User talk:LCP: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<small>Talk Archive: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LCP/archive]</small> |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
== "Contemporary Roman Catholic views" is a mess == |
|||
'''The unauthorized removal or modification of any information on this page will be considered vandalism and will be duly reported as such. This policy does not apply to Wikipedians adding to existing threads or leaving new comments.''' |
|||
The more I look at it, the less I understand the edits made to it by ADM over the weekend. For example, the section starts by talking about how nuances of Catholic teaching have been overlooked of late. This makes no sense without the context of the version of last week. I've started reorganizing, but it is such a mess, I am leaning toward a full-blown revert. Anyone else have any thoughts?[[User:LCP|LCP]] ([[User talk:LCP|talk]]) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I would add that the term ''Church teaching'' just means the positions taken by various Catholic leaders, especially Popes, Cardinals and Archbishops, on various issues. Please note that the mode of Catholic decision-making on social issues is not based on things like the texts of the Bible, early theology, modern science, the women's rights movement or representative democracy, but that it works a lot like a conservative political party, which has a President and a College of public representatives, who each have to try to build a consensus. Their views are their own and not anyone else's. [[User:ADM|ADM]] ([[User talk:ADM|talk]]) 04:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Barnstar== |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Resilient-silver.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Resilient Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | |
|||
|} |
|||
::Your statements belie a profound ignorance of Catholicism and how Jesus has set up his Church. Please read the article on [[Apostolic succession]]. And then, read the article on the [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]]. Among other things, it points out, "The contents are abundantly footnoted with references to sources of the teaching, in particular the [[Bible|Scriptures]], the [[Church Fathers]], and the [[Ecumenical council|Ecumenical Councils]] <ref>[http://www.usccb.org/catechism/resource/lev94art.htm#structure]</ref> and other authoritative Catholic statements, principally those issued by recent Popes." Finally, you can look up [[Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church]] for an examination of how the Magisterium interacts with scientific findings. Having said all that, I have to add that you are correct on one very important point: The Church is not a representative democracy. Jesus didn't set it up that way. If you want truth by democracy instead of truth by the Holy Spirit, there are several options. If you like the feel of orthodoxy (without all of that pesky Roman Catholic business about the Pope and apostolic authority), you might try the Episcopalians. I hear the laity has recently voted to give their bishops permission to bless homosexual unions; if that isn't democracy, I don't know what is! [[User:LCP|LCP]] ([[User talk:LCP|talk]]) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
For being a shining example of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:LCP&action=submit#Rhetorical-social_Ethos principled action] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Idolatry&diff=prev&oldid=134835846 seeking, finding, and posting documentation contrary to a position you had been espousing], I award you this Resilient Barnstar |
|||
<font face="strong" color="green">*[[user:Septegram|Septegram]]*[[user_talk:Septegram|Talk]]*[[Special:Contributions/Septegram|Contributions]]*</font> 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::My statement merely reflects the assent given by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical [[Mystici Corporis Christi]]. If we really believe the Church is the Body of Christ, then we must believe that the Magisterium of the Church is authentically guided by a Spirit-led authority which actually expresses divine intentions for the pastoral care of humanity's flock. According to this perspective, which is abundantly found in the texts of Vatican II (i.e. [[Lumen Gentium]], [[Ecclesiam Suam]]), the truth of the Church speaks on its own because it is ''the'' truth. Citing ''Jesus'' in an individual and historical manner is okay, but it doesn't necessarily express the more profound mystery of Christ being fully united to his Spouse the Church. [[User:ADM|ADM]] |
|||
==SMILED award== |
|||
:::: Please forgive me if I mistook your intention. You said, "I would add that the term 'Church teaching' just means..." and you added info about a rogue group that claims to be Roman Catholic but which is rejected by Roman Catholic leadership. Granted that, it seemed to me you were downplaying the importance of the Magisterium in Roman Catholic teaching. By the way, there is no need to post comments in more than one place. Either here or on the Christianity and abortion page would have been fine.[[User:LCP|LCP]] ([[User talk:LCP|talk]]) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid #6B93FF; background-color: #E5ECFF" |
|||
|width="100px"|[[Image:Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg|127px|center]] |
|||
|width="500px"|<big>'''Slakr's "You SMILED" Award'''</big> <p>Because you '''S'''tayed '''I'''mpossibly '''M'''ellow and '''L'''ucid in '''E'''dits and '''D'''iscussions without resorting to [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:EDITWAR|edit wars]] on a controversial topic, I hereby award you this cheerful smile in recognition for your outstanding effort in helping to keep potentially explosive discussions [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and productive.</p> |
|||
== Christianity and abortion == |
|||
<p>Keep up the great work, and cheers =) --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 08:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)</p> |
|||
|} |
|||
Be aware of [[WP:CANVASS]]. You have been leaving a number of posts to editors regarding [[Christianity and abortion]], making it clear you oppose one editors' edits, and attacking her character and generally showing ABF. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Here is the message I left: |
|||
::"Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion |
|||
::"I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)" |
|||
We are having a discussion on whether or not to include the WHO classification of [[ego-dystonic sexual orientation]] on the [[reparative therapy]] page, or simply use APA. Could you add your thoughts?[[User:Joshuajohanson|Joshuajohanson]] 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am still confused. Can you explain to me what is going on at my [[User_talk:Joshuajohanson#Gratuitous%20assertions|talk page]]? [[User:Joshuajohanson|Joshuajohanson]] 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As you can see, there is no character attack, and while I did suggest I disagreed with the edits, I also make it clear that I was looking for objective feedback.[[User:LCP|LCP]] ([[User talk:LCP#top|talk]]) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Thanks == |
|||
::Please read the linked policy. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for your words of encouragement. It is really hard when there is an article written about ''me'' saying how horrible ''I'' am. Sometimes I feel like the whole world is against me. It is hard not to take it personally, but I am trying. It is nice to know someone at least sympathizes. [[User:Joshuajohanson|Joshuajohanson]] 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks again. I probably do take this too seriously. I just get frustrated when you try to find honest information out there, and it can't be found anywhere. I still have a lot of questions about what the best way to go about this is. I look at this as a learning experience. When I first read [[Reparative therapy]], I thought, oh, they don't allow it, and only had an issue with the way it represented Christian groups. But as I read more and more, I found that the article completely misrepresented, basically everything. There are some things that I have put up there, only to be shown that my interpretation was flawed. I am fine with that. I just had a problem when everything I put was taken down regardless. Anyway, although science can be a helpful resource, you are right that only God can heal me. I need to remember that, and be satisfied that I know within myself what is God's will. By the way, I have never actually lived a gay lifestyle, I am only looking to diminish my same-sex attractions. I really don't care whether it is called a mental illness or not, I just want help, and if that is the only way I can be helped then so be it. (Not that Wikipedia will change that.) You said I could email you, but you don't have a link. (I do.) Most of what I want to put up is in the talk page anyhow. Can you read my arguments? Am I way off base? The biggest thing I want in there is the quote from APA president that "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction," and then have things the APA does have conflict with explained.[http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060902-115257-5402r.htm] Anyway, email me so I can email you, and thanks. [[User:Joshuajohanson|Joshuajohanson]] 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I see. I indicated that I disagreed with the other editor and I didn't leave a note on the discussion page of the topic in question. Thanks for the tip. I'll be more circumspect next time.[[User:LCP|LCP]] ([[User talk:LCP#top|talk]]) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Idolatry]] == |
|||
:::: Yes, precisely. You are more than welcome. :-) [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Abortion == |
|||
Septegram, I wanted to make a correction and some changes, along the lines of our discusion, and I found the page locked. Do you have any idea of what's going on?[[User:LCP|LCP]] 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Who is that twit? She is completely misrepresenting history. I don't have a lot of time, but I have done what I can. I don't know if I will play too much more of a role. What is evident is that she has an agenda and is seeking to twist the article to meet her desires. I particularly like the way she reverted my edits on Lutheran as an Anon; that is a type of stupidity that is seldom seen. |
|||
:No idea. I've posted something on the article's talk page, so an administrator should be by shortly. |
|||
:<font face="strong" color="green">*[[user:Septegram|Septegram]]*[[user_talk:Septegram|Talk]]*[[Special:Contributions/Septegram|Contributions]]*</font> 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Have you posted this article on the Christianity wikiproject page? We need to get more editors involved in order to assist in controlling her efforts to turn the article into her personal soapbox. Cheers. --<sup>[[user:Storm Rider|'''''<span style="color:#01796F;">Storm</span>''''']]</sup>[[User talk:Storm Rider#top|'''''<span style="color:#1C39BB;">Rider</span>''''']] 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Please check out my latest comment in our discussion. It turns out your scepticism was well placed![[User:LCP|LCP]] 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have had several run-ins in the past. It is the same story wherever she goes. It makes editing very painful. I don't have much time either. And no, I have not posted the article on the Christianity wikiproject page. Nor do I know how. If doing so isn't time consuming, can you do so? Thanks!!![[User:LCP|LCP]] ([[User talk:LCP#top|talk]]) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== re:Pedantic Presumption? == |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] == |
|||
I'm sorry that I have hit a nerve with you, it was not my intention at all. I can only assume that you believe my "lecturing" is in reference to this comment: ''If you were being sarcastic, please don't make unserious suggestions to make a WP:POINT.'' I honestly could not tell if your suggestion was an honest suggestion or not. If your actual point is difficult for other users to figure out, perhaps you should adjust your talk page tactics. There is nothing wrong with saying something in plain words. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, by not making a decision on whether or not I thought you were being sarcastic. I said if you weren't x, and if you were y. I still believe that making suggestions on a talk page that you honestly don't support is a form of disruption. It's better to just explain why you don't support something (and I'm not saying that is definitely what you did). And at the risk of being accused of lecturing you again, I'd ask you to review [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]. ''Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else.'' I do not believe I overstepped my bounds as a wikipedia editor in my last exchange with you at [[Talk:Death and resurrection of Jesus]], but I appreciate you bringing your concerns up with me. I will try to be more sensitive to your needs in our future exchanges. I hope that this experience for you will cause you to examine your manner on talk pages, to perhaps allow users (such as myself) to understand your intentions better. I hope we can move on together, because I thought that we had worked well together in the past, and it saddens me to have come into conflict with you over a small matter of difference.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:First, please let me apologize. I apparently came across far too sharply. I do not feel in conflict with you. And regarding recent edits, I think the changes you made were warranted and judicious. I agree that we have worked well together in the past. I think we both respect the dialectical process and are pretty good at sticking to points and giving credit where credit is due. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 --> |
|||
:However, in case you didn't notice, you just lectured me again. Your advice is unsolicited, and although I too have been guilty of giving unsolicited advice (“once or twice”), I don't know anyone who appreciates unsolicited advice. Apart from that, I do not think you overstep you licit bounds. Nevertheless, if admins are not suppose to be a special subgroup, I don’t imagine that being an admin includes giving unsolicited advice. Not even doctors and lawyers, who are culturally a “special subgroup,” give unsolicited advice. So, while “Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator,” I don’t see why that exhortation would include giving unsolicited advice--unless a user needs to be told that he has broken a guideline. Your habit of engaging in debate and simultaneously provide advice feels patronizing and, thereby, makes it hard for me hear your argument. In contrast, your direct statements about your state of mind, such as the ones you make in the post above, are helpful. |
|||
:[[User:LCP|LCP]] 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for Comments == |
|||
Hi LCP. I just wanted to thank you once again for your attempt to resolve my controversy with Bishonen. As mentioned to you via email, I have now begun a "Request for Comments" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen_2#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute here]. The rules for Requests for Comments (RfC) require at least one other user (who has tried to mediate the controversy) to "certify" the RfC, or else the Request for Comments will be deleted within 48 hours from when it was started. Therefore, I would be very appreciative if you would please click on this link and sign directly below my name. Thanks again. |
|||
Ferrylodge[[User:75.21.26.219|75.21.26.219]] 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Commendable== |
|||
Your apology to Bishonen is very commendable. Not everyone has the personal strength to acknowledge when they have erred. It seems that you do, and that is admirable. |
|||
My comments related to my perception of your 'lawyer speak' and 'possible sock issue', were merely my observations. It seemed to me that there was a notable similarity in your writing and phrasing. The two possibilities that came to mind were a) sock or b) he suggested wording. Neither of those two were particularly Good Faith on my part, and for that I apologize to you. |
|||
It seems you were guilty of poor judgment and nothing more, and I am properly chastened. |
|||
Best regards,<Br> |
|||
Peace in God. |
|||
[[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Lsi john. The apology was not easy. I still think the text appears to support FL regarding his take on the warning, and (poor judgement or not) I did not want to contradict that. But I was apparently wrong in several ways apart from that. I am a sucker for the underdog, and the RfC thing does seem to be over my head. BTW, I was just having fun with the slang. Pax et bonum.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I have followed up on your last comment (for closure, not to beat up on you). An RfC is ''supposed to be'' a rather serious situation. As I believe you now realize, it is not something to be done simply to ''support the underdog''. ;) The slang, though an attempt at humor, did not win you any points. I gave you AGF on it and didn't address it. |
|||
::I'm afraid you simply got sucked into his plea for a sympathetic ear. Its done, and no real harm will come of it. Bishonen (aka Biszilla) is actually an incredibly fair admin. Whether or not the warning seemed 'harsh' or 'abrupt' is not for us to second guess. It wasn't the warning that Ferrylodge is complaining about (well its not just the warning) and the warning isn't really part of his 'permanent record'. The fact is, he ignored the warning, three times, in an attempt to get a retraction, and tried to force KC to accept his final edit. That is what constituted the harassment and qualified for the block. And it was his ego, which refused to accept a harassment 'warning', that got him into trouble. I tried to explain this to you on Bishonen's page, but I suspect that I was not very gentle in my explanation and you were not interested in hearing it. (no offense intended as you have acknowledged that you were out to support the underdog). |
|||
::Ferrylodge would do well to take a lesson from your apology to Bishonen. |
|||
::[[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== RE:John Crichton-Stuart == |
|||
I assessed the article through the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive|WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive]] - [[User:The Giant Puffin|<font face="Franklin Gothic Book" color="orange">'''• The Giant Puffin •'''</font>]] 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Cynical/vs/Realistic== |
|||
Interesting userpage. The only thing I can add to it is: Welcome to wikipedia! [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. Writing it was very cathartic. Reading it makes me feel better. Cheers. ;-)[[User:LCP|LCP]] 17:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Though I think the bullies <small>(my word></small> you describe are here to stay, and it is very trying at times to deal with them, learning the rules of wiki-world helps even the field a bit. Keep editing! Peace in God. [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==The Wages of Modernism== |
|||
As for the Devil discussion we were having, I am of the opinion that any credence given to the Devil as an actual being is to enter into dualism and traffic in supernaturalism. You see it with charismatics all the time, they can become so obsessed with this "Devil" creature that God is made into a weak and ineffective non-presence in their lives. It's well and good to talk about theodicy and try and figure out how much we're responsible for it and how responsible God is for it, but I think plopping all blame on a sacrificial lamb called Lucifer is a cop-out. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:And according to [[Karen Armstrong]], the charismatic movement, which is born of the [[Pentecostal]] movement, is an anti-intellectual reaction to modernity--and the flip side of the [[Pentecostal]] movement is fundamentalism (in all denominations). And similar to almost all of the other "Johnny come lately" religious ideas, it is just a re-invention and repackaging of long ago refuted and defunct attempts to reinvent the faith. For example, [[Mormonism]], [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], and [[Christian Science]] are essentially variations of a repackaged hybrid of [[Arianism]] and [[Gnosticism]]. In contrast to what you suggest, the [[Catholic Church]] teaches that man's biggest impediment to "knowing, loving, and serving God, and enjoying his friendship in eternity forever" is man himself, not Satan. Man freely chooses sin. But this is not what I am writing to discuss. What I am suggesting in pointing you to the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Modernism is that, if you are really interested in truth (and I assume you are), you catch up with the conversation about faith that has been going on for the past two-thousand years. If you are going to argue, argue against the best minds, not against strawmen. You may be having fun, but what good does it do for you to shoot down third-rate theories (e.g., “Satan is the Bogeyman”) with your own “novel” speculations when the Church has--almost a hundred years ago--already written volumes taking your novel assertions to their logical conclusion and refuting those conclusions? I would bet anything I own that any “new” theory you can think of has already been thoroughly understood and either refuted or accepted at some point in the history of the Church.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, but you assume that the Church arrived at the correct decision when engaged in dialectics. The decision against Liberation theology and base communities resulted in a significant loss in its ability to speak for and with the people in Latin America. Pentecostalism was quite happy to fill in. Despite their rather pedantic theology, they were able to actually address the needs of the people. Protestantism has recognized the value of Liberation theology. Roman catholicism saw it as a threat to their power base in the region, as well as political relations with Regan's administration. This was at least in part due to John Paul II's tendency to distance himself from anything with Marxist characteristics. Also, as a side note, Athanasius won on the doctrinal front, but most Christians today are Arian in their Christology. Saying that the Church has discussed an issue does not mean they made the right decision or that the right decision is the one the laity (and clergy, for that matter) actually follow. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Tell me, did you read "INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE 'THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION'"[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html] before arriving at your above conclusions (about Liberation Theology)? [[User:LCP|LCP]] 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::It has been some time, but yes. I always find it odd that what is deemed "acceptable according to correct doctrine" is predicated on whether or not one falls within certain accepted interpretations of Christology. And who happens to be sitting on the evaluating board, of course. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I am confused. "Acceptable according to correct doctrine" doesn't appear in the text. Also, I don't understand why you think authority is odd or why you think your presumptive authority is more solid than the authority of those who have a very strong claim to be heirs to the promise Christ gave to Peter. |
|||
:::::I haven’t assumed that the Church has reached the right decision. When I have been in doubt, I have read arguments and been persuaded. You stated, “Saying that the Church has discussed an issue does not mean ... that the ... decision is the one the laity (and clergy, for that matter) actually follow.” First, I didn’t say that the Church “discussed” Modernism. I said that they have written volumes about it; it has been exhastively debated and refuted. However, I would not say that this alone gurantees correctness. What gurantees correctness--in doctrinal matters--is Christ’s promise to Peter. But that is a rather large can of worms that I really don’t want to get into. On the second issue, about the layity and clergy being unwilling to follow, I think you are right, the claim is true in too many cases. I am sadly reminded of what [[Padre Pio]] responded on an occasion when a person told him that they didn’t belive in hell. He said, “That’s ok. You will when you get there.” I also wonder at such people. What pleasure (or guilt) do they cling to so tightly that they would rather reject the Church and imperil their souls rather than surrender, submit, and be reconciled? |
|||
:::::At every Mass, Catholics pray the Nicene Creed, which states, “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” This doesn’t look much like Aryanism. And since Roman Catholicism is by far the most populous denomination, your claim that most Christians are Arians seems odd. |
|||
:::::Perhaps you can give the document on Liberation Theology another look. You might notice that there were good reasons why JPII rejected Marxism and, therefore, so-called “Liberation Theology.” The theological basis for the rejection is thorough and sound. It has nothing to do with Reagan or realpolitik. For example, the document states that it is “illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites [ideology and action], and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the ideology, or to enter into the practice of class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads." And, “the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons.” The text then goes on the give a thorough analysis of why Marxism is rejected and the disastrous effects embracing Marxist ideology would have on theology. If the Protestants accept Marxist based Liberation Theology, it can be only because they don’t understand the implications illustrated by the CFDF. As you yourself said, Pentecostalism is pedantic (i.e., not penetrating or sophisticated?). |
|||
:::::Finally, you have convinced me that you know what you are about. I am sorry that I have been patronizing. Nevertheless, between us there is a great ideological divide, and I do not see any point in further discussion. Of course, you are welcome to respond, but, if I can manage to restrain my self, I probably will not respond. Pax et Bonum! |
|||
:::::[[User:LCP|LCP]] 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the discussion, which has renewed my trust in the ability of Wikipedia editors to think and discuss in a cogent manner, thank you. |
|||
::As a final, clarifying point, the theological divide to which you refer is one that exists between us. I am more or less an Episcopalian of the constructive dissent variety and a liberal. I do not particularly care if I'm reconciled with my tradition because I do not equate ''it'' with God or think of it as indispensable to my faith journey, I equate religious traditions with temporal social structures only. For a Catholic (and forgive me for speaking for you) there is the assumption of a direct connection to God that must be nurtured through involvement with the Church. |
|||
:::While it would be grossly inaccurate to say that Catholic understanding of church is based on "assumption," nevertheless, your understanding of the Catholic view here is more or less correct. God calls humanity to salvation through his Church, which exists only because of the constant succor of the Paraclete. I find your comparison and contrast very useful.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::However, this divide does not exist in a negative sense, as something we must bridge, but in that it does exist, and it is formative to our discussion and provides an important forum for that discussion. It amounts to what Jacques Dupuis called "the acceptance of the Other in their very otherness." We are different and can engage in dialog that informs and challenges one another, but we are each justified in our assertions. Again, thank you. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You share a beautiful idea: "the acceptance of the Other in their very otherness." Thank you for reminding me of this! (BTW, I am not familiar with Dupuis. Is his idea of Other related to Buber's?)[[User:LCP|LCP]] 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
That quote of Dupuis' is in ''Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism''. In that context, ''Other'' refers to persons of non-Christian religious traditions, but I think you'll agree it can be applied between Christian denominations as well. While it does have some shared ground with Buber (with whom I'm not particularly familiar), it's not precisely aligned with his particular take on the notion. Küng and Knitter write about "the Other" as in: the religious other. That is, those with ideas and culture foreign to our own. I think they probably take the idea most directly from Alan Race. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Implicit vs. Explicit Support (in ref to Homosexuality in Christianity Entry)== |
|||
Actually, most clergy that I know (and I'm in the biz) tend to follow church policy because they like getting paid and don't want to get defrocked. But they personally feel that to exclude anyone based on criteria like sexual orientation is a violation of the oath they took for ordination. They feel that in order to minister, one cannot judge, at least not the extent that you say to some parishioner, "you don't get to be treated as a human being in God's house, and it starts right here with me." There is no compelling reason to stand in the way of God's work like that, regardless of how one views the morality of homosexuality. So they'll say something like, "it's a sin, no greater than any other." An Episcopal acquaintance lost a third of his congregation, and when they walked out half the money went with them. They were so incensed by the decision to install bishop Robinson that they just left. This priest then went door-to-door and got all of them back simply by pointing out that the church is still the church, and the work of the church still needs doing. I think that's pretty emblematic of this issue. It's a difficult balancing act, and it is becoming safer for the clergy to resist playing. In a few years, God willing, none of us will be expected to play at all. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your comment. I agree that it is not for the laity (i.e., for me) to judge the sins of others, and I feel sympathy for the priest in the confessional. Also, (as you know) while some sins are objectively worse than others, sins of the flesh are not understood to be the most dangerous. I find it saddening that our society is so obsessed (for and against) homosexuality. It is bad for the homophobic and homosexuals. Apart from that, I do respect the rules regarding public scandal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm). But those apply to all types of public sin, and personally, I find the guy at Mass with his second or third wife and a shiny gold Rolex much more scandalous than a homosexual who keeps his sex life personal and who, not unlike myself, just does the best he can to live a life that is pleasing to God. I don't understand the whole thing with Gene Robinson. It seems to me that he has caused a great scandal and might have taken St. Paul's words more to heart: "take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak."[[User:LCP|LCP]] 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
But people still apply the term, "sin" to it. What I'm saying is that it is not sinful, and the church just hasn't caught on yet. What is sinful is, as you suggested, casual relationships in which one party takes advantage of the other. Such relationships are destructive, regardless of gender. The question is, is it a loving and mutual relationship? If the answer is yes, then the relationship and by extension the orientation of the people in it, is not sinful, but pleasing to God, who wants the best life for us. [[User:MerricMaker|MerricMaker]] 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I wouldn't argue the point, and I agree with and fully submit to the teaching of the Magisterium. I am fortunate that I have never been called to act in the matter. However, if my son came to me and said he was gay, I would read through the documents of the Magisterium with him (“On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” and “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality”, etc.) and offer him all of my love and support. If he were to choose to be sexually active, I would try to be like St. Monica. AND, gay or straight, I have tried very hard to give him the tools necessary to understand himself (and others) in terms much broader than merely sexual orientation. Sexuality is a great gift, but a person is far more than merely “gay” or “straight”. I find it deeply offensive when people limit personhood to mere sexual orientation. A straight man doesn’t need to be macho and fond of sport and a gay man doesn’t need to be effeminate and fond of leather. I think the only true abomination is how many people, straight and homosexual, define the human person only in terms of sexuality and understand sexuality only as stereotype.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Hi!== |
|||
Hi LCP, I hope you're doing well. I see you've met PhotoUploaded. :-)[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the note. I've been missing you on the thread! I've tried to engage him and SheffieldSteel as constructively as possible, but they seem to be getting annoyed. I have a hard time understanding what they are getting at. It looks mostly non-sequitur to me. Perhaps you can take a look at their comments and my resonses.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Wedging my comment in this section, as very distantly related : lame attempt at humor regarding your recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=158994919 comment] can be found (temporarily) [[User talk:KillerChihuahua/Sandbox|here]] (if it makes you laugh, feel free to have fun with it - if it can help relieve tension its done its job. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes. I did enjoy it. Thanks for the giggle. What a horrible precedent that would set! Can you imagine? McDonald’s: McDonald’s POV; McDonald’s: BurgerKing’s POV; McDonald’s PETA’s POV; McDonald’s: Cow’s POV; McDonald’s: Pig’s POV.... |
|||
==Christianity and Homosexuality and Spong ref== |
|||
Agree re Spong not being the best, but didn't want to add it without at least ''something'', and I had the book right here. The whole thing has always seemed like a form of [[whig history]], where we apply present understandings to things past. I also had a wee go at [[The Bible and homosexuality]] for largely the same reason. Both need more "adjustment" IMHO. thanks for you comment. Kind regards, Fremte [[User:Fremte|Fremte]] 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Abortion talk page== |
|||
Hi LCP, I'd like your opinion on the topic of mental health at the bottom of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion Abortion Talk] page. Regards, [[User:IronAngelAlice|IronAngelAlice]] 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Sorry == |
|||
I have been sick lately, and I think my meds did something to my brain. My comments on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{2|People Can Change}}}]] were inappropriate. After getting a good night sleep and rereading my comments and your response I realized that the way I use hook up and the way people outside of Utah use it are two different things. Within my circle of friends, when we say someone hooked up, we don't mean they stopped practicing chastity. We just mean they started dating. I like to joke a lot, so I use it even more lightly, like when elementary school kids "hook up". Sometimes I get too comfortable and too open online, but I need to remember Wikipedia is slightly (and only slightly) more serious than chat spaces and I need to be more guarded in what I say. Thanks for your concern, but I didn't mean to confess any current or past loss of chastity. [[User:Joshuajohanson|Joshuajohanson]] 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I did take "hook up" to mean "sexual liaison." Sorry if I embarrassed you. That was not my intent. While I was concerned about what you said, my comment was actually more directed toward WebHamster (which is why I didn't just go to your talk page). My intent was to share a view of chastity that most people on that thread are probably not familiar with. BTW, I have no objection to you removing that part of the thread. Again, sorry that I too presumptuous.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge]]== |
|||
Hello, |
|||
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge]]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence]]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop]]. |
|||
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Image:Prolifevan.jpg == |
|||
There are a number of issues with this image you uploaded. First of all, the image should be uploaded at the commons. At the commons, there is an easy tool available for uploading images from flickr (see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=fromflickr this page], and the Flinfo tool is quite helpful as well). Also, the image doesn't have a license tag. It looks like you choose the "The copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes" option from the drop down menu. Because wikipedia is distributed freely, this sort of stipulation is not appropriate and images like that qualify for deletion. The image should have been tagged {{tl|cc-by-sa-2.0}} because that is the license used on the flickr page. Yeah, this is all pretty stupid and confusing, but it's important to respect the way other's license their work if we are going to use it. Because this image qualifies for use on the commons, it will eventually be deleted and moved there anyway, so I think the best bet is to use the flickr upload tool at the commons and re-upload the image. I'd be glad to do this later tonight, because I have a color corrected version on another computer, or you can give it a shot. If you have any questions about image use or uploading, I'd be glad to try and help.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would be grateful if you could find the time tonight to correct my blunders. I uploaded the image using the only means of which I was aware.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I was about to come here to say the same thing. ;) Commons has a process for handling flickr images - we don't have that process here and if the flickr user changes their license, we don't have any recourse, but if the image has been reviewed at Commons, it's all good. There is a tool on Commons - [[:Commons:User:Flickr upload bot]] - that you can use to upload images from flickr and everything is done for you - all you have to do is add categories and a name for the image. I highly recommend making a Commons account if you don't already have one. --[[User:B|<font color="maroon">B</font>]] 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Your edits to [[Richard Dawkins]] == |
|||
The addition of a controversy section is currently being discussed on the talk page, please don't add it back in until consensus is reached. Thanks! [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, but no. I did see the discussion, but lack of consensus in this case is immaterial as Criticism sections are standard across Wikipedia. The criticism I included is from a major publication and cited. If you can cite Wikipedia guidelines that support the omission, I’ll desist. I am also willing to discuss what criticism is included. As far as not including criticism goes, it is a non-starter.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::What you fail to realise is that consensus has long been and still is, that criticism should be integrated into the article. This has been done, it has been discussed to death, and edit warring against consensus as you are doing, is not going to change that. [[User:ConfuciusOrnis|<font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis</font>]][[User talk:ConfuciusOrnis|<font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙</font>]] 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::What you fail to realize is that only lack of consensus is evidenced in the Talk pages--in which almost every current topic protests the lack of a criticism section.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::(edit conflict) I'm looking for policy, but as for the specific section you added, using an opinion piece is not a reliable source -- see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. And when I revet things with [[WP:TW|twinkle]], it calls them minor edits. And the current consensus on the talk page seems to be not adding the section -- whether there is policy on it or not. [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would appreciate a reference to Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding the admissibility of the source, I would agree with you if we were looking for a commentary on Dawkins scientific work. However, the criticism pertains to Dawkins non-scientific writings, which are all essentially op-ed. Also, unless the specific criticism that I presented is listed in the article (and I didn’t see that it was), it warrants inclusion. I'll do so in-line. Having said all of that, I do take your point about edit warring. Thanks. I wasn’t fully aware of the full extent of the stupidity of the situation.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I also don't understand how there can be any talk of consensus granted almost every topic in Talk protests the lack of a criticism section.[[User:LCP|LCP]] 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 03:28, 8 June 2022
Talk Archive: [1]
"Contemporary Roman Catholic views" is a mess
[edit]The more I look at it, the less I understand the edits made to it by ADM over the weekend. For example, the section starts by talking about how nuances of Catholic teaching have been overlooked of late. This makes no sense without the context of the version of last week. I've started reorganizing, but it is such a mess, I am leaning toward a full-blown revert. Anyone else have any thoughts?LCP (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would add that the term Church teaching just means the positions taken by various Catholic leaders, especially Popes, Cardinals and Archbishops, on various issues. Please note that the mode of Catholic decision-making on social issues is not based on things like the texts of the Bible, early theology, modern science, the women's rights movement or representative democracy, but that it works a lot like a conservative political party, which has a President and a College of public representatives, who each have to try to build a consensus. Their views are their own and not anyone else's. ADM (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your statements belie a profound ignorance of Catholicism and how Jesus has set up his Church. Please read the article on Apostolic succession. And then, read the article on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Among other things, it points out, "The contents are abundantly footnoted with references to sources of the teaching, in particular the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils [1] and other authoritative Catholic statements, principally those issued by recent Popes." Finally, you can look up Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church for an examination of how the Magisterium interacts with scientific findings. Having said all that, I have to add that you are correct on one very important point: The Church is not a representative democracy. Jesus didn't set it up that way. If you want truth by democracy instead of truth by the Holy Spirit, there are several options. If you like the feel of orthodoxy (without all of that pesky Roman Catholic business about the Pope and apostolic authority), you might try the Episcopalians. I hear the laity has recently voted to give their bishops permission to bless homosexual unions; if that isn't democracy, I don't know what is! LCP (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- My statement merely reflects the assent given by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. If we really believe the Church is the Body of Christ, then we must believe that the Magisterium of the Church is authentically guided by a Spirit-led authority which actually expresses divine intentions for the pastoral care of humanity's flock. According to this perspective, which is abundantly found in the texts of Vatican II (i.e. Lumen Gentium, Ecclesiam Suam), the truth of the Church speaks on its own because it is the truth. Citing Jesus in an individual and historical manner is okay, but it doesn't necessarily express the more profound mystery of Christ being fully united to his Spouse the Church. ADM
- Please forgive me if I mistook your intention. You said, "I would add that the term 'Church teaching' just means..." and you added info about a rogue group that claims to be Roman Catholic but which is rejected by Roman Catholic leadership. Granted that, it seemed to me you were downplaying the importance of the Magisterium in Roman Catholic teaching. By the way, there is no need to post comments in more than one place. Either here or on the Christianity and abortion page would have been fine.LCP (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Christianity and abortion
[edit]Be aware of WP:CANVASS. You have been leaving a number of posts to editors regarding Christianity and abortion, making it clear you oppose one editors' edits, and attacking her character and generally showing ABF. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the message I left:
- "Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion
- "I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)"
- As you can see, there is no character attack, and while I did suggest I disagreed with the edits, I also make it clear that I was looking for objective feedback.LCP (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the linked policy. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I indicated that I disagreed with the other editor and I didn't leave a note on the discussion page of the topic in question. Thanks for the tip. I'll be more circumspect next time.LCP (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, precisely. You are more than welcome. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I indicated that I disagreed with the other editor and I didn't leave a note on the discussion page of the topic in question. Thanks for the tip. I'll be more circumspect next time.LCP (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Abortion
[edit]Who is that twit? She is completely misrepresenting history. I don't have a lot of time, but I have done what I can. I don't know if I will play too much more of a role. What is evident is that she has an agenda and is seeking to twist the article to meet her desires. I particularly like the way she reverted my edits on Lutheran as an Anon; that is a type of stupidity that is seldom seen.
Have you posted this article on the Christianity wikiproject page? We need to get more editors involved in order to assist in controlling her efforts to turn the article into her personal soapbox. Cheers. --StormRider 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have had several run-ins in the past. It is the same story wherever she goes. It makes editing very painful. I don't have much time either. And no, I have not posted the article on the Christianity wikiproject page. Nor do I know how. If doing so isn't time consuming, can you do so? Thanks!!!LCP (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)