User talk:KHM03/Archive 5

This is ARCHIVE 5 for my talk page....

6 Nov 05 through 29 Nov 05.

Request for Peer Review

Hi. I would like to ask for your input on the article Religious Society of Friends, which I have have put on the page Wikipedia:Peer review. If you have time, would you please read the article and leave your comments about how it could be improved to become a feature article. I have appreciated your editing on other articles. Logophile 13:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fir e Fo x RFA

KHM03/Archive 5

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

Fir e Fo x 18:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thiering

Dear KHM03, as we have "seen" each other on different, Christianity-related pages and your user page identifies you as a theologically minded person, I'd like to ask you to have a look into the pages Mary Magdalene and Pesher. A new editor, User:Dylanstephens, has included sections on Barbara Thiering and her theories. I have tried de-POV these sections as best as I could (as Dylan seems to be a believer in her theories) and after some back and forth, the text is currently stable. However, Dylan and I still disagree on the final sentence of each of the section on the acceptance of BT's theory. IMHO, Dylan's version is way too optimistic, while I consider my current wording already as an understatment. You, as a theologian, might be able to help. Cheers, Str1977 11:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

Grace and peace to you too, brother. Congrats on the new Admin. role. I still stop by occasionally to keep tabs on you. ;-) Jim Ellis 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bono & God & cash

Thanks! I just couldn't resist. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23's RfA

G'day KHM03,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template for IP address

Where can I get one to put on my user page and user talk page?
This IP is a public one used by everyone at West Kent College, Kent, England.
Thanks for any possible help :) --195.194.75.204 13:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi,

I'm sorry for all the vandalism that comes out of this IP address. Keep in mind that this is a public computer in the school and that there will be people who will vandalize here because it is anonymous.

-66.99.46.98

Anti EffK Ad Hominem

I take your comments at User:Str1977 as ad hominem Thanks for noticing , but you know this is against policy , to assume bad faith .EffK 11:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The silly attacks on Str1977 are already in bad faith, as well as poor taste. No need to take them seriously. KHM03 21:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KHM03, as I said before somewhere: FK is very good in dishing out, but quite sensitive when it comes to receiving (for an early collection, look here: [1]. Apart from not adhering to "no personal attacks", he seems to be unable to distinguish this policy from the concept "ad hominem" (which to my knowledge is not forbidden by WP rules but rather frowned upon in any discussion, here and elsewhere). Cheers, Str1977

PS: EffK, after you have read this, which you undoubtedly will, desist from screaming personal attack - this is a message to KHM03 and not to you, and hence no attack at all (and certainly not "ad hominem") Str1977 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removal of the so-deemed "irrelevant link" at Neoevangelicalism

Did you take time to read any section of the three part article on Dr. Barnhouse and his foundational role in Neo-Evangelicalism? -- User:Dan Smedra

The link is about Barnhouse, not the neo-evan movement. The article would be appropriate in an article about Dr. Barnhouse, but, since it is a critique of him and not the movement, is irrelevant on this article. KHM03 21:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi KHM03,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, Joann e B 15:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeL's RFA

Hi KHM03,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Thanks for the note. I think I'll leave it this time as it's a shared IP and the wave of vandalism has stopped, with (just) two pages vandalised in two days. Warofdreams talk 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA

I sincerely appreciate your support on my RfA. I'll do my best to not let you down. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 04:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sanctification

If you apply some very simple logic, mainly that the stage directly following death is glorification and the three stages of christian development do not overlap, you will find that sanctification must end with death, acording to protestant doctrine.

P.S. I'm a republican, and i suspect my beliefs are far more to the left than yours are. -- User:J.L.Main

sanctification 2

I wasn't aware that the term sanctification was used in the bible at all. I asked several protestant pastors, all with PhDs in theology, to verify my claim(about the end point of sanctification, not it's use in the bible) and they all concurred with me. How would you like me to sight them?

also, God's logic may not always be our logic, but it should never simply fly out the window. If your denomination teaches that you can simply throw logic out the window when it contradicts the denominations beliefs i suggest you find a new denomination. -- User:J.L.Main

In the Bible: Go here, here, and here for starters; it is most definitely a "Biblical word". There are also, of course, other translations of the Greek word "hagios" and the Hebrew word "qadesh" and their varios derivative words.

Regarding citations, interviews with pastors aren't really academic. What books from authorities, great Biblical scholars or theologians, be they contemporary or from the past? Who has said that in "most Protestant theologies" (as you have written) sanctification ends with death? Luther? Calvin? Wesley? What great, authoritative Protestant thinkers have made this claim? You may not be incorrect here, but you need to support your claim.

I'm not dismissing logic, but "reason" certainly is not paramount in my methodology; Scripture and Tradition (at least) are more authoritative. Blessings...hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving! KHM03 23:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contemopary ctiticism Hinduism

You may wish to refine comments but its not fair to remove it. You can discuss about it and then decide what to do about it.

The state of Tamil Nadu has enacted a law banning conversion. There is a recentment in Hindu sceity about conversion.

~rAGU 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC) raguks@indiatimes.com[reply]

Are my posts acceptable now?

like i said in the headline, "Are my posts acceptable now?" You haven't reverted them, and i don't want to have unacceptable posts, so i would like you verify that you find them "acceptable." -- User:J.L.Main

RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

I'm also dropping in to say thanks for your support on my RFA, and yeah, if you have any feedback for me I'd be happy to hear it. Steve block talk 09:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Bla ck 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Laws in Category: Jewish Christian topics

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics

Thanks for supporting me!

Hi, KHM03. Thanks for supporting my RfA (and of course for your earlier offer of nomination also). I'm now an admin, and hope that I'll live up to the trust that has been placed in me. Thanks also for the great work you do around here. As I have a lot of Christianity-related pages on my watchlist, I notice that you're still patiently and faithfully working away on them while I sometimes run off to other articles. I will get back as soon as possible. Thanks again. AnnH ^(talk) 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevhorn

KHM03, I need your views on the contributions of Kevhorn (talk · contribs). He is inserting fairly peculiar views on the early history of Christianity, some of which I expect to be rather POV and unsourced. Please have a look and tell me what you think. JFW | T@lk 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]