User talk:RSpeeter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page. Thanks for stopping by.


Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, RSpeeter! Thanks for weighing in over on the Scientology article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, RSpeeter, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on condoning

Hello Robert. I don't agree either than condoning is forgiving. Now about how to solicit more input, I am sorry to tell you that you will get very little of the religious pages because the editors there usually have to much other things to worry about. I can help you out on the condoning article and I suggest using different theories from sources that you may have showing how condoning is different from forgiving. I know these are hard to find but try to add something short about it to make the article a stub instead. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have tried to improve it a little and will work on it later. Please see what you can add to it. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your message

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the Forgiveness article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page;
-Scott P. 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note: I have attempted to recast the recent changes in a way which makes them sound less like an evangelical bible study. Myopic Bookworm 13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism and Forgiveness

Hi, FWBOarticle here. We met in Buddhism talk page. You commented that "I am guessing that there may be more common ground between religions and philosophies than we believe at first blush." Ethic of reciprocity shoud fit the bill. You might want to expand on the christianity section of the article. FWBOarticle

firstly, you should know that I'm not a buddhist, though being a japanese, i probably know bit more about it than most people. Your description is not quite correct. I think the closest way to describe the concept of forgiveness in Buddhism is "to let go". It is important to remember that in Buddhism, it's not quite about sin (against god) and redemption (by god) but more about taint (of your own mind) and realisation (of particular state of mind). I'm involved in few significant edits so when i have time, i add something to your article. FWBOarticle

[edit] Hinduism and forgiveness

Speet, forgiveness is related to karma; see Karma in Hinduism. One must atone for acts by performing good deeds or attones for his sins through karma. God is the Divine accountant and one cannot receive the fruits of good karma unless he pays his consequences.

a good article on sin and atonement is found in a section fron Dancing with Siva, an introduction to Saivism, a branch of Hinduism, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-11.html

see, the section, "what is sin, how can we atone for it?"


Regards, Raj2004 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Speet any quote from the Mahabharata is considered authoritative. You quoted Vidura who along with Bhisma who are considered the wisest persons only to Lord Krishna who is considered the incarnation of God Himself by Hindus.

The Dancing with Siva book is a good book on Saivism, one of the denominations of Hinduism. It is contemporary book. There are many scriptures in Hinduism so I can't give all quotes on forgiveness. I will quote from Gita, see below. Yes, Hindus should forgive as that is quality of devotee that Lord Krishna likes. In fact, Lord Krishna said that forgiveness is a quality of those with divine traits as distinguished from demoniac traits. "Fearlessness, purity of inner psyche, perseverance in the yoga of Self-knowledge, charity, sense restraint, sacrifice, study of the scriptures, austerity, honesty; nonviolence, truthfulness, absence of anger, renunciation, equanimity, abstaining from malicious talk, compassion for all creatures, freedom from greed, gentleness, modesty, absence of fickleness, splendor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, absence of malice, and absence of pride --- these are some of the qualities of those endowed with divine virtues, O Arjuna. (16.01-03)" Chapter 16, verses 1-3 of Gita

as for course on miracles, they borrowed Hindu Advaita principles.

Raj2004 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MagdalenechanForgiveness.jpg

This is regarding Image:MagdalenechanForgiveness.jpg. Have you received permission from the artist to upload this image? If so, you need to state it on the image page. Otherwise it will be speedy deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness is especially about people reaching out to other people. So I think it would be nice to see an image of two people, not one person and a butterfly! Myopic Bookworm 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The metaphor was also lost on me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiveness

I looked at it again. I think the introduction can be shortened a little bit as well as the Christianity section. But I don't think it's like an essay. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Speet,
Before you get upset regarding what you may consider an intrusion and an "attack" on the article Forgiveness, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
" What it says: "Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." I agree 100% and that it should apply to editors and administrators alike.--speet 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Pls note that I did not delete any material from the article. Just refactored some of the text into otehr sections. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learning forgiveness while editing the forgiveness article.....  : )

Dear Speeter,
          I have attempted to delete references to Christianity that single it out above any other religions, but have reinserted some religious references back into the intro. Also, I've reset the Prodigal Son pic to the top, as in so far as I could tell, you were the only one who did not like it there. I feel that our entire culture is so deeply a product of its religious heritage, that to try to in any way ignore this, is like trying to pretend we were all born yesterday. Sure the religious heritages of our various societies are not the final word on what is happening today, but they are a relevant word, and thus worthy of discussion in the intro. I thank you for prompting me to reword the intro part on religion to be more broad. I hope that this article continues to evolve in a positive direction. I cannot tell you how much I have learned so far in my involvement with it, and I thank you for that.

                    -Scott P. 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiveness and Universalism

Howdy Speet. Thank you so much for pointing out the issue with alphabetical order-- the final arbiter. My issue with the placement of the article of foregiveness and Universalism is this-- Universalism is either (1) the true doctrine of Christian salvation (and thus should be next to Christianity), (2) a Christian heresy (and likewise next to Christianity), or (3) a movement that started within Christianity but has grown to be "more than Christian (the latter is properly Unitarian Universalism, although the latter has never had a coherently articulated theological view on much of anything (I don't mean this so much the put-down as it sounds, as "freedom" is the touchstone for UUs, not doctrine), much less something as weighty as what a doctrine of divine reconciliation. So Universalism belongs somewhere near Christianity. Perhaps I can remedy that by calling this "Christian Universalism," to distinguish this from forms of Universalism that have (or perhaps could) develop in other religious traditions. Unitarian Universalism is many of its manifestations "more than Christian," but it is a "post-Christian" religion, not, for example, a post-Buddhist or a post-Islamic movement. That said, it is certainly not that only place one finds those holding (Christian or cyrpto-Christian) Universalist views. Blondlieut 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How again Speet. It seems that some "general" information-- particularly on the area of soteriology-- is necessary to separate the Universalist "heresey" from its orthodox comrades, and to explain the idea of God's all-conquering love not as a means for ignoring sin (and thus ignoring the significance of foregiveness), but as a pattern to be emulated (every section is a hidden piece in apologetics. I disagree with your comparison between Christian Methodism and Christian Universalism-- there is no question that Methodists consider themsevles Christians, and that the world does as well, while Universalism is a broader term that includes self-identified Christians and non-Christians (and it's not like I just came up with the term-- as you'll see if you follow link 4, I believe). My explanation is based in Christian Universalism, and it was before I changed the name. Blondlieut 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

[1] I'm really sorry that I haven't got myself involved in your article. Hope this help. FWBOarticle

[edit] Thanks for your message regarding the Forgiveness article

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the Forgiveness article. A (belated) followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page.

-Scott P. 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I saw your comments.

I think that as an attorney you should know that facts rely on evidence, or something like that. I am not a professional in that area such as you. Before accusing me of religious prejudice in public you should probably check the facts because your own reputation revolves around your words. Let me help you do that here. If not mistaken, "discovery" is considered to be fair and helpful for resolution of such things, true? Let me know on my page if you would like the research on the citations. You should be advised in advance though, that the research should have been performed by the authors and made plain, rather than a disinterested third party such as me, thanks. Ste4k 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)