User talk:Lostcaesar/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk Archives: I — II — III — IV


Contents

[edit] Nice work

The Minor Barnstar
for your good work on the Christianity bibliography. Tom Harrison Talk 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christianity

I am glad to contribute although I find the current format a bit daunting and confusing. Some sections of the article are text and other sections are just a chronology.

I think your plan is to ultimately have each section have a "Key Dates" subsection that holds the chronology and then continue on with a prose narrative. Am I correct in my assumption?

I have done some extensive editing on the History of the Papacy article taking it from a couple of paragraphs into the full-blown article that it currently is. It still needs more work but I think it about 90% done now.

I think you will find the History of the Papacy article a useful resource especially the section on the 11th and 12th centuries which I think will fit in well with the section in History of Christianity called "The Papacy". I do think that section is badly named in that it suggests that the Papacy either only existed or was only of historical importance during those centuries. As History of the Papacy shows, the Papacy was an important influence on the Christian church throughout the last 2000 years. Even the history of Protestantism is defined in large part as opposition to the Catholic chuch and the Papacy in particular.

I would like to work with you in regularizing these four related articles: History of Christianity, [[1]],History of the Catholic Church and History of the Papacy as well as any other related articles that you may know of.

--Richard 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christianity task force

I have proposed a History task force on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General. I'm not sure how wide your interest is but I invite you to take a look at my proposal and consider joining.

--Richard 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communions

Thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. I actually enjoy discussions like this, in that it helps me form my own understanding of things. I like to learn and to teach, in other words. I know that real people who have strong feelings are involved, and it's sometimes too easy for me to forget that from the safe distance of cyberspace. So I hope that you, too, will take whatever I say in that spirit of mutual learning and teaching. I also have strong feelings about my own Communion's self-definition, and yet locally I'm very much involved in the ecumenical and multifaith movements, and count many Roman Catholic laypeople, clergy, and religious as friends and acquaintances. Cheers! Fishhead64 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, and for sharing your personal experiences - I was very touched. I am sorry that your grandmother was so rudely treated by a fellow congregant. There is no excuse for such behaviour, especially as people approach as one body to receive the Blessed Sacrament. I regret that it has soured her on the Church - sadly this sort of thing occurs far too often.
When it comes to the ordination of women and other matters, doctrinal development in Anglicanism has always been a messy affair. The great Anglican theolgian and Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, wrote that the credentials of Anglicanism "are its incompleteness, with the tension and the travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as 'the best type of Christianity,' but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died." I'm working on an article for my church's general synod on the question of doctrine as it pertains to the blessing of same-sex unions, so I'm rather steeped in the business at the moment. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this possible?

Wait, an Irish descent Skins fan who lives in the UK with an interest in all things early Xian/4th c. CE? Are you a lost twin?

Not only do I still get choked up when I watch Riggo stiff arm that schmoe, my research before moving fields was in Augustinian Christianity and late antiquity. Would be more than happy to throw you my thesis if I could ever find an electronic copy.

I disagree with the previous poster here, though. MacMillan dwells far too much on the dated idea of synchretism. He's too bitter Peter Brown is smarter than he. Though MacMillan's work on the earlier Empire is very good, obviously.

There seems to be need for less biased editing of the early Christian/historical Jesus articles. Any idea where a good jump in point is? Cheers,--Mrdarcey 08:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It isn't Campbell or Gibbs I worry about. At least since they remembered to tell Saunders they are a running team (though resigning Dockery would be a good idea). The whole defensive fiasco, however...ugh, don't get me started. Sean, you get paid to intimidate AND cover, dude. At least they finally have a kicker. Maybe he won't ruin himself by doing McDonald's commercials like Loehmiller did.
My research (I shudder to call it that. I was so young when I wrote it...) was on the origins of monasticism, and how late antique monasticism acted to preserve/spread romanitas to the remains of the Western Empire. It relied fairly heavily on textual interpretation (Cassian, Augustine, Gregory, Athanasius, Benedict, Martin, et al), an interpretation of Western holy men using Brown's descriptions of patroni, and an evaluation of the late antique Church as a subversively non-Imperial arbitor of power, following Civitatis Dei and secondary work like Mathew's refutation of Grabar's imperial iconography theory. I'll see if I can't find an electronic copy at some point. I fell in love with Brown's writing while reading Cult of the Saints. The passage you mention is his description of the Justinian mosaic at Ravenna, yeah?
Thanks for the heads-up. I just don't know how much time to invest here. I've been sort of gobsmacked at how such far fetched theories can hijack any sort of rational discourse. Months ago I read on the Gnosticism page that "Gnostics were a Christian sect." I know it's petty, but I keep wishing terrible things upon Dan Brown. The problem with those so-called scholars is that marginal viewpoints and by nature controversial, and in order to be published they have to be populist. It makes them far more accessible and eye catching than the vast majority of scholarship. Why bother reading difficult books that might challenge your viewpoint? When I was up at Oxford we would read Starhawk, Pagels and the Jesus Seminar for the laugh of it. We used to joke about trying to use them on finals papers. Discretion always won out, however, and if they were ever mentioned, it was a "look how silly people can be. I'm certainly not silly, sir!" I've honestly no idea how to get people to understand how irrelevant some authors are to actual academic discourse.
With whom are you studying at Leeds? That's a fascinating period, and one under-represented in the literature, from what I remember.
The weather reached a toasty -2 C today, by the way, with the wind making it feel -6 or so. Loverly. But I don't for a minute miss the seven hours of British winter sunlight. And now Rome is on...
Cheers,--Mrdarcey 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might say Wood. From what I remember, I found his text on the Merovingians amazingly useful. I won't pretend I found it as fun as Brown's stuff, but he is an outstanding historian. Preeminant, really, for your work I imagine. This newer text on the Missionary Life, which I haven't read, looks quite similar to my thesis. I'll have to pick it up. Did you ever read Richard Fletcher's 'The Barbarian Conversion', by the way? A very good popularised barnstorm of a thousand years of Church activity.
I think your analysis is spot on. There is a skeptic's urge to push all matters religious into neat, controlled and understandable boxes for whatever reason. But often I think skeptics miss the point: the kerygmatic word is a different sort of rationality, ontological and ethical, not epistemological. The recent Andrew Sullivan/Sam Harris dialogue has been a good example. In his need to qualify and debunk all things Christian, Harris ends up simply talking by Sullivan. Still, it is possible to talk about Jesus historically, responsibly and seperately from a faith statement. The argument that because someone is a Christian, he is disqualified from rational analysis is not only backwards, it is insulting. Backwards because it assumes faith proceeds and blinds knowledge, rather than knowledge advancing faith. Insulting because it homogenises the diversity of belief into the worst stereotypes. If I want to know about computers, I go to a computer scientist. If I want to learn about 1st century Judea, I go to an historian. Either might or might not be Christian. It simply doesn't affect the quality of the analysis. But I rant. And since I've already been somewhat pejoritively accused of being a "believer" for simply pointing out the marginal nature of the JS and Pagels, I think I might be a bit circumspect in where I enter. I'm not a specialist, and most of my books have been scattered from London to DC. I think I'll concentrate on finding one or two smaller articles and moving on from there. Is there still a raging controversy over the historical Jesus/jesus as myth thing?
Anyway, thanks for the input. And the Frerotte reminder. I'd managed to block the memory of that awful, awful game from my mind for some time, but that was a good laugh. Maybe because San Deigo just hired Turner to clean up after Marty. I actually feel for Tomlinson now.--Mrdarcey 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CC vs RCC issue in a nutshell and the history of "CC"

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

"1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.
2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.
3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.
4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.
5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.
6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)
7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. The lone way to achieve some type NPOV is by consensus non-Catholic POV 2 articles to Catholic POV 1..


Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?
The injustice is truly preposterous! "


Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.


Thank you very much for your support.Micael 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christianity

I haven't seen much editing from you (or anybody else for that matter) on the History of Christianity article in a few days. Are you done with it for now? If so, can I interest you in taking a look at History of Christian theology? It's a mess (yes, it's my fault, I created the article with my usual mish-mash style) and it could use the critical eye of someone like you. I would really appreciate it. --Richard 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippolytus

LC, you seem to have deleted referenced text of mine. Would you be so good as to retrieve that reference for me so I don't have to do it myself? It's the Hippolytus reference on purgatory. Could you paste it into talk:purgatory for me? Most editors would be too partisan to entertain such a request, but you seem to be a good sort of guy. Jonathan Tweet 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Aw, forget it. I would never have stumbled across Hippolytus and all these other wonderful early Christian resources if it weren't for your unrelenting defense of the purgatory page. Jonathan Tweet 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Your practice of deleting my referenced text has tried my patience, but not to the breaking point, and I appreciate the gesture. Jonathan Tweet 15:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a suggestion

My suggestion is, when you see only one side of a debate presented, try to find out the other side and add it, rather than delete - as long as the debate itself is on point and involving reliable respected sources.. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CC and RCC and Catholics in Mainland China

I wonder whether it would make sense to include in the article titled "Roman Catholic Church" reference to the fact that the Chinese Communist government outlawed the Catholic Church and established instead the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, as an acceptable institution free from foreign influence, i.e., from the Vatican.

Now there are perhaps millions of Catholics who are members of the state-sponsored Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, but are not in communion with Rome. And more millions of "underground" Catholics, living as best they can in communion with Rome, but subject to arrest and discrimination by the Chinese government.

One is struck by the parallels as one reads the history of the state-sponsored Churches in England from the 16th on, and in China during the 20th and 21st centuries: the state establishment of a religion; denunciation of "foreign" influence; state persecution of Catholics faithful to the Universal Church by way of arrests, forfeiture of property and position, and probably martyrdom (certainly in the case of England, and almost certainly in the case of China); the underground movement.

I would like to see the faithful, persecuted Catholics in China recognized in this article, and perhaps this could be done in a way that helps bring home the fact that union with the Vatican has been seen by Catholics throughout history, and the world over, as an element key to any truly Catholic identity.

Ivain 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salve, amice

Salve, amice, et gratias tibi pro verbis tuis!

Perhaps the point I raised is something to continue to ponder and work on . . . ad majorem gloriam Dei —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivain (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] documentary h.

Wellhausen and Kaumann are pretty clear that they think people wrote the Bible. JEPD refer to people or groups of people not different deities. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin texts

I agree fully with the omission of the supplementary information. If the three Councils are mentioned, it will be thought, unless the opposite is stated, that they listed the sacraments with exactly the same names and in the same order as the CCC. They did not. I think going into such details is neither necessary nor useful. I am at your disposal if I can help clear up something in this respect. Lima 10:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of the Councils differed from CCC in the names they gave to sacraments 2 and 5, and the other differed also in the order of the sacraments. Mentioning them could encourage "change(s) from time to time as per personal taste".
As for adding the Latin terms corresponding to the English names, again I do not think it either necessary or useful. Just as logical would be to give the Greek words from which the first three terms, whether in Latin or in English, are derived: Βαπτισμός, Χρίσμα and Εὐχαριστία. Lima 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synod of Whitby

It's really insulting to delete a section of criticism that several of us worked on for a while simply based on your own opinion. Don't you think? You're editing against the consensus we reached and you refuse to even discuss it on talk. Wjhonson 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. I jumped to conclusions. Wjhonson 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish is Catholic?

I don't usually comment on people's userboxes - diversity is one of Wikipedia's strengths, after all - but I was taken aback to see a userbox that says, "this user believes Irish is Catholic". Can you explain what you are implying by that? I feel very uncomfortable at seeing my country's flag attached to a statement that appears to be contrary to everything it represents. The symbolism of the flag is intended to be inclusive (the orange represents the Protestant community, the green the Catholic). I have seen the tragedy of recent Irish history too close to be casual about something like that; "Phrases make history here," as we say. Can I suggest you seriously consider removing this? Rbreen 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on my talk page. I understand what you are trying to say, and that's not what your wording currently says.
I don't think you have any idea of how politically explosive, within the Irish context, a statement like "Irish is Catholic" is. To anyone of my background and generation it very clearly implies, above everything else, that anyone who is not Catholic is not really Irish, in the same way that the phrase "Ulster is Protestant" was used to intimidate the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. I have friends and family members who would certainly interpret it that way, as an intimation that they do not really belong. This is a very real issue, even today, for some members of the Protestant and Jewish communities, and increasingly with the new ethnic minorities including Muslims and others.
This is not directly related to any one group - Sinn Fein would not subscribe to such a statement and Irish Republicanism has traditionally been inspired by the aim of Theobald Wolfe Tone to "to substitute the common name of Irishman, in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter" - a sentiment that is, officially at least, subscribed to both by the majority parties and the republican extremists. (The reality on the ground is not always so and there is clearly a violent sectarian element on both sides of the fence in Northern Ireland, and it is this I was referring to, and it is not that long ago that people were regularly being murdered for no other reason than they were Catholic or Protestant. You might like to read up on the Shankill Butchers to get an insight into what this means).
I can see that what you were actually trying to do was to speak against secularism and not in favour of sectarianism - but as you can see, it is very difficult to disentangle the two, in Ireland at least. We have had the experiment, from 1922, of a state that was clearly Catholic in character while attempting to encompass other faiths; this was not a success - not only was the result insular and restrictive (within living memory there was the absurd spectacle of the members of the government having to sit in their official cars outside the state funeral of a president (Douglas Hyde) because they were Catholic and he was a Protestant) and an economic disaster, but it contributed significantly to the situation in Northern Ireland. The constitutional statement that gave a special place to the Catholic Church was rejected by the people in a referendum in 1972, largely because it was a very obvious barrier to rapprochement with the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any clamour for its return.
I don't think any Irish historian would agree with your suggestion that "Ireland did not exist until after its Christianization" - that view seems to me simplistic, at least. Nor is it helpful to talk of 'forced protestantisation' since there was plenty of unforced conversion and settlement. If the adoption of Christianity allowed Ireland to have a wider influence, it was because it allowed access to a wider cultural arena, in the same way that accession to the European Union has done in our own time. I don't know how much you know about Irish history, especially modern Irish history - I am tempted to suggest that perhaps you have been seduced by the romantic notion of Ireland as a nation of 'Saints and Scholars' - but James Joyce expressed it well when he said "history is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake". Leaving history behind - and discovering a concept of Ireland that encompasses and welcomes diverse traditions and opinions - has been a painful but necessary part of the growing into maturity of the modern Irish state, recognising that the Catholic heritage has been only one facet of what it means to be Irish, and of what the flag represents.
I hadn't meant to write an essay here, and am not trying to start a debate. But it is important to understand both that words are weapons in Ireland, and that the view you have of Irish cultural identity is not shared by many people in Ireland itself, and that comes from bitter experience.
Rbreen 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] purfication and purgatory

The EOC says it has purification but not purgatory. Early Christians had purification before they had a segregated place for the punished elect (purgatory). Therefore purgatory is a take on purification. Purification is a broader concept of which purgatory is the RCC version. This perspective, of course, treats purgatory as a beliefs rather than as spiritual truth. Jonathan Tweet 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing purgatory

Before I ask a personal favor of you, I'd like to agree with you about our history editing the purgatory page. Here's what I saw. You overhauled the article and the resulting article violated NPOV. It's pretty easy to imagine that you considered the article fair and balanced. I challenged you, and you asked for specifics. I gave you specifics paragraph by paragraph. You judged most of my concerns to be without merit, and you removed my notations, sometimes without addressing the issue first. I considered reverting the whole page, but instead I agreed to play along. I made some edits. I asked for slack, but you deleted and subverted my edits. Somewhere in this process I tagged the article as POV. You repeatedly removed the tag without first correcting the POV. You requested a comment, and the comment was that the article was POV. You edited the article but didn't comply fully with the comment, and you removed the tag. I replaced the tag. Alec returned and said that the article was still POV. I added the tag back. You have once again addressed my concerns and Alec's to your own satisfaction, and you have removed the tag. Would that be a reasonable summary? Jonathan Tweet 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be the sort of fellow who can admit when he's been wrong. "Log in your own eye," and all that. But please allow my to test my inference. Let's say for argument's sake that my edits represented my POV, and that they were unsourced. Can we agree on the long and short of it? You overhauled the article and made it POV. Your edits did not meet my standards, but I didn't revert them or undo them. Instead, I tried adding more information to balance your POV. My edits did not meet your standards, so you deleted them and subverted them. Briefly, you violated WP standards, and you treated me unfairly. True? If you agree, then I think it's an unfortunate episode that we can put behind us. Jonathan Tweet 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe you agree that you treated me unfairly, maybe you don't. I won't try to corner you on that issue. Here's my personal request. A while back, you did a major overhaul on purgatory and made it POV. Out of respect for you and your efforts, I didn't revert it and I didn't delete your material. I tried adding counterweight material to strike a balance, and you deleted it. Now I'm asking that you show me the same respect I showed you. Please don't delete any material that I add to purgatory. Tag it as needing a citation. Tag it as OR. Tag it as POV. Campaign against it on the talk page. Find like-minded Catholics to come and delete it, if that's what you need to do. But please don't you delete my material. If you can't convince another editor to delete it, then please demonstrate the forbearance not to delete it yourself. Can you please do that for me? Jonathan Tweet 15:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I butt in here and put in my two cents? I do not have the time to review Jonathan's edits to Purgatory right now so I won't offer any thoughts as to whether they should have been deleted or not. However, I will make some general comments on this discussion as well as a proposal for going forward more amicably.
Like Jonathan, I don't mind it if people improve my edits or make corrections, etc. However, I absolutely *HATE* it when people delete my edits. I view it as disrespectful and arbitrary. At a very minimum, I would prefer that my text be deleted and copied to the Talk Page with an explanation as to why the other editor thought it was inappropriate.
Not having seen or thought about Jonathan's edits and knowing Lostcaesar from working with him on History of Christianity, I'm inclined to believe that Lostcaesar had good reason to delete Jonathn's text. However, I am also willing to believe that Jonathan is not yet convinced of these reasons.
I would propose that we focus on putting the text on the Talk Page and discussing it there. There should be some NPOV way to represent both POVs. This sort of thing is something I really enjoy doing and I might even be good at it.
I will put the Purgatory article and Talk Page on my watchlist. Unfortunately, I will be away for the rest of the weekend so it might be a couple of days before I get to look at it. Perhaps the two of you can start the discussion without me and I'll join in later.
--Richard 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
LC, your repeated deletions of my edits have led me to stop editing purgatory. Not worth the effort. Should I continue to seek a way for you and me to work together amicably on the page, or is that a dead end? Jonathan Tweet 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You say we can work together. In my mind, that doesn't mean that you summarily delete my edits. Since you think my request for the same respect that I've shown you was a setup, here's my weaker request: give me a month. If I make an edit to purgatory that you disagree with, tag it and argue against it, but let it sit there a month. If, at the end of the month, you haven't been able to convince even one other editor to delete it for you, then, of course, delete it unilaterally at your own discretion. But at least discuss it first. Let's see what other editors say. Give me a chance to improve it. If you convince other editors to delete it, then I'll see that it's not just you defending your own POV. If, after a month of discussion, no other editors can see the truth that you yourself see, then you can of course delete my edits as you have been doing. Jonathan Tweet 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Having exhausted efforts to find an agreeable way to work together, I'll resume editing purgatory. I trust that you will follow the guidelines for reversion and deletion, especially "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." See help:reverting.

[edit] History of Christianity

Alright Czar, I am going to spend as little time on this as possible so God help us both. Europe was not completely christianized by 800 most of the gothic west was but the Neitherlands and parts of Northern Europe where not. That's why I added the Battle in Poland as an example (see the crusades section and my edits there). The part needs to be reworded there. As for your other edits, I agree with them accept the edit that removed my requesting a source that by 800 all of Europe was converted to christianity. Also Arian christianity was a good part of the "state" religion history of Europe even though Theodosis' edit made Catholicism the state religion was that pagan guy Julian the Apostate and those arian christians who violently challenged it. LoveMonkey 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your comments on my editor review

I know that it's been almost a month since you left those comments and I don't know how it is that I didn't see them until last Friday but I didn't. I was away on vacation over the weekend so this is the first real opportunity that I've had to thank you. I look forward to working with you on History of Christianity and other Christianity-related articles.

--Richard 05:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre of the Innocents

Hi, I appreciate your addition to Massacre of the Innocents, but the quotation from Stauffer does not seem to support the claimed interpretation: "...can only be pointing to a massacre of children en masse in the Pharaonic manner" - I don't see any hint there of a reference to Herod, only to certain Pharoahs who wiped out potential competing claimants to the throne. When you write "has been interpreted", please can you state which reliable or significant commentators have held that view? - Fayenatic london (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian heresy

A couple of editors have criticized the Christian heresy article on Talk:Christian heresy. I am interested in hearing your opinion of their comments. Please be honest. Despite the fact that I am the creator of this article, I am truly interested in your thoughts on whether the criticism of the basic premise of the article 209.59.32.37 is on the mark or not.

--Richard 07:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey (Hail?), Mr. LC. It's me, Mr. 209.59.32.37 (although my proxy may have changed by this time). I wanted to thank you for a most productive discussion; I think we're 100% on the same page, and I can rest assured that under your guidance this article will develop in a clear and helpful manner. And I'll have to leave it in your hands--I'm just a kid out of college, too immature to budget his time responsibly between academics and online communities; I kind of made this a holiday exception to my normal policy of staying off the internet for any longer than it takes to check email or espn.com (I even had to give up news and politics cold turkey for now). I guess it wasn't the best thing for me to put my two cents' in knowing I can't be a productive member of the WP community, but I certainly am glad I did. I am happy to have run into you.
Since you have no talk page I will simply respond and how you get the message. I wholly appreciate your two cents, and any more cents you wish to add. Never underestimate yourself and what you can contribute. I hope to work with you in the future, if you do return. Lostcaesar 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey (if you could) email me your email address (or one you are comfortable with). LoveMonkey 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Select the option Email this user on my talkpage. LoveMonkey 18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gospel of Mark

Thanks for your work on the Mark article. I thought I'd better give an extensive analysis of the issue, but I feel like I'm using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. I really don't know why your revisions weren't accepted... StAnselm 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word games

I seriously wasn't trying to be rude, thought I can understand how accusing someone of playing a 'game' can be offensive. And I apologize for that. What I was saying was that I agree that techncially speaking what you said was true about 51% being a majority. However, I believe the manner in which the content is currently phrased is misleading in its connotations. Sorry if I was a bit blunt.-Andrew c 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory

Hi LC,

It appears that we've been editing Purgatory concurrently. This explains some weirdness that I got while editing. My edits were limited strictly to fixing the format of references. Thus, the questions that you put in some of your edit summaries should not be directed at me but at whoever put in that text in the first place. I would suggest that such comments should be put in the Talk Page rather than the edit summary as the editor who inserted that text might not see your comments as relevant to him/her otherwise.

Happy editing.

--Richard 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TO: LostCaesar

LostCaesar,

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is a pretty liberal/secular place and I am sure many of your fine edits disappear. Please become a editor at a more conservative Wiki called Conservapedia which is much more friendly to Christianity than Wikipedia. We could especially use your help in creating a Historicity of Jesus article and regarding books of the New Testament. Jazzman123 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

[edit] Oswiu

I've revamped Oswiu of Northumbria somewhat. I'm still missing a section on his religious policies. I believe you have access to Mayr-Harting's work. Do you have any thoughts on what should be said? For the Synod of Whitby, I'll rather concentrate on the political side of things and the presumed conflict between Oswiu and Eahlfrith as your rather fine work covers the religious aspects far better than I could. Thanks in advance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! There's really no need to go to any trouble hunting the book down. I think there's enough to be getting on with with what I have. I don't know if you've seen it, but there's quite an interesting write up on the Paschal dispute in Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland. It stops just short of seeing the Synod of Whitby as being a sort of 7th century Laudabiliter with Oswiu as Henry II and Wilfrid and the Frankish faction as Hadrian IV. Thanks again and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and ....

Thanks and at Conservapedia you could be made an Admin easily given the quality of the content that you produce at Wikipedia (much of which is erased). Jazzman123 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal case

Hi there! A Mediation Cabal case involving you has been started up — see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Purgatory. I suggest that you comment there since it will definitely help you. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet has prepared a lengthy summary of your changes to the article here. Could you add inline responses for each point? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory

Hey-- I've replied on Purgatory's talk page. Yeah, I knew denomination was bad the minute I wrote it, but I could off the top of my head think how to word it, so I just hit save anyway. :). You'll find lots of similar problems in what I wrote-- for example even saying the words "Go to purgatory/heaven/hell" wrongly implies purgatory is a place, so we probably should change all "go to"s into "enter intos" or something. Lots more stuff like that-- it's just a "you get the idea" edit that has lots of fixing needed.

In gist: put a super-dumbed down intro at the front-- talk the reader like they've never heard anything about christianity before. Then put all the stuff about people who believe in purgatory into one section-- spirtuality, etc, all in one big "This is what purgatory is, and what people who believe in it think about it". Then have a third section for "People who don't believe in the Latin Rite Purgatory, but may have similar or dissimilar beliefs". Add in a really strong protestant views section, and I'd say you have yourself a very fine article.

Very good work on the history section-- it looks awesome. Good work in general on the article! A few polishiings, simplifying, and balancing, and I'd say you're well on your way to FAC. --Alecmconroy 06:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, there is no need to retire. To retire would mean that you concede defeat, and that is no way to solve this problem. I ask you to reconsider; together this problem will be solved. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian heresy

Please review this diff and give me your opinion of User:Brandon cohen's edits. Feel free to respond on the Talk:Christian heresy page.

--Richard 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also please look at the "POV concerns" raised by User:Mcorazao on Talk:History of Christianity. Thanx.

--Richard 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

What happened to your user page?

--Richard 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quick comment

Dear Lostcaesar,

Please do not let my category tags comment dissuade you from posting at Conservapedia. I just think you material is good and want it to be seen more. I would rather have you post new articles without category tags and then give up because you don't feel like learning how to put category tags. The category tags can always be added later by others. LOL Jazzman123 02:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007 Wikiproject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Volume I, no. 1 - June 2007
Project News
  • Four articles are at FA level and sixteen are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic.
  • There is a lot of work for this Wikiproject. Go to tasks to find out how to help.
  • There are currently five article being peer reviewed by the peer review team. Please stop by and see if there is any way that you could contribute to those articles.
  • It has been proposed by John Carter that the various other projects which relate to Christianity ought to all at least tag those articles which fall within their scope. That way, this project would have a better idea which articles do not fall within the specific scope of any of the other related projects. Articles can be "tagged" by placing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} in the articles talk page.
Current proposals and discussions

We're sorry if you did not want to receive this newsletter, but this is sent to all Wikiproject Christianity Members as it is the first newsletter. If you would like to recieve this in the future, or if you wouldn't, you must add your user name accordingly here.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – July 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
We couldn't do it without you!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

June 2007 Automatically delivered by HermesBot

[edit] quick note

I read your discussion page at Conservapedia. It seems an Admin at Conservapedia said there is a zero chance of you being an Admin/Sysop there. I wanted to let you know that is not true. I am an Admin at Conservapedia and I have been corresponding with the director of Conservapedia. He likes you material very much and it is simply not true that you have a zero chance of being an Admin at Conservapedia. Jazzman123 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

The Christianity article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory

There has been a recent RfC at this article, and it has gotten more recent attention, resulting in some improvement, and several interesting ideas for further improvement. As an editor who has been involved in the past quite extensively with it, I wanted to give you a heads up. If the spirit moves you (sorry!), see you on its talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)