User talk:Tonicthebrown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hi! 2 Prose vs Lists 3 Framework view 4 Heavenly sanctuary 5 Feedback for my user page 6 Hi 7 Christian Torah-submission 8 Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion 9 Thank-you 10 Deletions on Creation/Genesis page 11 AFD 12 Robinson 13 Regarding SDA 14 Criticism REMOVED 15 Intertestamental period 16 7 in Creation in Genesis 17 William J. Webb 18 See also 19 References 20 WikiProject Christianity

• User talk:Tonicthebrown/Archive
• User talk:Tonicthebrown/Archive1

[edit] Hi!

Hi Tonicthebrown, Thanks for your greeting! Good to see more people contributing to Adventist-related pages. I noticed your work on moving much of the doctrinal content on the Seventh-day Adventist article to a new page. Good stuff - it was getting too bulky, as you mentioned. No doubt I'll see you around on Wikipedia in the future. God bless, Colin MacLaurin 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Hi Tonic, I see you've added some details to your user page: it's always interesting to find out more about the people I edit with! I have just rewritten much of my main user page, and request your comments please! It may be a little long. If you have any suggestions for improvement please let me know. Don't worry about all the subpages. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prose vs Lists

In response to your request for critique, I thought I'd recommend you cut back on your use of lists. Prose is generally preferred in the place of lists. Just a general observation, if you have any questions feel free to ask. MyNameIsNotBob 05:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Framework view

Your very welcome. I will admit, it still isn't very well formated and even when I'm finished, the English won't be very good because I'm not the greatest writer, but at least the information will be there. One thing though, I think it should be renamed. Here is the break down of google results:

• "framework theory" + genesis - 19,900 hits
• "framework view" + genesis - 3,230
• "literary framework" + genesis - 6,290
• "framework hypothesis" + genesis - 543

I suggest it be renamed to framework theory or framework theory (creation). What do you think? Pbarnes 09:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In this context, theory doesn't have the same scientific meaning. It's different from creationism because things such as young earth creationism are scientifically verifiable hypothesizes which do not stand up to scrutiny because they contradict the evidence. The framework view is, by definition, a theory on the meaning of the creation days. I have no problem with calling it such.

I just googled "framework interpretation" + genesis and got 24,500 hits so maybe we should call it framework interpretation (creation) in order to stay clear of possible "theory" confusion. Pbarnes 10:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavenly sanctuary

Hi Tonic, I would appreciate your input on a new theology article I have proposed, heavenly sanctuary, on the WP:SDA project page. I have not studied this area. Please reply on that page. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback for my user page

Hi Tonicthebrown,

I was wondering if you would give me some feedback about my user page. I am trying to develop it to be appealing in content and also aesthetically attractive. Writing about religious topics is always controversial, and I would like to know if you think anything would be offensive to anyone, or could be improved. I have also invited a few others. Please reply here. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Please activate your email or write to me. -- Fyslee/talk 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Having emailed both of you myself, what one discovers can be very interesting! Colin MacLaurin 02:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Torah-submission

Good day! I see that you are a prolific and established Wikipedian. An editor has recently recommeded article Christian Torah-submission for deletion. I don't think there is any justification for deletion, but I'm afraid so many people see such a view as insignificant that reason will not prevail. If you're interested, I'd like to encourage you to weigh in on the discussion and make any more edits/citations that you think would be constructive. Thanks and keep up the good work. Namikiw 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that are an Anglican. You may be interested in checking out our WikiProject - |WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! -- SECisek 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

[edit] Deletions on Creation/Genesis page

Guilty as charged. Let's just say that a bottle of Chardonnay may have to bear part of the responsibility. But more seriously, although I agree that there's good stuff in what I deleted, the article as a whole is seriously weak - it goes on and on about the question of composition (one version or two), and utterly ignores other issues. What I was doing in that deletion was preparing the ground for a re-write. I see a structure like this: 1. The text (your preference is for a summary of the text, and I can live with that); 2. The ANE context of Genesis (cosmogony/anthropogeny in Ugarit, Canaan, Egypt and Mesopotamia - this is the cultural milieu of Genesis and can't be ignored, as it is at present); 3. Genesis and the emergence of Israelite monotheism (this takes in the question of composition, but puts it in the proper context - the ANE and the emergence of Israel's distinctive theology); 4. Later interpretations (for example, the development of the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit from Genesis's ruah, and it's ultimate adoption by Judaism). whether this er-write is best inaugurated by nuking the present article is perhaps debatable. Bacchus, get thee behind me! PiCo (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

You may wish to comment on the AFD for Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. I have notified the major editors involved I could see. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robinson

Thank you for the well written and sourced text! If you want, you can be a member of the |WikiProject Anglicanism. It's painless and the project would like to have more participants in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding SDA

Sir, I dn't dispute you're knowledge, but you're claim "and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations " as "Babylon"

Problem comes with second part of you're statemant, I understand what's you're point, but... you have to give a qoute for "other denominations", and this qoute has to be from some adventist source and it has to be existing web site or official document, not a Weasel word like statemant

1. "People say…" (Which people?)
2. "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
3. "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
4. "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
5. "It has been mentioned that..." (Who mentioned it?)
6. "It is known that..." (By whom is it known?).

Unles you make a good stament that is source reliable and not a Weasel word you're change on SDA main page may stay. Second of all, I don't dispute that we (SDA) belive that many protestants have gone away from Byble, but we as much as I know NEVER call any protestant Church babylon.

[edit] Criticism REMOVED

I please you to stick with wiki policy!

There are some things in this article which break wiki policy, the main one is the fact that some parts of article should be moved to criticism section.

Roman Catholic Church is known for religious exclusivism, they claim to have truth, and that all others are more or less wrong, just as they claim that there is only one true church, other Churches couldn't be called churches, Peter was first pope, Jesus founded Roman Catholic Church and so on.... another words, claims which are disputed by majority non-RCC Christianity.

However, article regarding their "exclusivism" is in article called "Criticism of Catholic Church", not on main article, same is with Islam and all other Christian, or non-Christian faiths. Why? Becouse it is wiki policiy, parts of articles which are criticism focused go in criticism article, if such exists. And such, indeed does exist. For that reason I have removed "Criticism" section to "Criticism of ... Adventist Church"

The whole or great majority of Criticism section should go to "Criticism of ... Adventist Church"

If not, I will start one in Roman Catholicism article, which is probably most criticized religion in world, but has no word on Criticism in main article. Wiki has to use same rules for everybodey, all are equal. Roman Catholic Religion is not "over" the rule. User:Sumaterana

[edit] Intertestamental period

I see you have a history of working on the article Intertestamental period. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 in Creation in Genesis

Hi. If 7 is the key to understanding the structure of G-1, it needs to be explained. Incidentally, I want eventually to make a new section on the theology of Genesis 1-2, and this sort of thing can go there. PiCo (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William J. Webb

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article William J. Webb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

---

William J. Webb is a theologian, ordained Baptist minister and professor of New Testament at Heritage Seminary, Ontario. He is notable for developing the "redemptive movement hermeneutic", which has been described by Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem as the "most sophisticated" Christian egalitarian hermeneutic that has ever been published.^[1]. He is author of Slaves, women & homosexuals : exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis (2001), which argues for full role equality of men and women in the church and family while concluding that homosexuality is not a biblically sanctioned lifestyle.

[edit] See also

• Christian views about women
• Homosexuality and Christianity
• Christian egalitarianism

[edit] References