User talk:JustinEiler

From Errancy Wiki
Revision as of 04:36, 19 February 2011 by JoeWallack (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Koko351152 (Talk); changed back to last version by JoeWallack)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Please leave messages or comments for Justin here. While I promise to keep both positive and negative comments, obscenities will be edited.

Justin, would you like to be an admin for the ErrancyWiki? --Peter Kirby 19:45, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Peter ... that's a big step, and a big commitment. While I'm honored with the trust, I've got my worries about having the depth of scholarship necessary for that kind of responsibility.
Let me think about it, and I'll ge back to you tomorrow (Aug 22).
--JustinEiler 20:55, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Justin, congrats! You've been made an admin. The job description is:

1. Be an active member. Categorize things and create cross-links. 2. If you notice insults, edit appropriately. 3. If someone breaks the DPOV rule, block (ban) the user for the appropriate period of time. 4. Vote on issues that come before the administrative staff.

Voting among admins, such as whether to repeal a block, is generally by consensus (agreement of all). --Peter Kirby 04:36, 23 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Hello

Are you the same Justin (err, now Cup of Mystery) from TheoWeb? --Dead.hobbit 00:19, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Yeppers. Like the proverbial bad penny, I turn up everywhere.
--JustinEiler 08:28, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)
Cool. I've heard of some Wiccans doing their religous practices all in Hebrew? Is that simply a rumor, or is there some truth in that?--Dead.hobbit 20:24, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

None that I've heard of ... unless they're Hebrew, of course. However, there are a lot of Wiccans who also practice Kabbalah, or may mix Kabbalistic techniques or teachings in their practice. --JustinEiler 20:52, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Well it was something to do with the worship of Lilith, IIRC.--Dead.hobbit 22:16, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Warning Response

Hi Justin. I see absolutely nothing in my 1:8 article that insults Holding. Please identify to me exactly what you see as insulting. Thanks.


Joseph

(Note: I had to move Joe's response, as I had incorrectly set my "Leave me a comment" link.)

Responded to on Joe's talk page.



Warning To Justin

Posted by Justin:

"Joseph

Joseph, I made that post as just a member, but I am also one of the administrators of ErrancyWiki. Among other things, that means I have some measure of responsibility for enforcement of the rules, namely "Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic." Poisoning the well is not academic--and it's not witty. It's rhetoric, and I called you on it.
Now, if you have a problem with my post as a member, then I advise you to to rebut the points I make. And if you want to criticize my decisions in administration, I advise you to discuss the situation with Peter Kirby. But if you're going to complain about my phrasing, then may I suggest that your posts, not mine, belong at Tweb.
Oh, my bad--I forgot that this is exactly the kind of behavior that got you banned from TWeb.
In short, not one of the statements I made is false or inaccurate: most of your genealogical arguments are, indeed, tempests in teapots; in Matthew 1:6, you did make a mountain out of a non-existant molehill; you did use rhetoric to "poison the well"; and this argument against errancy is, indeed, a "ridiculous objection." You seem to forget--I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I am not arguing that the Bible is historically accurate, and I am most definitely not arguing for doctrinal authority. At the same time, I see absolutely no point in tilting against the windmills of the genealogies while ignoring the larger issues of context, style, and genre. And I most certainly see no point in objecting to one faith-based assertion with personal insult.
This wiki is not a forum for you to vent personal issues you have with other people--whether or not those other people are members. This is also not a forum for you to jape and jeer at the concept of Biblical inerrancy, but to discuss the topic in a rational and academic manner. If you are not capable of doing so, then I invite you to start your own web-site and post your arguments there.
This is not an "official" administrative warning--this is just telling you where things stand.
--JustinEiler 12:12, 26 Nov 2005 (CST)"

Justin, since you are not an Admin anymore I'm going to treat you as a Member. I will not tolerate Lies here:

":Oh, my bad--I forgot that this is exactly the kind of behavior that got you banned from TWeb."


JW: You are correct in saying "this is exactly the kind of behavior that got you banned from TWeb" but the Implication that I violated any Rules at Tweeb is a Lie. Dee-Dee Warren has temporarily banned me from Tweeb for doing the Same thing there that I do here - Point out Errors In The Christian Bible. The current Ban was prompted by my use of the Title:

"Gonna Roll Away The Stones And Win Father A New Pair Of Jews"

I intentionally used this Title at Tweeb because it is exactly the Same title I used for a Book Review at Amazon.com which they immediately posted (with the Title). Dee-Dee claimed that this title was antisemitic and has banned me before for similar Lies that I used a supposedly antisemitic phrase. When challenged she has never been able to provide proof of any antisemitic comment by me at Tweeb.

Note at this point I Am only saying you have posted a Lie. Not that you are Lying. Since I Am a First hand witness here to Dee-Dee Lying I've already decided that what you posted is a Lie. Don't waste time trying to convince Me it's not. You have until the next Sabbath to Investigate and decide if you want to retract and Apologize.


--JoeWallack 07:59, 6 Jan 2006 (CST)

For Proposals

I'm interested in covering some of the "Messianic" prophecies. Where would I categorize these? In "Contradictions"? (I.e. when the text does not seem to agree with NT interperetation). What if I wanted to show pro and con arguments? Would I only be able to show one side, and have someone else write about the other side?--Dead.hobbit 22:20, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Hmmm. If it's a conflict between an OT prophecy and a NT interpretation, then yes, that would be contradictions. If it's a conflict with either OT or NT prophecy that you assert didn't occur, that would probably be history. :Or you could just create a new category, "Messianic Prophecies"--if it gets busy enough, I'm sure Peter would promote it to being one of the main categories.
As far as Pro and Con ... to preserve DPOV, you're going to have to come down on one side or the other. If you want to note possible counter-arguments or loopholes in your argument (or just miscellaneous information), I'd put that down in Misc.
--JustinEiler 22:50, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. In Matthew everyone reads about the Virgin Birth passage. Taken by it's p'shat (plain meaning), it is fairly obvious that the author of Matthew took the passage entirely out of contexted and butchered it as well. However, one could make the case that Matthew was using the passage in a midrashic sense - that argument is presented by many Evangelists these days, and some Anti-Missionary sites concede it.--Dead.hobbit 22:40, 6 Sep 2005 (CDT)
Hmmm. Looks interesting--though considering that the author of GoMatthew probably didn't understand Hebrew or Aramaic, it's a bit difficult to buy that he was writing in a style peculiar to the Hebrews.
Which side of this particular debate do you, personally, come down on? If it were me, I'd stay with that side of the debate, but acknowledge the "on the other hand" arguments within my argument, thus noting that there is a possiblity that it's not as cut and dried as I present.
But that's just me--Peter Kirby's the Big Boss, and he may have a better idea of how to handle a situation like that. Give him a hollar and see what he says.
--JustinEiler 11:25, 7 Sep 2005 (CDT)


JW: In the Words of Baruch WillsUs in the classic "Die Hard", "Now I have a machine gun too. Ho ho hoo." Justin, I'd like to try and compromise on how we will interact as Administrators. I would suggest that in general we agree not to Unilaterally Edit the other's postings. If we have a dispute than I propose we let Peter decide for the time being.


Joseph

<editted to delete content>

Hello

Hi Justin, Thanks for the welcome. I am an agnostic, tending toward "weak" atheist, recovering Southern Baptist. Having been dosed with more than my prescribed amount of Biblical Inerrancy over the past thirty years or so I am delighted to find the Errancy Wiki. I have many friends who follow various Pagan paths, including my wife (Native American non-theistic spirituality) and my daughter and son-in-law (Asatru).

I actually agree with your "Con" argument against my Lev. 11:19 article but stand by my writing because the fundamentalists claim the Bible to be inerrant in its source documents (e.g., Tanakh for the OT). It stands to reason that if the Bible were truly inerrant Lev. 11:19 would read in the Hebrew more like it does in the Koine of the LXX, especially since the verse is presenting the Mosaic Law and was, allegedly, YHWH speaking directly to and through Moses.

Although I have some six semester hours of academic credit for courses in the Bible courtesy of a misspent education at a small Baptist university in Arkansas, I do not consider myself even an "armchair" Biblical scholar. Most of my recent online posting activities have been in the Evolution/Creation and Church-State Separation fora of the [Internet Infidels Discussion Boards] and I occasionally, but not often, write something worth reading on [Slashdot]. I also have this weakness that causes me to fire off letters to the editors of newspapers when I get sufficiently large doses of "pissed off" and "fed up" (usually in response to Op-Ed pieces on "Intelligent Design") :).

Again, thanks for the welcome and watch for more Biblical errata in the "Science" category.

--ninewands 10:42, 28 Nov 2005 (CST)

Deuterocanon

The Deuterocanon section seems to have been spamedited with scat porno... just to let you know.