User talk:Marax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 06:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the reliability of the testimonies by apostates in general and in Opus Dei and its subpage please take into account on that this is an extremely sensitive issue. I had minor involvment in Opus Dei, but I am an apostate in the sociological meaning of the word ("critical former member") of another religious group. I consider the negative generalizations that Wilson makes about a very diverse "group" of people untrue, outdated (they may have had some truth during the time of the anti-cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s), insulting and his excessive scepticism that he prometes ridiculous. It is simply hate speech. Andries 10:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Marax for your sympathy. How would you feel when you went through a traumatic experience and were labelled unreliable, not just by a defender of the faith, but by an academic on the basis of sweeping generalizations? Here is my story if you are interested. [1] Here is an article that voices some of the objections that I have against Wilson's generalizations. [2] Andries 10:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
(X-post from Talk:Opus_Dei). Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. --Kchase02 07:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations
Hi! The page Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations appears to be orphaned. It is not referred to and is untouched. Would you object to its deletion? --William Pietri 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of it! -- William Pietri 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see. I understand that the article at least partially deals with the accusations, but perhaps I need clarification on Wikipedia policy regarding uncited statements. Since the sentence I mentioned is both contentious and uncited/unsourced, is this still ligit? Thanks, and I don't mean to press the issue, just wanted to clarify this for my own understanding.
Another interesting issue to discuss is the characterization of Catholic Church affiliates of being liberal/progressive or conservative/orthodox. The fairness of the labels differs from religion to religion, but it seems that with Catholicism, since it's precepts are clearly laid out in writing, and many are declared unchangeable--as with the mission of the Church--I think that the orthodox/heterodox labels are more egalitarian. In a sense, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Catholic, only orthodox and less orthodox ones; that is, those who choose to embrace all the Church's teachings and those who choose only embrace some. So since the definition and limits of orthodoxy are so clearly laid out for Catholics, it would seem that the orthodox/unorthodox labels are preferable.
Pianoman123 14:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flannery O'Connor picture
As much as I prefer your picture, I don't think it can be used in the Roman Catholic Church article. As a copyrighted picture, it can only be "fair use" in an article which deals with her. The Monica picture is public domain due to age, and doesn't have this limitation. Is the O'Connor picture is public domain? (You can respond here.) Gimmetrow 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Gimmetrow. Thank you for this background information on the O'Connor picture. My profound apologies for missing this point. You are correct. :-) it is better to bring back the image of St. Monica. Marax 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flannery O'Connor
Hey. I didn't upload the Flannery O'Connor picture; that honor goes to RudyLucius. I do agree with you about puting it in the Catholic Church article; she does represent Catholic laity quite well. Good luck finding permission! Caesar 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment to User:Heavyrock
Hello, I was in the process of moving the comment you left on Heavyrock's user page [3], but I noticed that you repeated the comment on their Talk page. I still removed your comment from their user page [4]. -- Gogo Dodo 08:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re your message: Not a problem. It happens from time to time. No worries. =) If Heavyrock gets back to you, you might consider telling them that they can probably find an admin to delete the blank user page that was the result of my removal. That is if they prefer a non-existant user page over a blank user page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Could you help?
There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.
After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.
Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
