with in the old testament, but cite adjoining passages as a continuing rule for behavior. They can rationalize several differing accounts of what was said and done at the same occasion in Jesus ministry. If the Gospels are inerrant, they should never disagree. Every ELCA congregatioin must include in theis constitution their adherence to the unaltered Augsburg Confession and other of your "confessional" documents. The claim is a false one that the ELCA is not a "confessional Lutheran church." I can't find the part about ordination of women in that document. Perhaps you could point out which article of faith it is in.

Now for something we probably can find agreement on: the inaccuracies of a website, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul6.htm , which claims a) that Martin Luther did not nail his 95 Theses to the church door, and b) never said "Here I stand, I can do no other." What do you think are the best documents to support the assertion that he did those things? As recently as the early 19th century documents were commonly nailed to the door of a public building. I have seen original documents from the 1840's in the US, dealing with notices from the Circuit Court, which are filed in a courthouse today, with the water stains and nailholes showing they were "published" that way. There seems to be some idea that it was an aberration or sacrilege to nail something to the door, when it fact it was probably common. Thanks. Edison 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Andreas August Grabau

Don't be sorry to have to revise. You caught what was a typo on my part and got the category corrected. Excellent work. My thanks go out to you. Erechtheus 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was a decade category, but I don't think that we have such a category. I appreciate your contribution to this article too.--Drboisclair 19:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther

Tweaked the intro sentence a little; what do you think now? Batmanand | Talk 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is a good addition about him or his legacy being controversial. Perhaps better would be "As a result of this, his revolutionary theological views, and the Reformation his legacy remains a controversial one." This might be revised by some of the other editors; however, I believe that you add an important point to the lead-in intro.--Drboisclair 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that I am not capturing what you are trying to do here. You are saying: "As a result [of all of what Luther said and did] ... his legacy remains a controversial one", so scratch my suggestion above. Everything about the man was controversial. I think that it is a good way to end the intro. Let's see what the other editors do with it.--Drboisclair 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riapress and The Black Arrow

Responded on my talk page. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal versus Actual

Dr- while I see your point in terms of technical accuracy in the Orignal sin article, I'm not yet convinced you have improved the article by adding the technical term "actual" and removing the colloquial use of "personal". I am going to have another go at it. In the meantime, I want to assure you that I am not using "personal" in the sense of "hypostasis"; rather I am using it in the modern sense of "what I am personally responsible for doing" - the sort of commonly accepted use of the term in the current wash of individualism as a philosophy. I believe this actually helps the non-theologically g\qualifierd to bet a better undderstanding than the use of the technically correct term "actual" Cor Unum 10:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response to this comment on your talk page.--Drboisclair 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Cor Unum 09:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sola scriptura

You may want to take note of the recent changes to sola scriptura. IMHO, they are not neutral, but I won't have time to address them right now. --Flex 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another POV check request, this time on Sola fide: These edits by User:Simonapro and these edits by an anon. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a moment, please share your thoughts at Talk:Sola_scriptura#Bible_verses. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added an article on the analogy of faith as an umbrella article over sola scriptura viz-a-viz tradition. Please take a look, and feel free to edit, correct, or otherwise improve! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for clueing me in on these helpful articles. FYI, this term comes from Romans 12:6, which is variously interpreted to remove any idea of it being a "body of doctrine." Faith is either the fides quae creditur (the "faith" which is believed) or the fides qua creditur (the "faith" that does the believing). When it is quae, then analogia pisteos (Gk) is understood as the body of doctrine that is believed and forms a criterion for preaching (prophesy) and teaching. The RCC and we Lutherans speaks of a "depositum fidei" related to this which comes from the Pauline Pastoral Epistles: 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12-14. You have touched on the differences between RCC, OC, Protestants, and Lutherans.--Drboisclair 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flex"

[edit] Glad your attention was caught!

The "Original Blessing" notion is vehemently opposed by Catholic conservatives - but I think Fox was on the right track (at least when he started out). It has some considerable currency among progressive Christians, and is a remedy (of sorts) to extreme Augustinian negativity. Thanks for building the new article. I was going to start one myself- but was just too busy- so I am delighted to see you have done it. Cor Unum 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! There is some truth to Fox's position about the relative goodness of God's creation. After all, Augustine believed that evil was pure nihilism, non-existence, while goodness is always something positive. The fact that the devil exists is something good about him.--Drboisclair 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

[edit] Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Fair enough, you did not place the original reference to porn. Thanks for the response, I merely reverted back before the original placement. It would appear you have an automated bot in place to change porn to adult feature (adult feature.) Unfortunately the change did not distinguish the vandalism, and in fact made the vandalism appear more legitimate. Here is a link on IMDB to the feature in question.

• Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer (1948)

While clearly not an adult feature, the vandalism made it appear as such. Thanks, Group29 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing was that this morning I just went to the article to find out which came first the song or the story, and then I was shocked to see this reference to porn. I didn't want to whitewash by simply removing the reference; however, I was concerned about children reading the article. Thankyou for your diligence and help on this website.--Drboisclair 19:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)