User talk:Homestarmy/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fundamentalism

Look I am sure orangemarlin has nothing against you and your compatriots in particular. I do not know how long or broad an association with fundamentalism you have had. I assume you are a Christian fundamentalist but I might be wrong. I think most Christian fundamentalists are good people. I have many as friends. However, there is an element in Christian fundamentalism, particularly in the US, that is pretty unsavory. Is it as bad as the Islamists? Well it is different at least, but in some aspects it might be just as bad. As I said before, it does not excuse bad behavior on the part of Christians however. Remember that great quote from the bible about the mote in your own eye?--Filll 16:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I am a Christian Fundamentalist, but the thing is, most Fundamentalists I know do not take that in the negative connotation, because the Fundamentalist movement itself in the early 20th century or so popularized the term, and for us, it means we actually adhere strictly to the Bible and try to really put Jesus's teachings in practice, rather than comprimising Biblical principles for any number of reasons the world presents. Even though its used as a blanket term for anyone claiming to be deeply religious and doing something many people dislike, its not really like that from our perspective. For instance, in every interview i've heard with the Westboro Baptist church who are interviewed by The Way of the Master people I listen to a lot, the Westboro folks reveal an increadibly low regard for the New Testament, or really anything in the Bible as a whole when it doesn't have to do with hating on gay people. Quite frankly, if the Westboro church seem obsessed to many people, that's because they really probably are, and its very dangerous, because from what i've heard from their testimony, they really don't care much about actually being saved through faith in Christ at all. Many times, a lot of these groups people cite as evidence of the "Danger of Christianity" aren't actually Fundamentalist at all when you get right down to it. (Though not all of the time, it is after all Biblical that many people hate the message of Christianity no matter what, i'm not saying you're one of those people, but i'm just trying to use some generalizations here)
But with Islam, the reason I get so edgy about it is because when people compare Islamic Fundamentalism to Christian Fundamentalism that makes me think one of two things, either the people probably dislike Christian Fundamentalism way too much to understand what it is in a more general sense, or don't understand what Islamic Fundamentalism actually does to the world. Once people read up on some of the things that Islamic Fundamentalists do to make headlines every day all across the world, I don't think they could honestly say that Christian Fundamentalism is anywhere near this bad, no matter how much they might dislike Christianity personally. I don't want to get too much into specifics about Islamic Fundamentalism in case you aren't interested, because I really could go on all day, and I wouldn't have to use a single news source from a Christian perspective either. Homestarmy 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I want you to understand that I do not "hate" you or anyone. Although I do not believe in your particular religious myth (and only marginally believe in mine), I know that everyone must choose some psychological comfort zone to make it through their own personal lives. I'm pretty much a libertarian as these things go--worship trees for all I care. Why I compare you Christian Fundamentalists to Islamic Fundamentalists is that although you and they make some distinctions between your belief sets, in the end, as an outsider, it all sounds the same and your actions are the same. You both want to establish what everyone should believe. You "hate" those who do not believe like you. The extremists of both of your groups kill people as some sort of divine retribution (and your histories are mutually similar over the past 15 centuries or so). My people have been killed so many times by Christians and Muslims, it's a wonder there are any of us left. Your belief in the Creation myth is exactly like the Taliban's, and that you want to force it on rational people like myself is doubly abhorrent. Worse yet, you and your Fundamentalists want to convert this great Republic into a Christian state. Well, let me tell you what will happen if that ever happens. Every single leader of business, technology, science, etc. will be emigrating to any number of countries, and the USA will become a backwards nation--just like the Taliban run afghanistan. So that is precisely why I stand up to you and your ilk. In the 1930's my people did not stand up to Naziism in Germany. They thought nothing was going to happen to them, even after Kristallnacht. From what I've read of your writing, I do not believe that you are an evil man. You seem to stand for what I think Christianity ought to be--love. I don't care about the christian myth, but I do appreciate "some" of the moral values espoused by it. But I personally believe that you are a minority of your group, and that is what scares me. So, I stand up to your group, and I will never back down. OrangeMarlin 20:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You will get no argument from me about the danger of Islamic Fundamentalists. I am quite aware of the danger and keep very close track of it. There is a Madrassas that is close to where I live here just outside Washington DC which is teaching the children hatred for Americans and nonMuslims. I listened in amazement to interviews with the teachers and principal and students of this tax-exempt school on NPR, after they had been quoted in a long interview in the Washington Times. The people from this school all talked about how great 9.11 was, and how all Americans should be killed and are evil etc etc. It was pretty jaw-dropping. So I know they are dangerous. Now your group might not be in the same category as many others who call themselves evangelicals or fundamentalists etc. But I have had many encounters with people who call themselves conservative Christians, or born-again Christians, or evangelical Christians, or fundamentalist Christians, or believers in biblical inerrancy, etc. And SOME of these people are quite negative. In fact, I probably without too much effort could find some groups that claim to be "Fundamentalist Christians" who might take a look at the The Way of the Master and declare that:

and all kinds of other nonsense. The thing is, there is not much agreement among religions, or among Christians, or among Fundamentalist Christians about almost any issue. One common thread from groups that are pretty anxious to point fingers at others and condemn them is that they are not coming from a place of love and acceptance, but drawing on that vast well of hate that exists in most people.--Filll 20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience, there hasn't been much coverage of the Way of the Master in the negative sense from other people who appear to be Fundamentalist Christians, just plenty of criticism from Atheists, because the ministry concentrates on them somewhat with an argument against Atheism, which as you might know, is like sticking an electromagnet in a vat of iron shavings :). Its a bit odd too, because their really starting to get around lately, they even had a conference in Atlanta GA, which is just south of where I live..... However, i'm certain you could probably find one or two Universalists who dislike them vehemenently, and they might even claim to be "actually" fundamentalists too, though in my experience they take that title to an extreme negative sense. I understand what you're trying to get at though, but the thing of it is, when examining Fundamentalism, it really is helpful to actually figure out what the Fundamentalism actually should be. For instance, I can never take at face value anything people on the Trinity Broadcasting Network tell me anymore these days, even though some of them are Fundamentalists and its the largest Christian broadcasting network in the world. I always have to think about what people are saying on channels like that, because many times different preachers go off the deep end with the prosperity gospel stuff, even though there's no direct correlation in the Bible between giving the church money and recieving some set exponential reward in return. (And even the indirect correlation is rather specious the way they sometimes use it.). And, likewise, with Fundamentalist Islam, you can look at the Hadith's and Qu'ran for the most part to discover what the adherants should believe and act like, which in my experience, is really quite overwhelmingly negative, due to the belief in abrogation of earlier verses with later ones. (Otherwise, the Qu'ran would be contradictory in several places.)
But the thing is, many of the things Fundamentalist Christians disagree about is safe to disagree about, you say that you have many fundamentalist Christian friends, but they're all individuals, aren't they? I think one thing many people who dislike Christianity too much miss out on is that many of us are actually rather individualistic on the inside, there are a whole bunch of doctrines in Christianity that were developed independently of the early church, and many of which fall under the sorts of things that the Bible says we can be free to disagree on. For instance, most Fundamentalist Christians I know of believe in the death penalty; yet I disagree with it. I certainly am not violating some direct teaching of Jesus or the apostles in doing so, because we were never explicitly ordered to support it, it's just most Fundamentalists see good precedence for it. (And, well, there is good precendece in a way. But it might take me quite awhile to explain why I don't support the death penalty heh.) But when people do start pointing fingers over things to the point of real dislike, often times there's no joke in the doctrinal differences, for instance, non-trinitarians vs. trinitarians. Technically, once again, there's no real Biblical precedence to be explicitly trinitarian, since the Trinity doctrine wasn't developed for quite some time after the bible was written. However, for the most part, almost all non-trinitarian churches I know add on some other heresy which certainly isn't Fundamentalist at all, for instance, there's Modalism which says that God is so much a being of one that He cannot be Jesus and God at once. (This, of course, is quite contradictory to scripture, when God comes out right after Jesus is baptized and says to everyone that He loves His Son, I mean, you'd think people would of figured out that means there's some sort of distinction when God is both up in the sky and on the ground near some water as a human.) That's sort of the thing Oneness Pentecostals go for. But I could go on with this sort of thing all day long, the point is, the doctrine in dispute is often really important whenever two groups of Fundamentalist Christians or otherwise start arguing with each other, and the problem is, there isn't much reason to expect all outside observers to understand what's at stake in each dilemna. I mean, by not being Christian, for them, it wouldn't be their responsibility to understand and reaserch what Christianity should be fundamentally, right? Homestarmy 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect in time, by the well known process of pejoration, eventually the word "fundamentalist" will fall into disfavor, like all of the previous names for similar groups. I look askance at anyone or any group no matter what they call themselves when I see the following kinds of traits:

  • aggressive proselytizing
  • hatred of other groups
  • elitism
  • rejection of reason or rationality or science
  • aggressive stupidity
  • anger that others do not agree with them
  • claims that they are on the one true path and everyone else is evil/damned/cursed/following satan/etc

and similar kinds of things. Of course they are free to pursue their beliefs and activities if they want, as long as they do not hurt others or shove their beliefs on others or violate laws etc.--Filll 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you're getting into the reason Christians are, well, Christians, which is another debate altogether. When you're in a position where you have personally recieved miraculous conformation that a faith is true, as anyone who's been born again thanks to Jesus should be, then there's little reasonable thing to do but to trust the work which told you about how to be saved in the first place. This work, namely the Bible, tells us that, quite frankly, everyone who isn't a Christian cannot stand up against a God who, by virture of being infinitly good, must also be infinitly just. Therefore, because a Fundamentalist Christian should at least realize that everyone around them is going to be in serious trouble for all eternity without also being saved, then don't you think it would really speak loads about self-centered cruelty if we just thought "Ah, those guys don't need eternal salvation anyway, just let em all burn!"? It sounds pretty cruel and Westboro-esque, that's why so many of us aggresively evangelize in contradiction to that attitude, (And why the Westboro people don't, have you ever noticed, they really never give a message of how to be saved ever?) its because we care. Elitism I don't know so much about personally because, well, err, I haven't actually joined a church because i'm non-denominational......Now, the rejection of reason and science thing is definently a whole other discussion altogether, but I assure you, we certainly don't see it that way. I assume agressive stupidity is linked with that idea too. As for anger, its really hard sometimes not to get angry at people when they don't agree with us, because its sometimes about really important things, and there's no law that says that people we try to evangelize to have to be nice to us when we're talking with them. While that's of course no excuse, the point is, there's still no way for us to be perfect. As for claiming why we're the only path, well, i'd have to basically "proselytize" to you to explain the reason for that, and in my experience that's increadibly hard to do over the internet in a forum-like discussion if the other party really doesn't feel like reading. (I mean, think about it, each side can take hours to think up good responses, and if someone doesn't want to hear it, all they have to do is leave the website in one click, there's no accountability for just leaving the conversation after all :/. ) Not that I would mind it of course, i'm just saying, your comments don't seem like you'd pay attention to me "shoving my beliefs on you" :D Homestarmy 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We all have our own beliefs. And I have mine and you have yours. I do not insist you change to mine. And I am not interested in changing to yours. People frantic to get others to change to theirs do not realize that there are literally THOUSANDS of other faiths/sects/belief systems that all claim they are the true path and so on and so forth, and the other guys are jerks. Well they contradict each other don't they? I am not sure that God, if She exists, is so hung up which particular path one takes to get to Her. I also think that God gave us brains to think, as has been pointed out repeatedly for centuries. So, just like the biblical parable about hiding your talents, do not hide your talents. Use them. I would also point out that there is one group whose activity was widely reviled in the bible: Pharisees. And guess who looks most like Pharisees to me? The bibliolaters who call themselves fundamentalists. And yes you admit to anger. So do I want to join a group that

  • admits they do not like thinking or reasoning or rationality, in contravention of the dictates of the scriptures and scholastic study of the most famous Christian intellectuals in the last 2000 years ?
  • that acts like the one group that the bible condemns repeatedly, the Pharisees?
  • that is a perfect example of the "mote in your eye" saying from the bible? (such as the fundamentalists' dear friend and leader, the very smug and sanctimonious Ted Haggard, but who is just one of hundreds and hundreds with similar stories)
  • has representatives that I see doing nothing but spreading hatred?

I instead favor tolerance of all beliefs, except for intolerance.--Filll 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, see, isn't it much better that I didn't try to launch into evangelism then, since you've clearly expressed you have no interest in it. But the existance of other faiths doesn't make Christianity wrong, its like having a list of answers to 1 + 1 = x, where x is a set of numbers which is about 1000 strong, except nobody can see the 1 + 1 part because nobodies told them what that side of the question actually is. I don't think i'd agree that people like myself do not realize the extremely large number of different religions that all claim to be the right path, (even though many of them explicitly don't) its just that on some fundamental level, there's always something wrong. Try me if you like, name any religion/faith/credo, (Besides Judaism, that doesn't count :/.) and in just 1-3 sentences I can probably give you a reason why its not right fundamentally. (And not necessarily from a Christian standpoint either, there's a lot of logical problems with many of these other religions)

To be honest, that is not much of a trick. This is not rocket science. All religions and sects can find something wrong with neighboring sects and religions. Even over teeny tiny points. The history of religion is full of this stuff.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What, 1+1 isn't rocket science :/. Just because other religions and sects all find fault with each other doesn't mean their all wrong, after all, do you really think every criticism each religion has for the others is always compleatly rock-solid in its logic? Some of the things are just downright silly, or require circular reasoning type presuppositions. That's not to say everything Christians say is perfect either, but I find that without figuring out these things for yourself somewhat, its really hard to be confident in what you believe. Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with figuring things out for oneself. In fact, I recommend it. However, this is quite contrary to what many religious people would suggest. Most of them want to think for others, and demand that they accept whatever some self-appointed character has decided for them, no matter how ludicrous.--Filll 04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The parable you refer to with talents, i'm pretty sure that refers to a unit of currency rather than talents people have like juggling or something.

This is a perfect example of how interpretations can be different when one has vague language, and similes and metaphors and alleogry etc. That is what parables are; little stories that have a hidden meaning in them. Of course everyone disagrees about them, because everyone disagrees about every word and statement in every religious text.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually, the language isn't really vauge at all, Jesus wasn't exactly speaking English back in Israel 2,000 years ago, He would of been speaking whatever language the crowd could understand and refer to the currency known as a "talent". If you look at the Parable of the Talents article, it seriously does literally refer to talents, which in turn apparently influenced our modern definition of "talent" through a far more extrapolative measure of interpretation. Besides, its not even referenced at the bottom, who knows how prevalent that interpretation is anyway, the point about talents could be made far more easily with later books of the NT which talk more explicitly about using talents that God gives us anyway. Besides, the two interpretations don't even contradict each other, I don't see what the problem is in this instance. While there probably are problems occasionally with other parts of the Bible like this, if the issues aren't looked at individually, then how can you get to the truth of the matter of which interpretations actually make sense and which are total malarky? (Cough Westboro cough...) Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have my interpretation, and you are free to have yours. I do not insist that you accept mine, which by the way is the one that I was taught growing up in my religious education, and that I taught to my own students when I taught religion. I am sure many other interpretations are possible and probably there are hundreds of thousands of religious scholarship written about even something as minor as that parable.--Filll 04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You bring up a good point though with the Pharisees, and you're right, many times people who stand up for Christianity do look far too much like them, in Fundamentalist circles, that's called legalism. What happened was the Pharisees were looked down upon because although they adhered very strictly to the letter of the law, they failed to understand the spirit of the law. (Most pointedly when Jesus warned His disciples about how they put on airs of piety but were really out for another, far lesser agenda. )

At least we agree on this. It is very unChristian if you ask me. And elitist and unpleasant. And hatemongering essentially.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of off track, but what they were doing was similar conceptually to Wikilawyering.
Nextly, I did say that we certainly don't see our lack of acceptance of evolution as a specific disregard for thinking and rational thought, I mean think about it, surely if I for one had no regard for thinking or rational thought, I wouldn't be talking like this, but would of thrown some Jonathan Edwards type rampage or gone POV pusing everywhere, and ended up like This guy? (He's got a huge backstory, just a fair warning, it would take awhile to explain it all) And like you said earlier, you say you have several fundamentalist Christian friends, do you think they all reject thinking and rational thought as a whole?

I think on some issues, creationists and fundamentalists etc reject rational thinking. Definitely. As bad or worse than the people in the Inquisition that imprisoned Galileo or put Giordano Bruno to death. I do not care if creationists reject rationality particularly, but it is FORCING their views on others that I object to strenuously.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are many different ways people have tried to evangelize historically, some better than others, I mean, all you see in the Bible mostly is open-air preaching and people leading by example, so fundamentally, those two doesn't seem as forceful as, say, the inquisition or something like that. Like I said, we're all individuals here, sometimes Fundamentalists have different methods of doing things, and just because some of us might be doing it in a needlessly aggravating way doesn't mean the entirety of our message is wrong :/. (And here, needlessly means like intentionally trying to make people as angry at you and Christianity as possible, not just preaching normally, that's bound to make someone angry no matter how you do it :/.) Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I might mention that I am not only concerned with Christianity and Christian proselytizing. There are plenty of Islamic fundamentalists that would like to force others to convert or die. Fundamentalism of just about any form that I have encountered is pretty ugly stuff. Using religion as an excuse to hate others. --Filll 04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Nextly, as I noted earlier, even I have to watch the biggest Christian broadcasting network in the world very carefully to make sure whoever is speaking at the moment isn't hiding some scarily wrong stuff, and besides, we can't possibly all be legalists at once, can we?

If you have to watch carefully, that should tell you something.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it tells me I can't just let the Television do my thinking for me, maybe I have to think for myself once every now and again :). Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And on Haggard, actually, he wasn't really very smug and sanctimonious at all when the truth came out, and from everything I read, he didn't appear to act like that when he was preaching.

Of course he wasnt smug after he got caught and essentially admitted to buying crystal methamphetamines and having sex with a male prostitute repeatedly. But I saw interviews about homosexuality and about evolution with Haggard before he was caught, and he was PROUD PROUD PROUD as a peacock and very contemptuous and dismissive of scientists and gays.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak much about those, i'd have to see some of them to figure out whether or not he's really being a smug hypocrite. But a lot of Fundamentalist preachers just give off an air of confidence in what their saying, that's not the same thing as being arrogant, it just means that we're trying to give the feeling of certainty in what we're saying. Being certain of something isn't arrogant when you're not under an obligation to go about most everything Materialistically, and therefore, relatively. Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, finally, which representatives specifically do you see doing nothing but hatred, do they belong to one particular organization, or is this just a pattern you notice in all Christians?

This is a very complicated question, because fundamentalists have gone out of their way to claim the name Christian just for themselves and deny that many others are Christians (such as Catholics), just as you do below here. The "Christian" (and I put the word "Christian" in quotes because they are not Christian to me) people I see spreading hatred are spread among a wide range of nondenominational, evangelical, born again, fundamentalist, biblical inerrancy, baptist and pentecostal groups, among others. I could give a very long list. But for starters, let's put James Dobson, Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ted Haggard and a few others on that list. I could go on and on and on however. Lots of people I do not see behaving like this, but they are normally people that fundamentalists would not claim as "Christians" but instead targets of their hatred.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, actually, I don't know any Fundamentalists who say that everyone who lived before the Fundamentalist movement wasn't a Christian, which is what taking the name only for ourselves would require :/. Now, individual Catholics can be Christians, and I won't deny that some people get carried away and accuse all Catholics of not being Christian, but the real issue mostly is whether or not the Church itself is Christian, not every individual member. Catholicism is probably the most complicated discussion though due to shared heritage and their long history and whatnot, all the other groups are normally far more cut and dry, like Jehovah's witnesses or the LDS. (Not Mormonism as a whole, I don't think a lot of people realize this at the moment, but Mormonism has plenty of denominations within itself with a very large disparity of beliefs.) Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Because in today's society, you'd be surprised how many people who call themselves Christian actually reveal that they hold beliefs which have nothing to do with Christianity when you quiz them a bit, the problem is that its a holdover from the Gilded age, when the church was basically faking it for awhile and people mostly only went to church because their family went to it. (That particular sort of thing is huge in the Ukranian Eastern Orthodox right now, but that's mostly unrelated to the Gilded age, similar principles though) Homestarmy 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised because I know fundamentalists like to claim others are not true Christians etc. This story is as old as the hills. Remember the slaughter of the Cathars by the "Christians", etc...Just basically a symptom of hatred and people acting like Pharisees.--Filll 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was thinking far more cut and dry sorts of things than the Cathars vs. Catholicism, those Way of the Master people I mentioned earlier have a television and radio show where they interview people, and most of the "Christians" they find either never really became born again, (And the people being interviewed said that explicitly, it wasn't a matter of ambiguity over what that meant mostly) were partly in some other religion, or really only considered themselves Christian because their parents took them to church as kids and they just never joined another religion or cared about it at all after they were 18 or something. I don't know about you, but ending up on the church membership list doesn't sound like a very rock solid definition of Christian to me. Homestarmy 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I look at people and how they act, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. I learn what kind of people they are when I see how they act. The religious label doesnt mean much except that most people who are worried about biblical inerrancy that I have met seem to be a bit more interested in hatred than anything else. Just my observation.--Filll 04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please check your email :-)

please check your email :-) --Ling.Nut 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two modest proposals

Two projects seem to me worth doing, outside the GA ambit, which would do much of what it does that is a service to the encyclopedia.

One would be similar to the original vision: a list of articles which editors like, with some simple, light mechanic, in the spirit of WP:PRO.

The other would be a proposal for close reading of articles by intelligent outsiders, as you began doing with Bach. As there, the outside reader must expect to have many of his objections discounted (I'm no musicologist, and even I see why the article is phrased as it is); but the remainder would be infinitely helpful.

Would you be interested in helping start either of these? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I understand many editors recent concerns with the way GA has gone, especially with the GA criteria as of late, I just today got to Christmas break, and I have some suggestions to make about the criteria that I didn't have time to defend before that I think i'd like to try before trying to start something else. Honestly though, with your second suggestion, Peer Review isn't as dead as people make it out to be nowadays, it was so alive when I used it on Jesus, that I got told off for not implementing the suggestions a reviewer made after about a week, I had no idea it was so active then that people were supposed to rectify suggestions immedietly :/. (The first time I submitted a review, I got little response, but that was many months before) Homestarmy 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I will check peer review; but my experience is that it doesn't provide the sort of close reading you provided. (Or that Ling.Nut. gave Homotopy groups of spheres. (btw, if I don't answer one of your comments, ping my page - I may have missed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, when I didn't answer this reviewer who really gave a good bit of analysis on that peer review, he/she really let me have it :/. I suspect what happens is that, like GA nominations, articles with fairly interesting topics to the community get the most attention, because reviewers will be more familiar with the subject area. Homestarmy 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, privately, if there is Systemic Bias here, it is the spirit of "we reviewers" among GA regulars. I don't mean you, here; but do reread the argument over whether mandatory was disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, at first, we had a clear supermajority for the citations. But once we hit the scientific articles a little while later, that's when the real dispute started, but only because science type article editors I guess didn't like Agne's warnings. (Which were pretty charitable I thought, there were some articles he warned which had like 40 Kb of texts and maybe one reference for the whole thing, there's no way that's a good article, scientific or otherwise.) Homestarmy 05:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey did you see this

Did you see this:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/after.jesus/

--Ling.Nut 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I made a list of the articles Agne warned. If you look at any of the artcicles, be sure to double-check that Agne warned them, and that hey are still GAs. I think I got it all right, but always double check anyhow:
User:Ling.Nut/rere
--Ling.Nut 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian theology on quizfarm

Interesting, have you considered adding it to your userpage on CKB? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not been looking at the CKB, is that still going on? I had assumed that everyone had just quit mostly, to make a really good Wiki, there has to be a whole bunch of people, and I never saw that for the CKB :/. Homestarmy 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan

The key thing I think the article needs are 1) More detailed history 2) A bigger picture 3) Copyediting

I think that would put it on its way to FA status. Let me know what the issues are if there are any others. Thanks so much for choosing this article! Judgesurreal777 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I would have added it if I did.....I'll look around, let you know if I find/think of anything. Judgesurreal777 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews for Jesus

Well, Mnikoldz (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock. Also see my reasoning about the protection at User talk:Crzrussian. Khoikhoi 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus

What's this pure rubbish about a no consensus on Graniteville Train Disaster? The lead was definitely not a lead, and needed work. I'm going to delist this one immediately, and then someone can plump for a GAR review of my actions if they don't like it. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just delisted the article based on criterion 1. b. - it was there in black and white. My apologies if you disagree with the delisting, but I disagree with the "no consensus" ruling. LuciferMorgan 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't look at me, Ling archived that one. Homestarmy 22:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Cube

>nudge< A.J.A. 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA reviewers

I'm not gone. See edit on Netflix on GA/R page on that. Also, do you or do you not have to be on the partcipant page to be a pass GAs? Shimeru seems way too lax to me, but whatever. I think we should require people to be listed to passs articles. Responding here is fine.Rlevse 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Mathematics

Which of these do you agree with, and which do you not?
Evolution = atheism
Evolution= religion
ID=science
atheists=Humanists=naturalists
Creationism=science
evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation
scientists=atheists
ID>creationism
Christians=biblical literalists
Catholics != Christians
scientists!= Christians
Religion=Christianity
Religious Creation accounts=Genesis
--Filll 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

None of them, though some because I think they are iffy as opposed to me holding a clear alternative view. I guess i've capitulated to the evolutionist camp without knowing it, my how these things creep up on you eh? While I have seen with my own eyes many people write specifically about how, for them, Evolutionary theory is an instrumental aspect of their justification for atheism, theistic evolution has it own article, so apparently there are enough adherants to be notable, which doesn't sound like a singular religion to me, if it even is one at all. "Evolution" does not automatically mean all of the modern synthesis, for many creationists including myself, it truthfully only refers to microevolution, which is certainly no religion. As you may be aware, many fundamentalists are skeptical of Intelligent Design advocates because they seem to do a flip-flopping comprimise dance, first almost agreeing with evolutionists, and then seeming to flip back to YEC almost, but if I undersstand it, they are generally old-earthers. And, therefore, I am one of those skeptical fundamentalists when it comes to ID. Many atheists worldwide live in locations where Humanism and naturalism historically never happened, so its a bit hard for them all to be those things. I would classify Creationism under history more than science, since science is a study using things which can be reproduced one way or another most of the time, whereas history by default isn't. While many evolutionists I have read things from do seem to enjoy tying together all the things you mention evolution equalling in order to supposedly crush religion in general, (Well, maybe not the Hertzsprung thing, i've never heard someone use that phrase before.) I don't see microevolution in that list, which makes for a very problematic definition for me indeed. My Chemistry teacher is a scientist yet certainly doesn't seem atheistic at all, so first hand experience rules me out from agreeing with the next time. I fail to see how ID is somehow greater than Creationism, when it seems far more deistic than Christian at its core no matter how many roman catholics lead the movement. Next, being a literalist is simply not enough. Anyone can read the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean you'll necessarily accept it as true. Catholicism as a whole, I suspect, is certainly getting closer to non-Christian every day from the looks of it, though it is a problematic generalization to make, because it is such a worldwide denomination that geographical boundaries often allow certain regions to have beliefs different than the Vatican's. However, while I am quite well aware of the many "THE POPE IS THE ANTICHRIST!" type websites out there, I do not subscribe to their views, and am not a Seventh Day Adventist. I'm surprised you honestly think all ID type people would think that no scientists are Christians, I see so many evolution advocates going on and on about those creationists and their mean old quote mining, in which we often pull a few quotes from some pretty Christian sounding scientists like Newton or somebody. I don't know what "Religion=Christianity" is supposed to mean so I can't agree with it, but put a "True" in front of that and you'll have it about right. (See, maybe i'm fundamentalist after all!) There's a similar problem with your last one, it needs a modifier at the beginning, otherwise it could describe every creation account of any religion, true or not. Homestarmy 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. This is the kind of feedback I like to help me with my writing. Ok here is an edited list with some comments:

Evolution = atheism

I believe that this is a ridiculous statement but it is very often used

Evolution= religion

This is often used to discredit evolution and say it is no better than creationism, that people believe it blindly and with faith like a religion. I think it is also because the Supreme Court ruled that religions can not be taught in science classrooms.

ID=science

Many people in the ID movement want to claim they are doing real science, not a religion, and thus belong in the classroom.

atheists=Humanists=naturalists

I have noticed that these are all slurs that are lobbed at atheists or people who subscribe to evolution. They sometimes throw the word "materialistic" in there too, or racist or socialist or liberal etc for good measure

Creationism=science

I notice many people want to claim creation accounts are science and belong in the science classroom.

evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation

If you go to the Kent Hovind website, he gives these different names, but he basically lumps everything under the rubric of the evil word "evolution". Hertzsprung and Russell have a theory for where stars come from and how they age. I put microevolution as biological evolution, and macroevolution as speciation. These are only sometimes used as terms by biologists. Cosmochemistry refers to how the particles from atoms and molecules after the big bang. Abiogenesis refers to where life came from of course.

scientists=atheists

I have heard this claim many many times. Or satanists. Or Satan's minions. Or inherently evil. etc.

ID>creationism

This means that ID includes more things than a creation by God, but could include creation by superior extraterrestrials

Christians=biblical literalists

Often some people will claim if you do not believe in the bible literally (and usually interpret their version of the bible the way they want you to as well), you are not a Christian

Catholics != Christians

This I have heard over and over and over

scientists!= Christians

I have heard often that you cannot be a scientist and a Christian at the same time, or even religious (not by scientists but by fundamentalists etc).


Only True Religion=Christianity

And obviously only their narrow version of Christianity

Only True Religious Creation account=Genesis

Obvious--Filll 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Let me respond to your long post:

None of them, though some because I think they are iffy as opposed to me holding a clear alternative view.

I disagree with all of them myself

I guess i've capitulated to the evolutionist camp without knowing it, my how these things creep up on you eh?

Come to the dark side


While I have seen with my own eyes many people write specifically about how, for them, Evolutionary theory is an instrumental aspect of their justification for atheism,

I would say that is a tiny minority, just as true atheists are a teeny tiny minority, at least in the US, maybe around 1-5 percent at most. Many more agnostics of course.

theistic evolution has it own article, so apparently there are enough adherants to be notable, which doesn't sound like a singular religion to me, if it even is one at all.

According to my research and personal knowledge, there are probably 3-5 times as many people who believe in theistic evolution as believe in creationism, at least in the US. Most people who believe in evolution believe in theistic evolution in fact

"Evolution" does not automatically mean all of the modern synthesis, for many creationists including myself, it truthfully only refers to microevolution, which is certainly no religion.

To some people it is. For legal reasons or just to slur the other side and say the worst thing about them they can think of, to bait them etc.

As you may be aware, many fundamentalists are skeptical of Intelligent Design advocates because they seem to do a flip-flopping comprimise dance, first almost agreeing with evolutionists, and then seeming to flip back to YEC almost, but if I undersstand it, they are generally old-earthers.

Having read some of the literature and listened to some of them, I notice that none of them really agree. It is like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no data or evidence on which to base any belief, aside from the bible, and everyone interprets that differently (and then there are the other religious texts of course)

And, therefore, I am one of those skeptical fundamentalists when it comes to ID. Many atheists worldwide live in locations where Humanism and naturalism historically never happened, so its a bit hard for them all to be those things.

I agree. I never even have heard of most of it except in the nasty things that creationists and fundamentalists say about others

I would classify Creationism under history more than science, since science is a study using things which can be reproduced one way or another most of the time, whereas history by default isn't.

You are forgetting that a lot of astronomy and meteorology and seismology etc cannot be reproduced either. These are the so -called "observational sciences". Evolutionary biology is partly experimental as well, however.


While many evolutionists I have read things from do seem to enjoy tying together all the things you mention evolution equalling in order to supposedly crush religion in general, (Well, maybe not the Hertzsprung thing, i've never heard someone use that phrase before.)

I think this is just pure ignorance and a desperate attempt to slam it all in one fell swoop

I don't see microevolution in that list, which makes for a very problematic definition for me indeed.

sorry

My Chemistry teacher is a scientist yet certainly doesn't seem atheistic at all, so first hand experience rules me out from agreeing with the next time.

Exactly

I fail to see how ID is somehow greater than Creationism, when it seems far more deistic than Christian at its core no matter how many roman catholics lead the movement. Next, being a literalist is simply not enough. Anyone can read the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean you'll necessarily accept it as true.

I mean believe it is literally true and inerrant of course

Catholicism as a whole, I suspect, is certainly getting closer to non-Christian every day from the looks of it, though it is a problematic generalization to make, because it is such a worldwide denomination that geographical boundaries often allow certain regions to have beliefs different than the Vatican's. However, while I am quite well aware of the many "THE POPE IS THE ANTICHRIST!" type websites out there, I do not subscribe to their views, and am not a Seventh Day Adventist. I'm surprised you honestly think all ID type people would think that no scientists are Christians, I see so many evolution advocates going on and on about those creationists and their mean old quote mining, in which we often pull a few quotes from some pretty Christian sounding scientists like Newton or somebody.

Well Not all creationists/Fundamentalists/intelligent design proponents will agree with all of these, for sure. They disagree with each other like crazy. I do not claim they all agree by any means.


I don't know what "Religion=Christianity" is supposed to mean so I can't agree with it, but put a "True" in front of that and you'll have it about right. (See, maybe i'm fundamentalist after all!) There's a similar problem with your last one, it needs a modifier at the beginning, otherwise it could describe every creation account of any religion, true or not. Homestarmy 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

THere you go...so what do you think?--Filll 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark side

Well....
Come to the dark side
I decided a long time ago that neither the light nor the dark were inherintly good or evil, but rather, that it is inside the darkness or inside the light at any given time that has the capacity to be either good or evil. Evil lurks in the darkened halls of man-made philosophy just as it lurked in the shadows of yesteryear, but it was never the shadows that were evil. Likewise, Satan himself is said to be able to appear as an angel of light, so it would seem that the light itself is not necessarily what is good, but what is inside the light. Plus, if you read the later Star Wars books, the new Jedi council eventually rejects the distinction of light and dark sides of the force, when they felt compelled to bust out some force lighting or something because the main enemy, the Yhuzzan Vong, were immune to the force mostly and were highly annoying for just light side Jedi to beat. I say they should of just busted out the biological toxin thing right from the get go, but meh....
I would say that is a tiny minority, just as true atheists are a teeny tiny minority, at least in the US, maybe around 1-5 percent at most. Many more agnostics of course.
While probably true for the main population, most internet communities i've seen have a highly disproportionate amount of atheist and/or agnostic representation, and although i'm not saying that all atheists, agnostics, or whomever use Evolution to justify their Atheism, i'm simply stating that I have seen it done many times. (Of course, I wouldn't call their attempts successfull...)

Part of the problem here is that many fundamentalists want to brand others as atheists when they are not even close to atheists. It is what I was trying to get across with my "math" above. Now orangemarlin and myself are not atheists. But I am sure many fundamentalists would call us atheists. And so it gets confusing. Statistically they are a tiny group. Even in science they are about half at most, and I bet even less since I think the survey I saw lumped agnostics in with atheists, and agnostics are far far more numerous than atheists.--Filll 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So then what "math" do fundamentalists who don't assume all evolutionists are atheists use? Are we at least at pre-algebra yet? Homestarmy 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
According to my research and personal knowledge, there are probably 3-5 times as many people who believe in theistic evolution as believe in creationism, at least in the US. Most people who believe in evolution believe in theistic evolution in fact.
Well, I wish more of them would show up more often on the internet, it always seems like only the Christians and Atheists ever have the compulsion to prove something :/.

I am not an Atheist. And here I am. Orangemarlin is not an atheist. But here he is...--Filll 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand how this works, most people who believe evolutionary theory to be the most bestest explanatory model of life ever are generally on the presumption that it has already been "proven" in a manner of speaking. What are you trying to prove then? :/ Homestarmy 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To some people it is. For legal reasons or just to slur the other side and say the worst thing about them they can think of, to bait them etc.
Well, I wasn't planning on becoming a lawyer, I don't know if Roanoake collage even has a law school :/. But i'm just holding that Evolution is only limited to microevolution, even if i'm taking a slightly more vauge definition that most creationist type websites because you folks keep coming up with more stuff against everything we say every day, (We're just slightly outnumbered, don't have any respected universities anywhere in the nation, outnumbered in the scientific community by a good bit, that sort of thing.) for my own benefit mostly at the moment.

I have seen some creationists that claim that they have no problem with macroevolution either. And most people do not know what evolution is; in a survey fewer than half the people could pick the definition of evolution out of a list. So it is all pretty confused. But you are right, biblical fundamentalists are outnumbered. They are about 10% of the US, depending on how you count. --Filll 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a difficult theory/model/what-have-you to keep up with, the evolutionary synthesis has a rather annoying habit of radically changing something fundamental every couple of years or so I notice :/. But its not just "Biblical fundamentalists" that are outnumbered, i'm talking just creation scientists/apologists alone vs. all of academia who hold to evolutionary theory, that's probably an even worse number than just 10 percent. Homestarmy 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Having read some of the literature and listened to some of them, I notice that none of them really agree. It is like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no data or evidence on which to base any belief, aside from the bible, and everyone interprets that differently (and then there are the other religious texts of course).
Well, its not the lack of evidence i'm concerned about, its that they just seem so much like their willing to comprimise on one thing and be erratic on other things, which as you might imagine, would be bad for a Fundamentalist :D

I have seen many fundamentalists glad to ignore parts of the bible they want to ignore, or interpret those parts in ways that suit them. So...--Filll 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't think many IDer's are even fundamentalists at all, they don't seem to act like it very much. The Discovery Institute who, if I understand this right, basically created ID doesn't seem that fundamentalist to me, just because they have that wedge thing that looks insidious to some people doesn't make them fundamentalist.... but anyway, if you see people all the time who ignore parts of the Bible without even trying to make it all work together, why do you let them get away with labelling themselves as fundamentalist? Homestarmy 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You are forgetting that a lot of astronomy and meteorology and seismology etc cannot be reproduced either. These are the so -called "observational sciences". Evolutionary biology is partly experimental as well, however.
They can, however, still be observed at the moment in some ways, whereas I don't think any of us were around for the act of creation. So it just seems more like history to me than science, other kinds of historical things don't need to be science to be considered accurate by most academic type from what i've seen, so I just don't see why we need it to necessarily be recognized as scientific per se. Some of the evidence may be scientific, some....might not, (Let's just say I come across some Creationist arguments which are, erm, a bit out of date unfortunently, the modern synthesis changes way too fast man, not everyone can keep up :/.) but it just seems to me Creationism itself is more like history than science.

But you can observe evolution at the moment. Both micro and macro evolution have been observed "at the moment". Many times. And documented over and over. And no real history that ignores science these days is respectable. After all, what about the history of the Great Flood? Pseudohistory at best. Many creationists are using arguments from 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. It is just part for the course..--Filll 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression macroevolution, by default, wasn't really much of a "this moment" occasion, isn't it supposed to take awhile or something? Besides, every show i've seen with the flood geology sort of thing seems far more into trying to use science to prove it than history, you have to admit, if something came and flooded the whole planet, physical evidence that would be acceptable in modern academia probably wouldn't be easy to come by. Homestarmy 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean believe it is literally true and inerrant of course
Oh. Well, now you have to get into the versions debate, because what happens if we're talking about a Jehovah's Witness creationist, (If they exist, i'm not actually certain....) who uses the New World Translation, of which there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that the methods used in its creation were hardly honest? Homestarmy 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fighting over versions is why we have several thousand sects of Christianity. And who knows which is best? And yes, people have died because they followed a different version. Lots of them.--Filll 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt its that simple, these versions aren't normally that different, every single incidence of what you describe that I know of in history had very little to do with what version of the Bible people were reading, but what their beliefs were, and you don't need different versions of the Bible just to hold differing beliefs. It's just that particular versions happened to follow people around who already held to a particular different belief, so the particular version in question may of been tied to the belief when in reality the belief didn't necessarily arise from the version at hand in the first place. Homestarmy 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review Please

I liked the way that you reviewed the Scotch College, Perth article, and i would like you to review my article - aquinas college, perth. Thanks Smbarnzy 12:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For GA status? Unless i'm looking at the wrong talk page it doesn't appear to be a nominee.... Homestarmy 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses GA

Noticed you put this article on hold back in early December. Just wanted to remind you to take a look at it, in case you'd forgotten. Shimeru 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped somebody else would of done something with it, it just seems so close I can't decide whether it is or is not a GA :/. Nothing was changed with the historography section or trivia I think, I just don't know how to handle it.... Homestarmy 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look at this...the lead doesn't summarize the article--for example, it says nothing about sections 2-6, the refs are not in a consistent format, and several large paras are uncited. Just my 2 cents. Rlevse 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was concerned that the lead expansion wasn't big enough too, but I never really got specific about what precisely the lead should say, i'm concerned that if I fail it somebody will get angry at me for not more clearly defining what the lead should be like. Homestarmy 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Thanks for editing the Jesus article.

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)