User talk:Home Computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Home Computer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Arbeiter 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dulc

Hi! Glad to be of help in the spelling and grammar department. If you need reference materials for more of the Christian pages, I've got quite a library of books here to look through. Dulcimerist 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

heh! great. :) I need the help. :) --Home Computer 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to addressing Biblical literalism, and hope that my input is useful. Please let me know if you're looking for additional stuff for anything. Thanks! -- Dulcimerist 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally appreciate your input. Thank you. --Home Computer 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In doing some additional reading, it's appearing that true Biblical literalism doesn't exist. I know of no religious groups who take this Scripture passage the literal way: Mark 9:43-48 - "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" Since the subject of Biblical literalism deals exclusively with how the Holy Bible is interpreted, then the only logical source to use on the subject is the Holy Bible itself. --Dulcimerist 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Messianic prophecy

I agree that adding sections on other religions, then writing one sentence saying that they do not have messianic prophecy is not productive. Pop culture references however do have a place in most articles (normally in a "trivia" section or "pop culture usage" section). I am personally uncertain where this article should go at the time being. Out of courtesy to the content dispute, I reverted to the longstanding version while this edit conflict played out on talk. There was a very dramatic change in the article, that a) changed its scope and b) blanked a LOT of content. This was obviously going to be controversial, and Rick objected. In conflicts like that, I believe it is customary and respectful to revert to the previous standing version while the debate goes on at talk (also, creating a sandbox in your userspace for the proposed new version is also a useful thing to do. You can do that by typing a slash after your username,and then typing in a page name, like User:Home Computer/Messianic prophecy. If you already know about that, sorry.) However, as I have said, I don't know what we should do with the article, and I hate to say this, but I don't care that much. Not enough to get involved in edit warring, so I am going to withdraw from this debate for the time being. Good luck. I posted some 'adivce' that you are more than welcome to ignore over on the article talk page.--Andrew c 20:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are reverting just because of the one guys disagreement? The stuff that was changed was what you agreed with, as well as the copy pasting of Bible material in original research. Besides we had a concensus that the change needed to be made. --Home Computer 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will check into this article when I have time. Some quick references I can give you include the Book of Isaiah, chapters 50-60, especially in the middle of that section; as well as Messianic Bureau International. Although I haven't personally checked the Messianic Prophecy page or discussion yet; I'm assuming that friction is occurring between those who believe that the Messianic Prophecy has been fulfilled, and those who believe that the Messianic Prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. This may lead to two separate pages being formed. --Dulcimerist 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for my barnstar! I really appreciate it. I'm more than happy to help in stopping vandalism to Bible or any other article – just trying to do an RC patroller's job. Thanks again and let me know if you see more vandalism or if you need help in general. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats a barnstar? --Dulcimerist 01:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

On IZAK's page I wrote "No, Home Computer, you are arguing that what we call the Tanakh cannot also be called the Bible. This is the issue you have raised. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)" and you wrote "No i'm not, Dovi and others showed me I was wrong. --Home Computer 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)." Thank you. I am glad you now understand this point and accept it. And I appreciate your making this clear.

However, there is still a fundamental problem. You write, "Christians accept and identify with all of pre Christ Judaism as thier own. Yeshua was a Jew, we recieve salvation only through being grafted in to the vine, etc." and I understand and accept this, and I believe that this POV must be included in the Bible article. You are asserting a relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and a relationship between the Old testament and Christians. I accept that this is important to Christians and for this reason there is a need for a section on the Old Testament that makes this clear.

However, you have to understand and accept that Jews do not share this view. For Jews, neither the New Testament nor Christianity can possibly be grafted onto the "vine" of the Tanakh. Jews believe that to make this claim is to misread and misconstrue the Tanakh. I know you do not believe this. You have your point of view, Christians have their point of view. But Jews do not share this point of view, and consequently view the Tanakh very differently from the way Christians do. For this reason you are totally wrong to write, "The very notion of a Christian vs Jewish sections to describe view points on the definitions and usage of the TNK is nonsensical." For many Jews, the Tanakh proves that Christianity is wrong; for all Jews, the Tanakh has meanings utterly at odds with the understanding Christians have of the Old Testament. You do not have to agree with this view. You do not even have to like it. But you must accept that it is a significant view that must be included in the Bible article for that article to comply with NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back, and for being civil. I still disagree with you opinion to divide the article into POV sections just because your POV contradict the commonly held Christian POV. Articles should be written from an npov perspective, including concise paragraphs noting the differing povs.. And besides if we are to organise the article into POV's then the article should list the most prevelant POV first which I'm sure you would disagree with. --Home Computer 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means, in part, including multiple points of view. In any event, you seem to be mistaking "POV" and "content." The article will discuss both the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The reason the article currently presents the Jewish one first is because it was written and canonized first. In other words, we are putting content in chronological order. Given that we are talking about books that were written in different times, and groups of books that were canonized at different times, chronological order seems to make the most sense for presenting information about these books and canons. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "Hebrew Bible" is used acrost the board. To have a section entitled "Hebrew Bible" and attribute it to one religious POV is a POV problem. Peace. --Home Computer 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

HC, it sounds as if we share the same goals ("trying to understand each others' perspectives to create as npov and acurate an article as possible" - as you put it). PS, I am a very traditonal Chrisitan myself. Lostcaesar 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no one wants a fight. Our time and effort have limits. :) Consider this.. if the article is based on POV's of the word Bible, then the most prevelant POV usually goes first. That would cause all kinds of holy hell and still would result in either there being no section for the OT (as before) or almost 6 pages of duplicate information from the TNK section, with a paragraph of differentiation.
As it is now, the definition of the phrase "The Bible" suggests that is that it's equally used by Jews and Christians to describe what thier holy books are, followed by the "Hebrew Bible" section documenting usage for the OT and the TNK. While I disagree with the definition somewhat at least the format is more accurately informational..
Do you have some solution to this problem? If so please document it on the talk page. So far no one has given any good solutions, everyone is just being antagonistic.. maybe I'm just sensitive. :) --Home Computer 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

HC, let me say the following. I appreciate that you are interested in improving the article, and I see your edits as good faith attempts to do so. I also admire your energy and tenacity. That said, I am confused as to your purpose. I see various areas to improve the article, but I do not understand how such a restructuring is supposed to advance those goals. I am unclear as to the problem you are trying to solve. Also, I cannot help but feel that there is a desire shown in your edits to overshadow various points of view by subsuming them with a certain understanding / view. I think sorting out this confusion is the first step to collaboration. I will add that, if I have done anything antagonistically, I apologize. I was taken aback by the suggestion that I "open a Bible" — I am no expert on the scriptures and they are often beyond by understanding, but I take the Word of God seriously and do know a thing or two about the holy writ. That said, I do understand that this was not meant as an offensive comment. Lostcaesar 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I appoligise as well. My attempts at lightheartedness come acrost as rude and inappropriate online. Such is not my intention. I appreciate that you are willing to hear me out. I had actually just resolved to leave the Bible page for a little while but I am happy to you're asking these questions. For the time being the biggest issue I had with the article (that is resolved yet in the process of being unresolved) was the lack of any substantial OT section. Currently there is a Hebrew bible section that addresses all the uses of the TNK and the OT at the same time. I am happy with that. The alternative would be to have a TNK section and an OT section with virtually all the same information with but a few paragraphs of differentiation. There are several reasons why I think that's a bad idea.. but that should be enough for you understand my perspective for now.
The other issue (and it's not that major, more of an article excellence issue) was the definition. Currently the editors are shying away from using a Christian POV in defining the term the Bible.. Christian perspective rather is diminished even though in the global usage of the term, in media, culture, religious institutions the vast majority of the term "The Bible" is the in the Christian perspective, followed by the Jewish perspective followed perhaps by non Judaic religious or perhaps secualar usages of the phrase. The Definition ought to reflect its common usage. Look to my last edit. It's very clear, it's appropriately differentiated, ver respectful. Any dictionary's first two points should be very simmilar to the definition we use. The only problem was that in so, me people's POV thier religion was being shunted even though thier religious view is not the majority usage of the phrase.. So we have a system whereby the most represented POV gains the most affluent represenation.. I mean we all agree that wiki is just that way, it's just difficult to have to contend with a small group who's POV is all the same and who's most vocal participant is throwing racial accusations around like it's popcorn.. anyway, I hope I answered your question. --Home Computer 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a couple of minor points about wiki-etiquette

First of all, sign ALL comments on talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~. Next, when using templates, follow the instructions. Please read Template:Npa2. It specifically says to substitute the temple on talk pages (most templates on talk need to be substed). All this means is that you type "subst:" before the template name (so {{npa2}} would look like {{subst:npa2}}). What this does is copy the code from the template and paste it on the talk page Also, if you read the template page, you'd see that these templates are used on USER talk pages, not mainspace talk pages. For an overview read Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. So, to recap. Warnings to users go on user talk. All messages (including warning) must be signed. And templates like these need to be "subst:". Hope this help!--Andrew c 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've still got a lot of wiki stuff to figure out. --Home Computer 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing you signature

Customizing your signature is easy. Just go to Special:Preferences (also at the top of the page under "My Preferences", and use the signature field. In my case I have:

[[User:Evil Monkey|Evil Monkey]] - [[User talk:Evil Monkey|Hello]]

Of course, the hyphen can be changed to any symbol you want. Hope that helps. Evil Monkey - Hello 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks a bunch! --Home Computer 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Test --[[User:Homecomputer|test1 - [[User talk:Homecomputer|test2]]]] 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC) test --yup 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) test --[[user talk:Peace ^ [[user:Homecomputer]]]] 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) test --[[user talk:Homecomputer|Peace] ^ [[user:Homecomputer|Homecomputer]] 22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) test --[[user talk:Homecomputer|Peace ^ [[user:Homecomputer|Homecomputer]]]] 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To add the symbol, you should just need to add ∴ . One thing you may need to do is click the check box that says "Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this)". Evil Monkey - Hello 21:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --[[User:Homecomputer|Homecomputer⇔[[User talk:Homecomputer|Peace]]]] 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

--Homecomputer⇔Peace 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) {{{1}}} (UTC)

--Homecomputer∴Peace 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know, something is up with your signature. The links in your most recent posts are both redlinks to a nonexistent user, User:homecomputer. I believe the space between the words, and the capital letters are important (but you can always pipe the text to say something different from the link name). Hope this helps.--Andrew c 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow thanks. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem

I see you're putting forth a lion's effort to search for good sources for the above-referenced article. Great! Good for you! Especially if the CBN web content turns out to be part of their news department and not just their promotions. CBN/Pat Robertson have one of the very few Christian-Protestant news sources that have grown to a goodly size and withstood the test of time.

In looking at the information available on this event, however, most of the famous Christian personalities giving endorsements seem to be more concerned with their beliefs on praying for Jerusalem than they are with being members of Hayford's organization.

Perhaps your goals in doing all of this fervent and diligent work might be better served if you started an article dealing with "Christian Devotions Regarding Jerusalem" or "Christians Praying for Jerusalem." Then you could highlight the Hayford organization without having to stretch too much to prove its own unique notability for encyclopedic purposes. After all, Hayford has only held his event three (3) times, and no one knows for certain if his particular organization will carry on in later years. HOWEVER, it is absolutely certain that pentecostal Christian groups will continue to pray for Jerusalem and promote their mandate concerning the Promised Land as long as time goes on and until eterity arrives.

Another benefit to starting a generalized article on Christian prayer efforts for Jerusalem is that you can include information from past organizations or events that may have been large at one time. You can include major books published by people like Pat Robertson. You can include one-time events that occured at other times of the year. You can include highly publicized statements from well-known pentecostal figures (remember Billy Graham's son making a comment about Islam? It lasted less than twenty seconds for him to say it, but it was in international news for weeks. I am sure there are comparable statements about the biblical significance of Israel in the modern world.)

I looked at the article on Christian Zionism and I think that the information on prayer groups and prayer efforts would be out of place there. A separate article on the general topic of Christian prayer efforts for Jerusalem would be appropriate and informative to all kinds of people who read Wikipedia, no matter their background. But the Hayford event by itself will be hard to sustain over time, as it has not garnered much media attention to have its very own solitary article.

I think that a more generalized article including other prayer projects and efforts would address the importance you so very obviously place on having information about prayers for Jerusalem on Wikipedia and it would solve inherent problems in trying to force the Hayford event to be more notable than it is right now in its early stages.

Hope your day today was nice. OfficeGirl 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but you must have misunderstood me. I said I think the Christian prayer efforts DO NOT belong on the Christian Zionism page (see bold above), but that a more generalized article about many different Christian prayer efforts would be informative and would more readily meet the requirements of Wikipedia than the Hayford event which is new and has not received much attention. The Hayford event would be a fine inclusion in an article that featured several other prayer efforts.OfficeGirl 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
HomeComputer, each time I have made an effort to open up discussion on the Hayford organization for other Wikipedians to come and comment and discuss, you have taken it upon yourself to delete my contributions, and you have consistently hurled personal attacks at me, you have accused me of doing things I have not done, and you have made insulting statements about my personal life and beliefs that are not true. Now you have sent me two "responses" to my messages which clearly indicate that you did not read or did not understand what was written to you.
You are the only active proponent of the Hayford group article, but that does not give you authority to prevent others from raising their concerns or making contributions to the article. Your angry and hate-filled behavior is puzzling, since I have only made constructive efforts and suggestions that would help you meet your goal of having an article on Wikipedia which includes information on a topic which is so important to you.OfficeGirl 01:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel so upset about the situation. As I noted in your journal I'm glad you came and helped organize things at that article. I don't recall feeling any anger or hatred and I certainly did not intend for you to feel hated. Usually I write with humorous intent to lighten situations that others may find heavy. It looks like this attempt has backfired on you and I appologize.
Regarding the tags, I still feel your use of four different tags is unnesesarry especialy when the notability guidelines demontrate the event to meet minimum standards through press releases released by the Israeli government and a few non-press release write ups from independant sources.. so I'm still a little confused as to what you are pushing for but am sitll glad the article is getting some attetion. Peace. --Homecomputer 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Hayford event may be notable to some degree (still have reservations about how NEW the event is), but the evidence for that notability isn't here yet. I keep giving suggestions as to HOW to lay hold of that evidence because I think there's some evidence really out there.
As for the tags, they get the article onto different lists of things that need attention, work and help, so that other Wikipedians can come and help, and they point out the help that is requested. None of the tags that are there bring the article into danger of impending deletion altogether. None of the tags say Jack Hayford is a bad person or the Day of Prayer is a bad event. They just ask for help and work.
You'll have to admit that the article in its present state is nothing more than a work in progress that needs a LOT of work. You want Christian topics to be represented in the best, most credible, high-quality way, don't you? With the source material available now the topic looks darn silly, and I don't want that to happen. Maybe you know someone from your church who works in a research and writing field, such as a college professor or high school English teacher or a librarian or an attorney and who likes to use the internet. Maybe you could invite them to join Wikipedia and help you get the source material that is needed.
Hope your day is going well.OfficeGirl 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the article is no where near good yet. Before you and I got involved it was little more than a stub. Just saying that layering every tag concievable is not the best way to improve it, though I seriously appreciate your organising the topics into sections.. that helped. :) --Homecomputer 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Prayer

I would say that there's enough verification to establish notability, but yeah, there are still some serious problems on it. Primarily, that the vast majority of the sources are either the organization itself or supporters (I would never class CBN as a reliable source). A posting on an Arkansas TV station's bulletin board may be one of the weakest citations I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Way too much of the article is: "organizers claimed this, organizers hope that, organizers' goal is...". I suspect the 150,000 church figure is garbage (likely translation: they mailed fliers to 150,000 churches). Clearly there's some significant activity, as evidenced by the rally in Jerusalem (was that in the article, or did I see it in one of the linked stories?), and the simple fact that Pat Robertson gives it exposure guarantees a certain amount of participation. However, I'd really love to see what this article would look like if stripped of everything the organizers say would happen, or they hope will happen, leaving only verifiable reports of what actually has happened. Fan-1967 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. As far as the number goes, you might be right, but I think they target large denominations and once the denomination head claims that thier churched will pray that sunday they count them as part of the number. Like with the assemblies of God, huge denomination. They are one of the biggest missionary forces on the planet, and them agreeing to participate probably brought in half of those numbers. ;) --Homecomputer 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, regarding CBN as a source, the only thing questionable about them would be thier extreme pro-Christian POV. They still serve as a perfectly reliable source for direct quotes of people and verification of events actually happening. :) --Homecomputer 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viel Glück!

Guten morgen! Sprechen Sie Deutsch? I never planned to stay long, and so there's no plans for another round. This time, Leinad-Z kept me busy. Check it out. I'm like a lightening rod wherever I go within Wikipedia. I better get back to my retirement before my blood pressure pops something I'd miss. Viel Glück! --Arbeiter 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

HAhah. Ich auch! It's ok friend. Seems like we both attract controversy. I too need to take a break and let things cool down. This arguing is no good for my health. Concerning the German, Ich hat in Deutschland gewohnnen fur vier Jahre wann Ich warr eine Junge. but now.. Mein Deutsch ist nicht so güt. And my grammer has always been terrible. Guys that speak German always have an unfair advantage at understanding reformation era theology. Anyway, glad you stopped by. I hope you don't let thie editing business effect your real life too much. :) Peace in Christ. --Homecomputer 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inerrancy

I hope your generosity will accept the work of an infidel. How can I have confident knowledge about what I think is error except by discussion with those who think it truth?DGG 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. But I can tell you that the official position on the subject is simply, revelation. Please continue to wiki the article with us. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Now you've confused me "official position" of whom on what? Do you perhaps mean the general topic, and are considering this as one of the possible ways to interpret JudeoChristian revelation? fine with me. I assume you don't mean that the position of those writing the page is the support of any particular revelation or religious view. I mentioned it in a friendly spirit, because I'm uncomfortable where there are people with different views who might not welcome me, unless I know they do. So, assuming the best, thanks. I do not want to argue my extremely skeptical view on the merits of Christianity on WP talk pages.

DGG 06:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the official Christian position genrally is one comes to the understanding and acceptance of God through direct revelation. The individual has a meeting with god so to speak and the shroud is torn, the viel is lifted, biblical things make sense and God himself is the worker of that miracle.
Regarding wiki, there is no reason why we should not all be able to work logcially together and clearly document and cite notable point of views on whatever artcile the experts have an opinion on. Usually the only difficulty arises when someone has a point to proove and they want to be the expert on the subject, which doesn't really work that well on a wiki article. :) I look forward to working with you. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 13:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You need to read this

WP:RS especially regarding internet resoureces. Newcovenant and questia are not reliable. Don't use them. --ScienceApologist 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah those sources are questionable, still the one is from a PHD and professor in Religious psychology making it ok at best in my book. Rather than delete it though, I'll add a few more for substance. Thanks for commenting.

Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 18:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Stop reverting. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Hey, you added tags for more sources I added sources, you deleted them I added MORE sources. You removed the entire article, i reverted and ADDED MORE SOURCES.. There's a difference between your removals and my adding sources. --Home Computer∴Peace 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the article about the 3RR. There is never any justification. I am simply removing poor sources. You cannot just put in sources from random internet searches you do. You need to find verifiable and reliable sources. Imagine writing an article or a paper for publication, you wouldn't just cite random internet cites and expect that to be okay. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You and I disagree over which sources are appropriate and I believe this to be symptomatic of some sort of POV push you seem to be engaged in. You need to learn the terms before getting all crazt and attempting to argue what they are or are not. Also, seeing previous discussions would help you understand what is allready agreed on. --Home Computer∴Peace 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong foot

I'm always a fan of starting over. Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Here's where I think we agree:

  1. Nobody believes that everything in the bible should be interepretted literally.
  2. There are hermeneutical interpretations which insist that narrative and expository passages in the bible should be interpreted literally as per their context.
  3. Literalism is distinct from inerrancy.
  4. Literalism is attacked as part of a general attack on conservative Christians.

I would point out that:

  1. Literalism is often used as a label by non-Christians, but it is sometimes self-applied by bible-believers.
  2. Literalism is not necessarily narrowly defined as believing that "ALL" scriptures are literal. There are some people who describe "literalism" as being those people who believe that Genesis histories should be interpreted literally or that the miracles of Jesus literally occured.
  3. Literalism is not necessarily pejorative. There are plenty of people who are proud that they believe the bible is literally true in certain passages.

Can we come to some sort of agreement to start from these points?

--ScienceApologist 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that high-quality references should be used. Book references are the best, internet references to essays that were published/reviewed elsewhere are second best. The worst are essays, blogs, and personal pages which expound in the first person on a subject that hasn't been vetted by others. Let's take out the sources which do this and rely only on the sources that are vetted by others. Is that a fair compromise? --ScienceApologist 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Refference debate asside, you've butchered that article to say whatever you want it to say. I mean I appreciate the olive branch being extended but is this only because you've got your way so now you can discuss? Discussions as the one you propose happen BEFORE the major changes, per the tag in the discussion. Also, this discussion should be on that discussion page, not here. So yes, I appreciate the offer and accept, show me your good intention by starting over, reverting the million changes you made without any consensus or agreement would be a fine start, then lets talk about them one by one instead of having to argue backwards over every point as you're erasing them. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what direction we move in because Wikipedia has a non-linear approach to time. Let's start from the current version and move forward, hmm? I'm not going to revert back because I don't think that any of my edits were so out-of-line as to be unreasonable, and you haven't pointed out a single one that was incorrect. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out lots of issues with your edits but you keep on editing over top, are you saying you're done and ready to reach agreements and discuss major changes now? --Home Computer∴Peace 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you haven't pointed out any isseus with my edits other than the fact that you don't like them. --ScienceApologist 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are editing WAY faster than we can discuss things. And you've brought the article back to where allot of discussion and agreement had taken it from. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that you think that the article is back to a place of agreement. So why are you so stick-in-the-muddish about it? --ScienceApologist 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I think it's terrible as it is, extremely POV and distorts the citations. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Point out one of your problems. Here or there, it doesn't matter. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Your current definition is wrong and relies on weasle words to push a POV. It reads like a condemnation of a certain people and not an encyclopdic definition of what the term actually means. Also, when you had earlier changed the definition to be synonymous with the contextual method which was erroneous. Now that thats gone the definition is an example of who it's used against and what it isnt. Before you changed it all, the sources cited what exatly it is. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the Lock on Biblical literalism

Not a problem Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/User_talk%7EHome_Computer_4528.html"