User talk:JimWae/Articles dealing with religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Bar abba

Thanks for your contributions to Bar abba. I've proposed that the article should be merged into the main Barabbas article. This would help add a little depth to the latter. Bar abba is just a 'clever' way of writing the name Barabbas, which is better known in English. What do you think? --Gareth Hughes 12:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I cannot see any reason not to merge the articles, & every reason to do so. --JimWae 19:04, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)


[edit] List of deists

Hi. I saw your comments on the Talk page of the list. You're wrong about Antony Flew. He has had a quite recent change of mind and may now properly be classified as a deist. http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html --Christofurio 01:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. could be so. I did remember he had said some of his remarks were totally misinterpreted. He has even since then rejected some of what he thought might be good arguments for first cause - but I guess he is kind of a Deist after all, now. I stand corrected. See: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 for a less biased source.--JimWae 02:04, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Jim, I do indeed know what a Deist is, and have started my organization into the logical applications of it. Flew is indeed a Deist. You will find my name listed on www.deistnet.com, and also as one of the original signers of the Universist Mission Statement.

  • Yeh, turns out people were using his 2001 article to rebut a 2004 claim. He has since 2004 already backtracked on the validity of his reasons for the change. See http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369.
  • You get points for even knowing what the Vienna Circle was at your age, but you lose lots of points for adding your own name to the article - and lose more still for the others.
  • I'd suggest instead of saying "Still, the majority of modern philosophical scholars believe that despite Hume's devastating critique of the design argument, he remained a Deist, and not an atheist", the more interesting phrasing would be to state that debate over whether he was an atheist or a deist remains unresolved. I think many do not believe one way or the other --JimWae 05:10, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)


[edit] AD vs. CE

You keep reverting ALL changes I make to the Jesus article. Maybe some of these are reverted accidently in your attempts to replace AD with CE. Maybe you just want everything your way all the time - which is it?

Regarding the use of AD as against CE, if you can show me anywhere in the Wikipedia style guidelines that state AD notation is POV then I'll stop using it right now! If you can't, then please stop trying to push your agenda (whatever that might be) into the Jesus article. AD is not POV. To use non-christian dating systems in articles about christianity is nothing short of an insult to the followers of that religion. Have a look at Britannica. They have no problem with AD/BC in their article about Jesus, so why do you? Arcturus 23:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about AD vs. CE, but I really wish you'd stop reverting my parentheses. The paragraph reads better with them. --Chowbok 03:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I respectfully disagree with your arguments. The point of the paragraph is to establish the birth and death dates of Jesus. The bit about 6th-century monks making an accounting mistake is not directly related to that main point, but is there only to clear up confusion about the dates. Therefore, it should go in parentheses; it is a classic example of a parenthetical aside.
I don't see anything in The Chicago Manual of Style that says parentheses are to be avoided. It's a little unclear about how to put a complete sentence within parentheses, but it does say "A parenthetical enclosure of more than one sentence should not be included within another sentence" (emphasis mine), which implies that it's okay if it's only one sentence, as is the case here. Of course, Chicago Manual of Style doesn't necessarily equal Wikipedia house style, so if you can point me to a Wikipedia source that contradicts this I will defer to your version.
As far as "more important issues" in a revert war, well, more important to whom? I find the entire issue you guys are fighting over rather dull. B.C., B.C.E., who cares? Now grammatical and stylistic fights, on the other hand... that's something I can argue over for days. --Chowbok 04:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus, again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [1], [2]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein's religious beliefs: Pantheist, Deist, and more?

Einstein believed in as he put it "Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." Spinoza is the founder of Pantheism. Deism is the polar opposite of pantheism, because Deism is a form of dualism - not monism - and believes in a transcendant clockmaker god... not in a pantheistic immanent God - <please sign your article here>

Just because he comments favorably on Spinoza a few times, does not mean he is not a Deist. The quote in article uses much of the terminology of Deism & is uses a lot of language that suggests a god that is a separately identifiable entity. Deism has often been criticized for its pantheism, as pantheism has often been for its near atheism -- also see pandeism & panentheism & panendeism--JimWae 17:29, 2005 May 26 (UTC)


[edit] Deism

Thanks for your edits in deism. The section I edited indeed looks better farther down, where you moved it. However, I still detect advocacy, suggested by the use of the capitalized term — Deism rather than deism. Then look at the revert wars and the harsh, sectarian exchanges on the Talk page between members of various Deist "churches" (which strikes me as ironic, given the purported rationality of self-proclaimed deists). It should be possible to make an article for deism and get away from all this bickering. Wikipedia is no place for advocacy, especially the sneaky kind, using weasel words. You're moving it in the right direction, but I still think it needs work, don't you?   — J M Rice 18:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Jim. Catholicism does not preach a ‘works’ salvation. They hold that it is necessary to accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, to be justified. See catechism. The link you provided showed that this justification is available to all. I ask you to withdraw your revert. The Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration [3] [4] shows that there is little or no difference between these churches on this issue. --ClemMcGann 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • And so I have changed it to "just life" as in the link, instead of good works. Can you show where the RCs teach ONLY those who accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, will be saved? The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved. Non-Christians, especially those who heard little or none at all of Jesus, could not be expected to consciously accept Christian grace! The works part remains as the qualification that faith is not sufficient. --JimWae 21:31, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
Jim. Yes, as you say, “The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved.” ,by grace. However your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is factually incorrect. Please re-read the catechism link--ClemMcGann 22:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's confine rest of discussion to Talk:Jesus, where others can follow it --JimWae 22:28, 2005 July 18 (UTC)


[edit] Jesus

The Gospels do say that the crowd was whipped up by the Pharisees. Should this be noted in the lead section? I don't want to add anything that might cause Jew hating, because I think an emphasis on this bit is entirely missing the point of Jesus death on the cross. Plus it's Not Very Nice to Jews. However... the Bible does say what I just mentioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Once again, facts are facts. If some Jews whipped up a crowd against Jesus, what difference does it make if it is "Not Very Nice to Jews"


[edit] CE/BCE Edits on Jesus Christ page

How is it that BCE and CE are to be inserted on this page when CE and BCE terminology is anti-Christian and racist. The original and actual terms are AD and BC and those are the terms that shall stay. Why aren't you debating the use of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc. for days of the week on Wikipedia? They are based on theology and named after gods!

  • Those terms are not anti- anything. They are intended to be neutral & acceptable to all (even if some do not prefer them). There was a long debate on this on the Jesus page - do you really think you have the right to just come in here for the first time & overturn a painful compromise? Btw, nobody worhips Thor anymore --JimWae 05:05, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

With your logic, you're saying that if all Christians in the world decided tomorrow to leave the faith, that the terms AD and BC would be acceptable?? Just because nobody would believe in these terms doesn't make them secular in nature. I believe the terms BCE and CE were made for secular/politically correct (selectively, and therefore anti-Christian) reasoning, and the days of the week are left alone because there is no general 'hate' against Roman theology in Western society.

  • The days of the week are a separate issue. People in other cultures are free to use whatever names for those days (& months) they wish. Years (and dates) do not need names, they need numbers - and they do not need those numbers to be culturally marked up. I do not have a problem with the names of the planets - they are "quaint". Would you prefer people also consider Xty "quaint"? --JimWae 05:19, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Isn't it disrespectful in nature and simply lazy to use BCE and CE in referrance to the Gregorian calendar, when the beginning of the calendar (AD 1 & 1 CE) is referring obviously to the birth of Christian messiah (or philosopher as you wish)? Perhaps those against this Christian view could create their own calendar, perhaps based on a secular event that occured, say, 10,000 years ago, and then this year would be 10000 CE? Again, I don't see how writing "AD" or "BC" can disturb an atheist/non-Christian, I see the new terms simply as a way to stir up controversy and rebel against the majority.

  • They are not so new terms, they respect everyone (you can even think "Christian Era" to yourself) - and, on wikipedia, personal views do not prevail --JimWae 05:28, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
    • I know this is way late to the party, and also covered at length on other pages devoted to this issue. But I just have to respond, as directly as possible, to Jordain's comment immediately above that I don't see how writing "AD" or "BC" can disturb an atheist/non-Christian, because that comment so nicely and concisely illustrates the (sometimes inadvertent) blindness of the complacent majority. Jordain, "AD" disturbs me because he is not my Dominus. "BC" disturbs me because he is not my Christos. Do you see? -EDM 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipedia, the terms AD and BC are used everywhere else in referrance to the Gregorian calendar, therefore Wikipedia enforces their usage.

  • Wikipedia officially uses both, depending on the article. The Jesus article uses both in the same article --JimWae 05:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)


[edit] Organization of Jesus article

We need to get the Jesus article into some sort of logical organized form, and certainly not one that has a random collection of "religious views" before it even desribes who he was or his life according to the primary sources. Any thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor has reverted again. I am unaware of any guideline on this, but parallels would be having Mohammed & Buddha articles explain views of every other religion first - same for Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. Or having Catholic, Jewish, etc. views of Martin Luther precede info on him.--JimWae 20:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference here is that there is already an entire article on Jesus called Christian views of Jesus for all of the christian views, and the life and teachings section implies that the Gospels are 100% true and primary source on his teachings which is POV. I could be allright if that section could show more diversity and was shortened. This article should outline how many religions see him and have a link to the main article for the subject. Like christianity could have a main article link to Christian views of Jesus, Islam to Jesus in Islam, etc. So I agree with JimWae when he says that some of the views are not relevant. Only religions which actually give him a position should be stated. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious perspectives

I agree that some views are probably not that important, but I think that we should let people know what every religion considers him before we get into his teachings based on the Bible.

To say that the Bible is the only source of teachings and his "stories" (as you put it) is POV so we need more diversity in that section especially since most of it is based on the gospel right now. All of that section is based on what is said in the gospel and could be discussed on Christian views of Jesus instead. This article should mention briefly every view of Jesus. So either we show greater views in the life and teachings section or we have it after we have all the views of Jesus which are outlined in the religious perspectives section, including the Christian one. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I request that you revert for now so that we discuss the organization of the article further? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Primary" does not mean (as you put it) "only". I think article already mention Jesus is in Qu'ran - but surely if there are Qs about veracity of stories written 100 years later, those written 500-600 years later will not be generally regarded as "primary".
  • I think the life & teaching section already contains some variety, but entirely welcome more, and also welcome editing of detail there - to be put in branch articles. The article would be much more interesting if views were not so compartmentalized.
  • Surely we can discuss it in its present state also? --JimWae 20:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


  • "Compartmentalized", what do you mean?
  • I still do not think that the "Life and Teachings" section are as diverse as you say. Most of the material there should be covered in the Christian views of Jesus article as is most of the Islam material covered in it's relevant article. We should not try to assume that the Gospels contain 100% fact and that is what the section currently implies.
  • Can you please revert temporarily so we can discuss this? I am saying that because the article was like that for 3 - 4 weeks before it was reorganized. *Also do you think the article should be shortened? I think it is quite long and most of it can be made very short with links to main articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/m/User_talk%7EJimWae_Articles_dealing_with_religion_cb91.html"