User talk:Coelacan/Archive 1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coelacan/Archive_1.

Wikimedia Foundation

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re: Red links

Hi; I've responded on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Veganism

Thanks for your question. Let's take this discussion to Talk:Veganism. I'll reply there. —Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

LSP & Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi Coelacan,

Thanks for telling me the Liberale Staatspartij article was moved. A bit late though! I've responded already on both the articles talkpages.

And I saw nobody had said welcome to Wikipedia yet ... so feel free to look at these policies and conventions!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help.

- C mon 10:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ned Lamont

Hi! No problem! I put that pic back! I also look forward to join discussions in Talk Page! Regards,--Sina 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

T2

You are against T2? —David618 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed Template:User freedom. There are a lot more users now. —David618 03:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at User:David618/Disappearing Boxes/message1. We should add something about the admins who are deleting userboxes that they dislike and citing T2. —David618 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I saw that while this is not banned, people are discouraged. —David618 01:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Liberal Union (Netherlands) Liberals (Finland) SP bookmaking Radical League G17 Plus Green Party of the Philippines Green Party of Pakistan Green Party of Iran The Greens (Poland) New Right (Netherlands) Liberal Democratic Party (Republic of Macedonia) Rainbow and Greens Green Nepal Party Green Party (Norway) Liberal Party of Switzerland Korea Greens Jaffna Rukmini Devi Arundale Liberal Party of Kosovo

Cleanup Aikoku Koto Polarized pluralism Institutionalism Merge Agglutination Resurrection of the dead Canadian National Railway Company Add Sources United Democratic Front (Malawi) Alliance for Restoration of Democracy Richard Bell (politician) Wikify Richard Jones (economist) Social Liberals (Austria) Defence Housing Authority, Karachi Expand Progressivism Elision Software cracking

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo

The page blanking was just a mistake. I reverted that immediately. The current version is really biased. And i dont think you will agree with me even if i work on the discussion page because i have already read that page and saw what you guys have done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodthings (talk • contribs) .

Maybe you should respect my work, too. I did the reference part, though. You should read them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodthings (talk • contribs) .

And if you have seen, I just translated some sentences from Chinese Japanese and Korean Wikipedia of the same topic. They are already validated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodthings (talk • contribs) .

TISM

"how could that be their last appearance if they later performed at big day out?" ... Because after their debut appearance in 1983, the band split and every gig since then has been a reunion gig. --Geniac 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Conium Page

I moved your Hemlock Society link to the Hemlock article. It doesnt quite fit in an article about the Conium genus.Calibas 03:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really want it there I wont change it, I just think it's more suited to the disambiguation page. --Calibas 04:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Religion/Irreligion/Secular

Irreligion seems more relevant to those who are non-religious than secular, because secular denotes a society in which there is a freedom of religion, non-religious and irreligion are as they say, no religion. I'd prefer it if there was a "non-religious" article, second to that I'd prefer it if it redirected to irreligious (assuming it could be fixed up). Nick carson 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:204.128.204.254

Aloha! I note that you recently put a ban on IP 204.128.204.254. I am a teacher at the school that is associated with this IP. I regularly see these temporary one week bans. It seems to me that the vandalism from this IP is going to be a regular problem since I suspect it is not a single individual that is doing this but probably a bunch of unrelated users. Would it make sense to just block this IP permanently? R. Kevin Doyle 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is to confirm that the IP in question is associated with Mid-Pacific Institute. The (presumably) students who are vandalizing various pages can all register accounts if they wish to make legitimate edits, in my opinion. Thanks for the information and sorry for the convoluted sentences in my original paragraph! R. Kevin Doyle 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Coelacan/Jennifer Brunner

I've restored the usable parts of the original article to the above page in your userspace. You can move it to mainspace, ideally after updating it. Some of the stuff in the original piece, (eg a bullet point list of campaign promises) isnt really suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, please make sure everything in the new article conforms to the appropriate content policies. Deizio talk 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins

Thanks for pointing that nasty typo out for me. I've got no problem with people fixing other people's typos, especially the confusing ones. mensch • t 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk Dawkins

Re archiving talk:richard dawkins: this edit I don't understand. (1) You broke the archive list, (2) none of the discussions you added back seem to be ongoing and (3) with ur stuff added back the talk is 133kb long (which is a bitch if u log on to the net with a modem like I do, see WP:SIZE). Mikker ^(...) 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All things Ted

I replied on the Dawkins subject. And I am planning to revisit the third wave conversation with you, I just haven't had time to write a coherent opinion. Thanks for helping to research those subjects. Cheers Mr Christopher 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Giant Land Squid

Can you prove that this is a real cryptid?

perfectblue 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion on the list of cryptids is a little vague, but one of the main ones is that it has to be real in terms of hypothesis and anecdotal information. It can't be something made up for a TV program. There are people who claim to have seen Bigfoot and researchers who are trying to find it. Can you say the same about the land squid?

perfectblue 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A link to an email (referring to the Cretaceous period) and another to a close-up of a flower. Yeah, right. What literature is there about it? Any websites? A book? Totnesmartin 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual reality

Which ones do you consider "unrelated"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.61.226 (talk)

Okay, I don't know "who" you are, but seem obviously involved in my "edits".

Okay, first you have to think realistically about what you want to accomplish. You aren't going to successfully redefine "virtual reality" on Wikipedia, or even widen the term's popular meaning.

Yeah? Why not? Are you expecting The One to do it? The term is redefining itself at the present time. Maybe you play World of Warcraft, maybe you're aware of the social impact of this (and others) game(s)? Maybe you know that people start to actually die from gaming too much? No drama here, I'm just emphazing on the seriousness of the situation. What is happening now is very important, the technological singularity is on us and we have to reshape our mental perception of what is the Internet, what is the 21th century society, and even more important, what will be our place.

Even if we didn't have thousands of editors who are revert-happy about anything that seems out of place, you would still be violating WP:NOR and that alone will guarantee the eventual grave of your edits.

Wrong, I didn't edit anything inside the pages (except for some typos, maybe). You are violating the consensus ;)

Second, Wikipedia already has several articles that deal with the more general concept, like external world skepticism, skeptical hypothesis, brain in a vat, and even specifically thematic motifs of the Matrix series#Philosophy. You could be more productive by contributing usefully to these articles, however, adding semi-related categories is not particularly productive.

Do I have to be productive? And why? I'm not an earner from WP, I don't have any quota to reach, I don't have any result to attain, I don't even have to care. All I morally have to do is being pertinent. I didn't screw anything, I just added my opinion. You think it counts for nothing?

Thanks for the article titles, if I have time, I'll give it a look.

Third, the Internet and Bittorrent are just out. Bittorrent and other p2p has nothing to do with VR, I'm sorry.

Well, you can be because you are wrong. The notions of cyberspace and virtual reality have been clearly defined by William Gibson in his masterwork novel Neuromancer. He even invented the term "Matrix". You'd probably have been right ten years ago, when the Internet was merely a text terminal with few images displaying slowly. It's now totally different. The main topology of the network is changing, in real time! In a few years, most of the metropolis of the world will be fiber optic connected, the information will flow as the speed of light, more than that of the thought, there will be billions of computers and servers full-time online. What will happen then? Do you know?

Listen, I will agree to revert the changes I made on the examples you gave, only if you discuss this with me. Deal?

Ps : maybe I'm Al Gore, hehehe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.61.226 (talk)

why no block?

User:162.39.85.7's last vandalism was less than two hours ago. What was the problem with the report? — coelacan talk — 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They have stoped vandalising, and are therefore no threat. A block should not be seen as punishment, but as an action to stop further damage to the encyclopedia - in this case it isnt occuring. Viridae^Talk 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

bernie's

The problem hyperlink is in the second paragraph on the windows vista article. Now it's not going to what it was going to before; it goes to a plain grey page with the writing:

<link rel="copyright" href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

so the hyperlink needs redirecting to the P2P article I think. Just go to the Vista article and click on the hyperlink. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MJConnolly (talk • contribs) .

yes, that sentence, but it's fixed now, so don't worry. I'm sorry about that, someone must have fixed it. MJConnolly 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

cuttlebone

I was thinking it should have at least a small entry. The article about cuttlefish says little about it.--Marhawkman 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Problematic edits by 132.241.246.111

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematics edits / Block evasion by Grazon. —12.72.70.76 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this was eventually archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive151#Problematics edits / Block evasion by Grazon — coelacan talk — 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not vandalize "Creationism" article

I have no idea how, the "heyy" got into the article for creationism, but I am fairly sure I did not do it. If I did put it in by accident, I thank you for correcting it, but there was No vandalism on my part on that article. Petercksun 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)petercksun

Pardon me, I went back to check the article and the "heyy" was not there before my edit, so I guess it must have been done by me somehow. Thanks again for the correction for my unintentional mistake. Petercksun 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)petercksun

Rm Paleobox

Re: your edit comment on Henodus chelyops--The paleobox project has been abandoned. Many paleoboxes had been added very rapidly without agreememnt from the paleo wikiprojects, and subsequent discussions came to an agreement that the paleoboxes should be removed, and the info contained in them expanded upon in the article, with references. There are still a few straglers out theere, so editors are encouraged to remove any paleoboxes we come across.Dinoguy2 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hippy sentiments

Seems to me that you were a wee bit offended by my 'quotation'. I suppose thats your left wing sentiments shining through (with green aura etc). Of course, you are welcome to your opinions (hooray for free speech) but I think that your warning of not to repost that 'quote' even with a citation is a little out of line. If Brown was talking in the context of Howard, then OF COURSE it's relevant to mention the supposed retort (currently awaiting a citation). So, go right ahead and keep wasting your votes on minor parties - you might as well not vote at all, but its a nice way to save seventy odd dollars in fines. I'd be inclined to say the reason he is not a more succesful politician is because he is a ageing, worn out old tree hugging faggot, with two bit policies that haven't changed since the seventies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K42 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

• • Re your RE

Screw you hippy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K42 (talk • contribs).

Image Copyvio

I'm sorry. I had misinterpreted the licesning I had given the image to mean that I had doctored it. You can delete it, it was simply immature vandalism. --RingoBingo 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heim theory: not vandalism

I did not vandalize that page. I was making a much needed correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.203.13 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_theory#Pseudoscience

A concensus has already been made on its removal and the last word has been made on the subject. Verdict: removal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.203.13 (talk)

Where is this consensus listed? The link you have provided doesn't show any clear consensus of all the involved editors. -- Fyslee 14:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The book you suggested

(Response to your book suggestion)
Hi,
Dear brother, thanks for your response. I think that the similarities between species are the signs of ONE creator. As they are created from 1 logic, 1 creator, 1 manufacturer. And that creator is Almighty Allah.
May be you like this Page
This may be an unscientific approach
I hope that sometime I'll read that book. I have already read many books(onine) but the deep I go, the more I am surprised by myself. I think that Darwinism believes in the theory of probability, but it is against against many theories(natural destruction/disorder).
Someday, I'll mix many proteins and the amino acids(you are welcome to add/subtract any substance) and I'll start shaking. I may not get a human in a short time, but may be there is a small virus obtained. I'll be his creator and then I'll assign this small virus to fight against diseases in my body. May be due to evolution, that bectaria will also develop a cellphone with him to remain in contact with me to get my instructions.
Dear brother, little knowledge of science takes you away of religion, in-depth knowlegde of science takes you to the true religion.
I never see you, but I think that someday, while I'll be drawing millions of lines in the MS-Paint and this may originate to your picture. So, you will be my friend(Pen-friend or e-friend). So my friend, May Peace and Mercy of ALLAH be on (all of) you.
Yours sincerely,
Waqas Mehmood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.65.183.158 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

The physical body is not you!

Dear respected brother,
I have another website for you to visit:
Creation Of Man
The DNA section will be intersting for you.


Want more? Here is the Link.

May be you never understood yourself. Are you one physical material only? Then Why you have sensations? How can the first life reproduced/duplicetred itself? without the reproductory system? The reproduction itself is based on a deeeeep logic. The division of DNA is not so simple. If you go and study DNA, and get all its knowledge, this does not means that the DNA is created by chance. There are no complex buildings created by that stupid chance. Man still has not created anything more complex then a SINGLE cell of its own human body. A single cell has much more processing speed and perfection then that the computer in fron of you.

There may be many people who know the coding of operating system that we are working on. This does'n means that they have created it.

Our cell performs much more difficult tasks then this computer. It has far more advanced technology. The scientists are working on the DNA computer. Even if they can invent/create a substance better then DNA, the DNA is still created by Allah, the Almighty. The deep you go, the more you will discover Allah, Allah invents you to discover.

Can you understand what the force is and how it works? The science can never understnad it. They can just measure it in some units. This is another mystery. Light is another miracle. The whole universe is a miracle itself.

Can you take me to the end of the Universe. Up to what extent the man can go. tell me? The thing absolute is Allah. He is not created. He was from always and will remain always.
The first created cell can only change itself. Do you think that it also produced plants to eat. What was the first diet of the first cell.?

After so much knowledge, every cell has to die, can you prevent it from dying? You cannot prevent him as the cell has far more knowledge then you, but it dies, and one day I'll also, ans so shall all will die. There will be no stories of us, like there were the nation before us. Our children will no longer remember ourself. We'll go to the Almighty God, the Allah, the creator. And then, the Allah will ask questions. It is true that every person has his thoughts but every person in the universe, at least once in a lifetime thinks of the SINGLE creator. That creator is ALLAH. Why you deny him?

When I developed my first software, I was feeling like the god, I had created something new. It was the revolution in the software industry. But when I looked at the other softwares, I felt shame. I want be the superior. So I created much more. I did not slept at night to compete the stupid humans. That is how the man challanges. Those who have superior knowlegde/power in the world challange God, because the man likes to challange its superiors. Allah does not like this.

If I copy a microsoft windows cd with some other name, the microsoft will take me in the court. why? I had purchased the cd? I had paid? It is the change of credit. Whenever someone deoes a good work, it may not like the appreciation, but credits must by given to the real author. The Allah can forgave all the sins but this the biggest of all. You can make a copy yourself, but this copy remains to Allah. You remain God's. I remain God's. Why we don't worship allah who gave us so perfect system. You can see, just imagine what happened if you coudn't see. God can also produce you blind to testify you but he gave you all the things you need. He produced you among humans then who produced love in those humans for you. The cat will never love a dog's child. you may never feel real love with someother's chils. Who has produced this love in yours. This cannot be produced by machines. If this can be produced by machines, then why you also love your child even if he is blind? If you were A machine, you would have rejected that, saying "OH, that's a mistake!". The machines can never love to others.

If you get bound in room by accident with your child. After some time, both of you will be thirsty. Imagine that there is only one glass of water. One has to die, one has to survive, may be for just one day more. What option will you choose. I know that you are not a machine. I already know your answer. If you were a machine, you can behave like a HITLOR. Those concepts give the hitlors to the universe. They may be the people like Usama, they may be the americans dropping atom bomb. If those believed in Almighty God, they were not the sinners. But they had no danger of Allah. They had denied him.
My brother, denying the Almighty Allah leads to people like Hitlor. and Allah never likes that.

The reason I reject the theory of chance is no that I deny the number of occasions.
If you have stones, you start throwing them to make X on earth. If one stone is misplaced, throwing upto trillions of stones will not correct the letter. Will it? It is against the probability. Through this, you can draw lines, circles, but not logic. Logic is importent. May be someday I'll be able to make a small virus shape by bombarding atoms/molecules, but that will remain matter.

If ask me to kill a bird(may be miles away) with a gun. I'll fire, if the bullet reached at the target, that's OK, if not, that's again OK because I have a lots of chances(unlimited) left. Sometime, the bullet will reach the target. This is the way you think.
My friend, the real case is not like this. It is just like making a complex drawing by use of bombarding tiny bullets. In this case, the second OK is not allowed at all!!!. I'll only work if all the bullets reach exact points(again, no wrong point is allowed at all), when the shooter does not knows what to draw.
I hope that you understand that.

Yours sincerely,
Waqas Mehmood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank You

Thanks a lot for giving me a Barnstar. Let's keep improving the quality of Wikipedia! --Cyktsui 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

re:Unspecified source for Image:Amber diptera-Fossil.jpg

Respected brother, Assalam-O-Alaikum
I am new to wikipedia. I started editing just a few days before. So, huge thanks for your instruction. I hope that you help me in better knowledge, understanding and usage of Wikipedia.--Builder w 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB

Is this official policy? The page says it is a "guideline". In addition, have you Googled Faith Freedom International with the name in quote-marks? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that non-trivial sources from several "respected" organizations is necessary for notability. If that is the case, then should several of the towns that are listed on Wikipedia be listed on Wikipedia? What about high schools? Even some universities? If a site is mentioned by numerous people or individuals, it therefore follows that the site is at least temporarily famous and therefore notable. Nonetheless, looking for reputable sources doesn't hurt. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okeydokes. I guess I'm an "inclusionist", seeing as I feel that anything noticed by numerous people ought to be notable (more or less) and that explanation of the world is paramount. (Especially when it comes to histories of deleted pages: why delete the histories along with the pages? There are tons of successful AfDs out there and I don't know what they were talking about due to their very success!) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

k, will look at the FFI AfD (and acronyms are loverly) :) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Man, i appreciate the gesture, but to be to honest, I'm heartbroken about peoples attitude. They want to believe the official 9/11 story, fine, but then they continued to delete everything that was related to the 9/11 Truth movement. I get it, the opinions are not welcomed. So f it, i just feel hurted and i have had enough of it. They want to live in... best i quit my rant. Thanks for the offer, but i have done my share on the 9/11 truth articles on wikipedia. Peace. --Striver 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest? I really shouldn't... so i wont. I let you imagination get it. How do you think it feels after having had the above mentioned treatment like ...to many times? Yeah, its weak of me, but whatever, it didn't stop them... And hey, i try to be somewhat reasonable in the afd, if they had a clear cut case, i would have voted keep, but when it is weighing in the line... no thanks, i don't owe them any favors. And in any case, im just providing arguments, nobody needs to care about my arguments. I mean, they didn't care when they deleted Terrorstorm, so why should they now... --Striver 21:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for comments particularly your comments on the Trinitarian Universalism page. As for your comment on my talk page I agree with you that documenting and expanding the history of marriage is the best way to help improve that page, but the editing on that page has become a little irrational, so I think I am going to wait a little while before I contribute again.--GMS508 03:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

signature

Thanks for the advice. I really don't see a major difference, but since you suggested it, I changed the image. Cuñado - Talk 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yarr, it's probably just my single monitor on the entire Internet =) Say I've got a question for you. What do you see to be the obvious functional differences between Bahai and Unitarian Universalism? (I'm not linking to the UU article because Wikipedia's coverage is both decent and simply terrible, so if you aren't already somewhat familiar with UU then I'm not sure my question is really helpful). — coelacan talk — 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think I'm pretty familiar with Unitarian Universalism, and I understand why someone would ask that. Unitarians get a lot of flak for being accepting (almost embracing) a wide variety of spiritual pursuits, and the Baha'i Faith gets the same flak for recognizing almost all the major religions in the world as being divinely inspired.

I think the quick answer is that Baha'is see the world of religion as a progressive unfolding through a series of teachers sent by God. Baha'u'llah said that about every 1000 years God will renew the "City of God", and Baha'is actually do expect another prophet to come, but not before 1000 years have passed (from 1863). Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is God's messenger for the age we live in, and that he fulfills the prophecies of every religion, which all tell of the coming of a great messenger and the establishing of heaven on earth, an end to injustice, and a perfect society. Whereas past messengers focused on fundamental aspects and brought spiritual education and Covenants, they reached the greatest levels of civilization that were possible at the time. Noah and Abraham came to tribes of people, Moses united the tribes into a small nation, the materially wealthy Roman empire was rejuvenated by the spiritual wealth of Jesus, Muhammad brought unity to primative warring tribes of Arabia, and their society became the preeminent center of learning and civilization for centuries. Now the world is fractured, the religions that brought unity are creating disunity, and everyone is just waiting for the end of the world. It is nothing less than another revelation from God that can save humanity yet again. Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is that messenger, and I think that is the fundamental difference between Unitarians and Baha'is.

For most people the idea that Jesus has returned and Armageddon has already taken place is outrageous, but I could go on for days and days about specific scripture, both Christian and Muslim. I hope that helped answer your question. Cuñado - Talk 08:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you gave me a feel for the answer. I've certainly got a little more to look into. So if you feel that you can estimate such things, tell me, how evangelical is Baha'i, in your experience, and how much do you personally deviate from that norm? At what point in a conversation with an acquaintance might you bring up, "oh, that's interesting, you know, Baha'i Book XYZ mentions this"? I guess it's hard to ask "at what point" but how many times have you found yourself doing that? And if you consider other religions to have truth, do you consider it bad form on anyone else's part to be, say, tiresomely evangelical? These might be weird questions but they're just what's popping into my head; hope that's cool. — coelacan talk — 08:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, those are good questions, and it's a privilege to answer them. I would say that the Baha'is Faith teaches a perfect level of evangelism, but I might be biased in my judgment. `Abdu'l-Baha taught that the best way to teach (by teach I mean, about the Baha'i Faith) is to develop relationships with people, and teach by example. I would say teaching and spreading the teachings are very important to Baha'is, but at the same time evangelizing is looked down upon, and especially teaching people who don't want to hear about it. There's a great story of `Abdu'l-Baha when he lived in `Akka, and he wanted to hire a nearby French women to teach French in his household. She was from a Catholic convent in Haifa, and the woman's superiors quickly told her not to work there, less the Baha'is try to convert her. When `Abdu'l-Baha learned why she was turning down the job, he responded to her by saying something like "These teachings are precious, not something cheap to be given out to people who don't want them." Shoghi Effendi described the process of becoming a Baha'i as going through three steps: attraction, conversion, and consecration. As such, Baha'is don't try to go out and convert a large number of people, per se, but they have traditionally focused a lot on both propagation and consolidation. Shoghi Effendi organized and encouraged a lot of international pioneering, and opening up countries where there were no Baha'is. He said that Baha'is should go to those countries, establish residence, learn the language, and teach by living the life. Now the Baha'i Faith is one of the most widespread and diverse organizations on the planet.

For me personally, I consider myself very perceptive, and when I establish friendships I analytically decide what that person needs most, and whether or not I want to make a point of bringing it up. Getting directly asked is one thing, but it's easy to make yourself get asked if you want to. I started a new job recently, and it became obvious very quickly that a few individuals were vehemently against talking about religion of any kind, because they had bad experiences. Another two guys were very interested in talking about philosophy and religion, but one was an agnostic/atheist and the other very devout Christian. The Christian was surprisingly open to hearing about other beliefs and ideas, and he even told me flat out that he would like to hear anything I have to say and he would read a book if I suggested it. Every once in awhile we get into a long talk about biblical issues, and at his suggestion, I started reading the Bible from the beginning, which I had never read in its entirety (I'm currently at Ruth). The exchanges are mostly positive, and I think that is a good example of how I prefer to teach.

But I also focus my life around teaching. Internationally, China tops the list of priorities among evangelical organizations, and it's not different in the Baha'i Faith. I've gone there twice already, once teaching English and once as a student, and my wife and I both are planning to go live there for about 6 months starting in January. The Chinese people have an ideological hole that will either be filled with politics, materialism, or spirituality. Some people in China are vehemently opposed to religion, and others are actively searching. When I'm there I will be searching to make relationships with the people who want to learn about spirituality, and the others I will not even approach with it, and in some cases I may even avoid mentioning my Faith. Cuñado - Talk 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Right on, thanks for the answers, Cuñado. When/if you're in the mood, I've got some old standards that I like to dust off in the wind from time to time. I assume you've thought through a great many things and so I'd like to hear your perspectives on a few. Have you an explanation of the Problem of Evil, especially the Epicurean formulation thereof? An answer to the Euthyphro dilemma? Does God know the future, and if so, how can God then be said to have free will? And is there any evidence, scientific, logical, or otherwise, that demonstrates the existence of God, or must it be decided entirely on faith alone? — coelacan talk — 11:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd say philosophy isn't my best discipline, but I'll tell you my perspective and I'll give you a link to relevant Baha'i texts.

Problem of evil is actually pretty easy. There is no evil, or at least, evil is not a force, it is the absence of good, which is an attribute of God. `Abdu'l-Baha compared evil to darkness and good to light. One can only transmit light, not darkness. In the same manner Godly virtues can warm hearts and dispel grief. The Epicurean formula would be correct to say that God can eliminate bad things, but the dual nature of man, combined with his free will, gives him the power to turn to God, or worship other things. We have to struggle with our inner selves and overcome ourselves. The tests and struggles of life are actually beneficial for us, and it is through them that we mature and grow closer to God, so is that bad? Baha'u'llah said "The source of all evil is for man to turn away from his Lord and set his heart on things ungodly." and also "Were it not for the cold, how would the heat of Thy words prevail, O Expounder of the worlds? Were it not for calamity, how would the sun of Thy patience shine, O Light of the worlds? Lament not because of the wicked. Thou wert created to bear and endure, O Patience of the worlds." An issue that often comes up is, what happens to the souls of babies who die prematurely? This touches on the subject of God's justice, and the churches have yet to come to a conclusion on this. The Baha'i writings confirm that they represent a special station, having neither the opportunity to be defiled, or develop spiritually, they will be in the care of God. Also read Adam and Eve, and the nonexistence of evil.

I think the Euthyphro dilemma is an irrelevant and uneducated question. Our standards of what is good or bad, right or wrong, come from religion, so to figure out if those morals preexisted God, then that is a misunderstanding of God. We would have to step away and imagine a reality without God or religion, and that's impossible. God is preexistent, but the univese is eternal in time. Can we understand a creator of an eternal universe? That implies a marked beginning, which Baha'is don't believe in. There were a series of questions posed to Baha'u'llah, and the questions themselves were in error. One question asked:

"There are four schools of thought in the world. One school affirmeth that all the visible worlds, from atoms to suns, constitute God Himself and that naught can be seen but Him. Another school claimeth that God is that Essence that must of necessity exist, that His Messengers are the intermediaries between Him and His creatures, and that their mission is to lead humanity unto Him. Yet another school holdeth that the stars were created by the Necessary Being, whilst all other things are their effect and outcome. These things continually appear and disappear, even as the minute creatures that are generated in a pool of water. A further school maintaineth that the Necessary Being hath fashioned Nature through whose effect and agency all things, from atoms to suns, appear and disappear without beginning or end. What need then for an account or reckoning? As the grass groweth with the coming of the rain and vanisheth thereafter, so it is with all things. If the Prophets and the kings have instituted laws and ordinances, the proponents of this school argue, this hath merely been for the sake of preserving the civil order and regulating human society. The Prophets and the kings, however, have acted in different ways: the former have said ’God hath spoken thus’ that the people might submit and obey, whilst the latter have resorted to the sword and the cannon. Which of these four schools is approved in the sight of God?"

Baha'u'llah's response:

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements... As to the four schools mentioned above, it is clear and evident that the second standeth closer to righteousness. For the Apostles and Messengers of God have ever been the channels of His abounding grace, and whatsoever man hath received from God hath been through the intermediary of those Embodiments of holiness and Essences of detachment, those Repositories of His knowledge and Exponents of His Cause. One can, however, provide a justification for the tenets of the other schools, for in a sense all things have ever been and shall ever remain the manifestations of the names and attributes of God."

The question implies a misunderstandinf of the subject, and he wanted an answer that one is correct, and all the rest wrong. To use an example of a modern debate, people inquiring about the stance on homosexuality might ask: Do Baha'is hate gay people, or do they encourage gay sex? Well it's neither, and the question is in error. Baha'is promote healthy marriages and families between monogamous mature heterosexual couples, and outside of that situation the sex impulse is to be controlled, and chastity upheld. The question about God knowing the future is similar. God is without time, and asking about what he knows and his free will comes from imagining a god that has human characteristics. For proofs of the existence of God see PROOFS AND EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Also, a few other good references: "...some do gaze upon the effulgence of the light; and some have drunk of the wine of oneness and these see nothing but the sun itself." "Neither doth My earth nor My heaven contain Me, but the heart of My faithful servant containeth Me." "...a station wherein thou shalt see nothing in creation save the Face of thy Beloved One..." "...if the inner perception be open, a hundred thousand clear proofs become visible [of the existence of God]. Thus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the bounty of the spirit, it is necessary to establish external arguments." I think the apparent paradoxes and arguments against the existence of God come from a misunderstanding of what/who God is. Surely the roof of the Sistine chapel does not have an accurate image of God or creation, and it is that image that scientists have disproved.

Hope that helped. If you are interested and you have time, you would really enjoy Baha'u'llah's Seven Valleys, or `Abdu'l-Baha's Some Answered Questions. I used both of them in most of the quotes here. I could copy over a few paragraphs from a non-scriptural Baha'i source describing free will and the future. I don't want to overwhelm, so let me know if you want it. Cuñado - Talk 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gert Bastian

Thank you for your message, and if it were you who wellcomed me,thanks for that, too. I rather seldomly visit the English Wiki as my mother tongue is German and I have been living in Sweden since 1969, so I prefer writing in German and Swedish. But, of course, I couldn't but remove the trash when I saw it. In German my user name is Elchjagd (moosechase?) and in Swedish it is Krusbäret (the gooseberry). Kind regards 217.208.29.52 12:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux/UBX/User IPU2

Updated, thanks for reminding me! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FFI

Thanks for ur comments, I have got some more concerns if u can address it, I will change my decision. → Mak82hyd 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinitarian Universalism

I agree, I think either you or me should specifically ask Caroline for her opinion. I am not sure that she will weigh-in unless we ask.--GMS508 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM???? DO U KNOW THE MEANING=

U said i did vandalism on ricky rab page do u know the meaning. first of all that page should not exist after the consensus had been reached to delete the article secondly there was a critism page and i was just mentioning what yamin zakaria said which has been stupidly changed by him and. it was a criticism section and how can u say ali sina replied by saying either u r a stupid or u r just islamophobic which i know u r looking at ur comments in ffi article. be fair or get lost, dont use ur powers to abuse wikipedia. Mak82hyd 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly modified the article again. please check the reference and try to be unbias. thanks --Mak82hyd 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will never apologise for something which is true. if u want to abuse ur power and use it for ur bias and block me then go on and do it. I will try to take this matter to other admins.Mak82hyd 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)