User talk:Trc

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Thanks for creating an acount. Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 06:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism[edit]

I come of roman catholic roots myself, but for a number of reasons choose not to be a practicing Roman Catholic. I am flirting w self identifying as Catholic however, and have found the Liberal, Ancient, Old and Eastern Orthadox churches rather to my liking. I also like Martin Luther so much as to consider him a likely candidate for being a modern prophet. Your user page seemed fairly open, so I figured I'd let you know where I'm coming from. I enjoy theological discussion tremendously BTW (particularly Meta-religion and eastern thought), if you ever care to take me up on it. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 06:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome, and the links! I'm sure we'll have chances to discuss theology. Trc 07:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have to give you my compliments, you handled what was an awkward and easilly misunderstood situation with the utmost grace, and accepted consensus without hard feelings. Your quite right to say that collective writing is ment to improve gradually, and I certainly don't rule out some changes being made in the catholicism redirects in time. I made a comment at talk:catholicism to this effect. Clearly your going to continue to be an excellent, amiable contributer here. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 07:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

article idea[edit]

Dear Trc,

Why don't you write a little article on the Communion Wafer? You could do its history, care for the consecrated Host, etc, etc. Just a thought. JHCC 20:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not a bad idea there, JHCC! :) Trc | [msg]

Hi Trc,

Sorry for my edit removing the text re Male-only priesthood being apostolic tradition - I had mistakenly thhought you were saying celebate only priesthood was apostolic tradition. Thanks for fixing it up.

Cheers, --DaveB 11:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Catholic liturgy[edit]

I gather from the context that you used the acronym "VII" for the great church schism of 1054, correct me if I'm wrong.

The main thing I was clarifying in the article Eparchy of Krizevci is that it's not only the Greek Catholics that had the privilege of using their language in the liturgy, as the article would seem to imply (there's no equivalent article for the Roman Catholics that would state the same). In fact the external link in that paragraph points to the Roman Catholic bishop conference of Croatia...

--Shallot 14:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Christian Cross[edit]

Please teach me the reason of revert. Revert wars is illegal on Wikipedia. I think this article is based on Catholic scholars' view. Wikipedia is NOT Cathoic encyclopedia. Rantaro 09:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are attempting to install a biased contribution, and I think you are doing so knowingly. Trc | [msg] 09:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

a tip[edit]

A tip: Perpetual Virginity of Mary does not appear on the list of religious topics. When you create a new article on religion, you should add it. And a query: Is it always written with capital initial letters? Michael Hardy 22:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your various pointers. I didn't actually create that topic. It is capitalized when one wishes to refer formally to it, and when one is writing about it one need not capitalize it. Trc | [msg] 23:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gospel of James[edit]

We look forward to your contributions at this entry that are more directly related to the subject, Gospel of James. Wetman 05:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The quote I have contributed is very relevant, showing how Catholic theology adapts extracanonical sources, in a paragraph about that very subject. Trc | [msg] 05:15, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vatican <> Vatican City[edit]

Please don't change every mention of "Vatican" to "Vatican City". Vatican City came into existence in 1929. Pope Conon can hardly have been buried in Vatican City; he was buried in what is now Vatican City. - Nunh-huh 05:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Right, I haven't changed them in robot-like fashion. I meant that the Basilica is located there; the grammar could support either use. Trc |

The Patriarchal Basilica of St. Peter isn't in Vatican City: it was replaced by the New Basilica that now stands there. It's better just to elide the reference if a non-misleading way of stating it can't be found. - Nunh-huh 06:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh; I did notice current use of such a Basilica, for example: [1], [2]. Thank you for your help. Trc | [msg] 06:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll try and find out if his grave is still extant and (if I can do so) add to his article. Keep in mind that sometimes ambiguity is a good thing<g>. The basilica in which Pope Conon was buried is certainly not the current basilica dating to the 15th century. - Nunh-huh 06:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you again! Trc | [msg] 06:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis[edit]

I have a question for you regarding the theology of C.S. Lewis, at Talk:C.S. Lewis. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trc, I've left a note there now also. I hope you don't take offense at my objection to your insertion -- it's a common enough comment in some circles. :-) But I don't think it's appropriate in the Lewis article, for two separate reasons I've noted on the talk page. I haven't pulled it out of the article, though, because I think it merits discussion and care, and I imagine we'll compromise over a wording that is acceptable to both of us. I so hope, at least. Your user page rings very clear in my own heart, as a Protestant interested in the faith and spirituality of others, especially Catholics, who I perceive to be my brothers and sisters in the faith. My Catholic friends call me "the most Catholic Protestant they know" -- cold comfort, perhaps, but I wanted to make sure you knew I am coming to this discussion with full respect for and interest in your particular devotional background. :-) Glad to have a good discussion about Lewis, a great author and good man, Jwrosenzweig 16:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I have decided I agree with both of your views on this. Thanks for writing! Trc | [msg] 18:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Confession[edit]

Hi! Are you sure that it should be: "Now as before, the penitent must make an act of contrition, which is a prayer the knowledge of which is considered necessary before receiving the sacrament of Confirmation."

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong. While it is necessary to perform the act of contrition before receiving sacraments *such as* confirmation, (or marriage, or holy orders), the sentence to me implies that the act of contrition must be said specifically before being confirmed, which is why I changed it. (Edited to clarify: that paragraph reads to me as though the standard format of confession is confession, absolution, act of contrition, confirmation, which isn't correct, unless Roman Catholics get confirmed rather more often than I thought possible;) Thoughts?

Thanks! --Puffy jacket 10:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

- I forgot to note another point: isn't the standard format confession, being given acts of penance to perform, act of contrition, absolution?--Puffy jacket 10:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, absolution is part of confession but is not a sacrament in itself. The knowledge of that prayer is a requirement before one is confirmed a Catholic. I'm not talking about saying the prayer at different moments during Catholic practice, but rather the requirements made of one about to be confirmed a Catholic. Trc | [msg] 06:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but then that paragraph should probably be reordered, right? :) --Puffy jacket 08:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Disambuguating "Christ"[edit]

Thanks for the comments on my work to disambiguate the word "Christ". On the Perpetual virginity of Mary I definitely messed that one up, I didn't mean to change the quote, thanks for fixing it back for me.

As far as the Trinity article goes, I changed it to a piped "Christ" that points to Jesus. However, "Jesus Christ" was etirely appropriate there. Because the statement was about the error that the father and the son are two different persons. Jesus Christ is the son. But I'm flexible.

As far as stopping my disambiguation Let me explain my approach from here on out. If it says "Christ" referring to the title I am pointing it to Messiah. If it says "Christ" referring to the person I will change it to point to Jesus but still read "Christ". If this doesn't work for you, let me know.

Anyway, I just noticed that you made it not be a disambiguation page (even though the vast majority of uses of "Christ" are in reference to Jesus Christ. Oh well, I'm done with it for now. Kevin Rector 02:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On Moloch Revert[edit]

Could you please indicate what "harm" you believe was done by my Moloch rewrite which you reverted? The version I replaced was a mass of fragments, some of it repeating long discarded scholarship referring to a single god Baal who never existed. Baal was a title for many gods. The article had little indication of sources for the information and nothing about scholarly evaluation or dispute on a topic which has been and still is a matter on which reputable scholars differ. I included much of the previous along with information about its sources and omited many of its POV statements in favor of giving information about various scholarly opinions on the subject of Moloch.

I also tried very hard to make as clear as I could to a non-specialist the exact nature of the Biblical passages mentioning mlk and why some of them are interpreted as they are and translated differently in different English translations as well as the tenuous nature of the theories built on these few passages.

And I tried to organize the article so that a reader would have enough theory from the early sections to be able to evaluate the arguments when the texts themselves were presented.

I am certainly willing to do further work if there is indeed information from this earlier version that should be included.

But the version you reverted to cannot stand as a creditable article. For example: "Moloch was worshiped among the Sepharvites as Adrammelech and Anammelech, and by the Moabites and Ammonites." What evidence of Moloch worship among Moabites? What evidence even among the Ammonites, other than one passage which dubiously seems to equate Moloch with Milcom, an interpretation rejected by many scholars? The doubt on that head, which also commonly appears in Bible commentaries, ought to appear. What evidence that Moloch was worshipped as two different gods, Adrammelech and Anammelech, something said here as though a known fact?

I am in any case planning to deal with those two puzzles separately.

The first line mentions the worship of the sacred bull that was worshipped wherever Carthaginian culture extended. I know of know evidence that Carthaginians particularly honored any sacred bull. There is no evidence that they knew of any god named Moloch or Melech per se. This is just old nonsense, reasonable speculation in its day perhaps, that got deeply into popular presentations and for that reason continues to be spread, just as the moving chained arms of this non-existant Carthaginian Moloch continues to be cited based on Flaubert's novel.

If you have some valid criticisms and are willing to work with me in improving the article, I am ready. If not, I will revert back. jallan 16:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For the present we will leave this alone. I have left a brief remark on the pertinent talk page. I remain convinced that there is something wrong with what you have done. Trc | [msg] 06:24, 22 Jun

2004 (UTC)

Sanctification[edit]

Hi

I suggested that Sanctification should be incorporated into a religious page because when I found it it was unedited lift of [[[3]]] which as an Italien Roman Catholic I found to be rather wordy and unintelligible! At the moment even with my rewrite I think it too small to stand alone, and should not because Sanctification is a word. It either needs a dictionary definition, or to become the title of a theological debate. Any further explanation of the word can only be one person's point of view, which can never be encyclopedic. Regards Giano 10:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

list of religious topics[edit]

Would you believe that until a few days ago, the article titled Easter was not listed in the list of religious topics? Anyway, I find that recently you wrote particular church, which also doesn't seem to be listed there. Could you add them to the list whenever you find them or create them? Michael Hardy 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

&sup1-3 question[edit]

Regarding your comment in Wikipedia talk:How to edit a page#&sup1-3 question: Trc, your main concern seems to be with the messed up line spacing that results from the default rendering of the <sup> tag. If this is a Wikipedia issue at all, it's one that should be addressed in the style sheets, not in the source text of articles (IMHO). - dcljr 07:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

edits[edit]

Hi Trc. I have not much of what you write here with fascination. Much of it is impressive. However you do have a tendency to write interpretations as facts. Even if they are such, don't write them as such. Let the reader on the basis of the evidence reach that conclusion, rather than the tone of the article telling them what is the case. In Novus Ordo Missae your use of language is overly POV. You have not realise it. (I didn't realise how apparently POV an article I wrote was until it was NPOVed lately. I stand over my interpretation, but I can see how the way I wrote things made the article appear as editorialising rather than outlining information.)

I think Novus Ordo Missae needs seriously toning down. Convince not by statement but by outlining all sides of the argument. If the 'right' side is as clear as you realise, the reader will spot it. And please do remember, most of the readers here aren't Catholic. Indeed most probably aren't Christian. Don't use language that to non-catholics may seem offensive or provocative. The more provocative and certain you are in your tone, the less likely you are to win people to your side of the argument. FearÉIREANN 18:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NAMBLA[edit]

As I saw that you edited Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal I would like to invite you to help with conflicts in the article about the "North American Man/Boy love organization" as well. Get-back-world-respect 20:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

non christian cross[edit]

i have seen more of trc's citations about stauros of the bible to be no more than an ordinary stake. what about yours?

non chistian cross[edit]

sorry, i mean rantaro.

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

No tape recordings[edit]

Raymond would never state that Scripture was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.It is true that it is not a full blown video audio recording of events as we now in our rationalistic world come to expect.But it is the living Word of God and speaks to us on many levels. We know for example that the only thing written about Jesus io his lifetime was the words written on the cross.And each account is different in the four Gospels.But no big deal to God.He allows these things because for the Lord what is important is do we love him ? Believe in him ? The eraly Christians remeber didn't have a written Gospel but it didn't harm them. The gift to us of the Word is indded as greater gift as any sacrament.Let us drink from it and receive life!

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]