User:Archola/CKB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. Empty2005 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Cheers :)

It's a good place, but we're just getting started! I may be busier with the CKB than Wikipedia in the near future, just to let y'all know! Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Even those of us who don't believe in religion can't seen to stop fooling around with it. Rick Norwood 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A resourceful dictionary is Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible (1832) which is accessible on http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=nl&vid=OCLC02236831&id=v1ga4m9vIhYC&lpg=PA537&pg=PA536

I think it could be good idea, but what do you want to include what's not on wikipedia? Stories of healing? Prophecies or warnings about coming events? Good and solid descriptions of all the books and/or prophets in the Bible? Worship songs? Other persons in the Bible? Or concentrated on certain subjects like 'alcohol addiction and the Bible', 'sexuality and the Bible'? What about church history?
Blubberbrein2 18:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right now a lot of the articles are forked from Wikipedia. I have personally imported stuff about theology and church history. On CKB, the existence of God and Jesus are taken as givens, as they are in Christianity. Right now we're trying to figure out who is and who is not a Christian ;( It is fairly ecumenical, though. Check it out if you want to know more. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This bothers me: "Right now we're trying to figure out who is and who is not a Christian". •Jim62sch• 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, it bothers me too. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Perhaps the problem is that the most wanted article at the moment is "sin"? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If it matters, it bother's me three.... Homestarmy 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Unto him that payeth the bills, goeth the decision." (Common Sense 13:8). Whoever owns the site, seeing as they intend it to be POV, should not worry about where to draw the POV-line, imo. A LDS site would use a different definition of "Christian" than a JW site would -- no reason to try to include all the different (often conflicting) definitions into one -- just go with the one the owner of the site uses. My humble opinion. --MonkeeSage 03:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As you know, User:Nsandwich is our Christian Jimbo. However, we have uploaded (portions of) the Book of Mormon, and we have accepted a JW editor, so the site is meant to be inclusive. However, I wonder how long it will be before we start forming ecumenical councils to decide What is a Christian...Wait a minute, we have! I don't like where this is heading. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as we reach a decision in a relatively quick and decisive manner I do like where it's going. But then, considering only you and me have actually said anything, I dunno how it will go yet. Homestarmy 04:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to be sure that we don't burn anybody at the stake. I mean, I follow a guy who was once considered a heretic. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, Avery joined in, its heating up now :D. Homestarmy 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, after reading Homestarmy's comments there, I say "no thanks". There is more than plenty basis to say that Jesus was not God, all from the Bible. People who strive to follow all of Jesus' commands (often even moreso than most Trinitarians), believe Jesus is the Christ who was sent by God to provide salvation, stay away from pagan influences in Christianity, read the Bible daily and do their best to be the best Christians they can be, and yet do not agree with the teaching of the Trinity (for very good and justifiable reasons) do not deserve the kind of bashing that will inevitably (already) occur over there. No thanks. --Oscillate 05:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already had to apologize to our one and only JW editor. I guess the next step is the Great Schism ((sigh)) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Brothers, the most dangerous trap we as Christians together can fall in is that we are bashing each other. It is hard to stay humble and do not let your pride come up. Plase ask God for grace (also for building this site). A problem is that we don't see each other and it is easy to be more careless about your words on the Internet and that we have a physical distance from each other because we are all scattered around the globe. It is so easy to be more concerned about the truth(s) than about Jesus. We, I myself included, has to be aware of this. We have to be focused on His righteousness, His holiness, His judgments, His love otherwise we might desperately fall.
Blubberbrein2 08:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen. When I joined the CKB (only a few days ago!) I was assured that we would be tolerant of doctrinal differences. Now, I'm not so sure. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually Oscillate, my comment at the bottom didn't have to do with the trinity, at the top I even noted that I don't see much merit in making a divide necessarily between trinitarians and non-trinitarians because it's hard to know what definition of trinity people have in the first place :/. The trinity is so much more complicated than it should be really....I mean you'd think it would be a simple enough thing. Homestarmy 13:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, now you're even mistakenly throwing around the word "cult" over there. --Oscillate 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Bah, the definition of that word is so up to interpretation there's always a way to make it not a mistake. I'd hardly call one word indicative of a horrible failing..... Homestarmy 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
One word? I point to your comments on your user page there: "I personally know that Jehovah's witnesses are not simply non-Christian ... if any of them die without the savior, they will go to hell like anyone else would. ... anyone else who follows the great commission will (and should) feel obligated to over-right any pro-Jehovah's witness POV regardless of whether they call it Christian or not." Friendly! --Oscillate 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a fan of Star Trek, but they tell me that's a cult. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To repost something I posted on another page in a different place and time:
"The whole argument over who's a "better" Christian led to the 1054 CE schism between Eastern and Western Rite churches that has lasted nigh on 1,000 years, and to the Reformation, and to the Inquisition. Additionally the argument over who is a better theist led to the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the ongoing violence between Muslims and Hindus, the ongoing violence between Sikhs and Hindus, the genocide in Darfur, [the Israelis and the Palestinians] etc. The bottom line is this: no matter what religion one belongs to, one does not have the right to condemn others because of their beliefs. If you believe that your religion is the "True Way", hey, fine, I'm happy that you have found peace. But to rip each other apart because of ridiculous superficial differences is just asinine, counterproductive and hardly in the best interests of mankind. Jim62sch 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) " •Jim62sch• 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is pretty far off-topic, and controversial. Some of us reject the condemnation implicit in the stricture against condemning others, finding it to be self-referentially incoherent ("I condemn you for condemning people"). Some of use believe that there is a distinction between the content and mode of our communication: that one can act both suaviter in modo, fortiter in re (roughly, "gently in manner, strongly in conviction"). --MonkeeSage 01:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would hardly call typing on the internet "ripping each other apart" Homestarmy 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is simply that this page is meant for discussions about how to improve this article. It would be appropriate (and courteous) of you to take this discussion elsewhere, e.g. you personal talk pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)