Talk:Bereans

message: Outside view requested. I'm an atheist, so I have no axe to grind either way about theological theories. I agree with DJ Clayworth that Emico's commentary doesn't adhere to NPOV; it's also original research.
However, there are actually many churches and ministries called "Berean" - including this historical one - all named for the Bereans of Acts 17:11, with the belief in common that Christians should actively search the scriptures for verification and reject religious stances that fail this test.
So it does make sense not to single out this particular one for a link. However, I'm coming to this conclusion on the basis of the available information, not on Emico's arguments. It's unacceptable for one user to browbeat others into removing a link because he/she doesn't like the theological claims expressed there. RayGirvan 16:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to see any of these links in the article. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go! tag teaming. Anyways, Mr Ray missed the point. Talk about etiquette butting in without first getting the whole story. Here's a summary; Mr DJ put a link of a website whose owner is unknown. I tried to find out who the owner is but there were no replies. I simply wanted the website owner to stand behind what he puts out on the web, put his name on it and be ready to defend. I was asking too much. These liar are never going to back up their claims. The website was spewing lies and me and Mr DJ being lovers of truth finally agreed to remove it. Besides, I did not 'browbeat' anything, the link was there and I simply said they won't stand by their claim. What so bad about that? I don't mind what they believe in, as long as they don't tell lies about another person. How about you Mr Ray? Has anyone tell a lie about you? Did you leave it alone? You're a fool if you did. Emico 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go! tag teaming. No: standard Wikipedia procedure for reaching a consensus on editing deadlocks. It would help to know what, precisely, are the lies you talk about. If it has widely agreed factual inaccuracies about religion (eg "the Catholic church was founded in Australia") tell us precisely how. If it's theological - at the level of your disagreeing with their belief that various Christian offshoots are cults, or their take on the triple nature (or not) of God - that's a matter of faith and opinion, and the Wikipedia stance is to report it neutrally. Read NPOV#Religion. As I said, however, the best reason not to include it is that it's one of many, and if the only way to find out more is original research, it's not policy to to include information found that way. RayGirvan 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the post. Thanks and have a nice day. Emico 18:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation: you won't tell us precisely what your objection is, because you know that would display it as POV nonsense. Have a nice day likewise. RayGirvan 20:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Emico, your edit violates origional research.  However the present page is a bit anodynly pro Berean.  If you can find one of the groups critisizing the Bereans then by all means quote them here.  Certainly I think it needs to be covered that the Bereans see themselves as defending the Nicean Council POV on the Trinity and groups that they label as cults for not accepting the Nicaean council regard the Bereans as non biblical because of it.  Finally the Bereans site has evangelical protestant written all over it (even if they don't come out and say so openly) so where do you get the idea they are Catholics?Dejvid 22:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette alerts 24 May

message: Source for history is wikipedia.org unless otherwise indicated.Emico 19:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm.. Wikipedia can't use itself as a reference.  Joe D (t) 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You mean, wikipedia entries are not reliable sources? Everything here is not factual? Wow, I really did'nt expect that. Emico 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no, I mean an article can't get facts from itself, in the same way a crane can not construct itself.  I have no idea if this article is factual, that's why I asked those involved in the dispute to cite their sources so that we can verefy if it's factual.  Joe D (t) 20:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Problem with this topic is that there doesn't seem to be much written about Berean churches and ministries except on their own sites. I'm just adding some material; maybe others can fill in detail? One aspect I haven't covered is that there appears to be a significant association of the term Berean with anti-Catholicism: Google around for Berean Beacon and Berean Call. Difficulty is, it's probably original research, as there's no documentation except on other POV sites. RayGirvan 20:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think it's ok. Most wiki articles are referenced like by other wikipedia articles. And once you drill down, the last referenced document would have reference to an outside source. It genius! Kudo's to wikipedia. Anyone can always challenge what I write, but then they would be hardpressed to provide reference from another source other than wikipedia. Emico 20:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not.  Are you sure you understand what a reference is?  Did you read the cite your sources link?  Joe D (t)
If you'll forgive a little background info, the original Bereans 'examined the scriptures', and are therefore used as a model for a lot of churches that are founded on the principle of sola scriptura (i.e. supreme authority of scripture). Sola scriptura organisations are often in opposition to the Catholic principle of authority (scripture interpreted by the church, plus church tradition). Hence a lot of churches with Berean in the name will probably be more or less anti-Catholic. My apologies if everyone knew that already. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That's what I meant by "other POV sites"; Bereans (and Dave Hunt) get a lot of mention at sites like Catholic.com. But how to tackle this without it heing an exercise in original research? RayGirvan 20:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: You know what Emico? Maybe I can't find the word 'disaffected' in any web reference about Barclay. Doesn't mean he wasn't disaffected of course, and it's very nitpicking, but I haven't got time to argue. However we should write 'former Presbyterian minister' because he obviously wasn't one at the time he founded the Bereans. DJ Clayworth
Fair enough. "Disaffected" doesn't seem an unreasonable description however; he went on to form his own church after disputes with his bosses and being denied promotion within the Presbyterians.  RayGirvan 10:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. AND personal opinions! So now, I nitpick. To avoid this back and forth, you should really practice what you preach. In my short time on wikipedia I've seen what I've thought of as reliable, fair contributors to mere selfish, biased posers. Can you cite the source where you where you find 'former'?  Emico 15:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the account above. To put it plainer, he was fired. RayGirvan 15:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I wish I have time, but now. Anyway, whatever you declare here is saved. I can comeback some other time. Emico 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: How simple do we have to make this? Former means 'used to be'. Barclay 'used to be' a Presbyterian minister; then when he founded the Bereans he wasn't one any more. I apologise if English is not your first language Emico, but this is really basic stuff. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very easy! Stick with the sources. On the source I provided, there was no mention of him being 'fired', former or disaffected. If you can point to a source that says these, then fine. If not, then it's an opinion and you're not practicing what you preach, plain and simple.  Emico 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The presbytery of Fordoun seized this opportunity of gratifying their spleen; they prohibited Mr Barclay from preaching in the kirk of Fettercairn, and used all their influence to prevent him from being employed ... The presbytery carried their hostility against Mr Barclay so far, as to refuse him a certificate of character, which is always done, as a matter of course, when a preacher leaves their bounds. He appealed to the Synod, and afterwards to the Assembly, who found (though he was in no instance accused of any immorality) that the presbytery were justified in withholding the certificate. He had no alternative, and therefore left the communion of the Church of Scotland.  RayGirvan 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. I guess you're pointing out "refuse him a certificate" means "fired"? I would ask, if he was already 'fired', why did he leave, "left the communion"?  Emico 16:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  'Refused him a certificate' essentially means they wouldn't provide a reference, which practically meant he would not get another preaching job in the church. 'left the communion' meant that he left the church, not just as a preacher but as a member. DJ Clayworth 16:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Under UK employment law, this situation is called constructive dismissal. If your employer deliberately makes your working conditions so impossible that you have to leave (ie you're frozen out of the job as Barclay was) it's treated as legally equivalent to being fired: hence my use of the word. BTW the Bereans page ought to make clear that he was formerly a minister's assistant, not a minister. RayGirvan 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did this law exist in John Barclay's time? If yes, then he was fire. If not, he was'nt fired. --Emico 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, but I think that as a junior clergyman in a church he might have still been a 'minister'. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nitpicking: constantly focussing on small and unimportant details in a critical way. When Ray said 'fired' he was trying to explain to you why we used the word 'former'. His explaining of the 'constructive dismissal' law was trying to explain why 'fired' was appropriate. Emico, you are focussing on something that is two steps removed from anything in the article.
Look the article is fine. Can we just leave it that way and stop arguing? DJ Clayworth 03:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does the 'no name-calling' apply to everyone, or just me? I know you spelled out my english is not so good, so you should know better the difference between 'fired' and 'leave' and I will not belabor it here. I just wonder why you are so cavalier about Mr Barclay's reputation. I don't know much about him, so I tend be a careful on how I potray him. That's the least I can do for articles I contribute to. If you think this is a small and unimportant detail, then suit yourself. I still think it's wrong. --Emico 14:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, Emico. You do make life difficult for your self, don't you. The point is unimportant because nobody said 'fired' in the article. It was us trying to explain things in simple terms to you. And in fact both are true because Barclay was fired (effectively) from a preaching job and then left the church.  DJ Clayworth 13:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, here's a condescending statement if I ever saw one. But you still cannot back up your claim that he was fired. Your own source he left. I wonder why you would reopen this issue now?--Emico 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me quote what I said above. "'Refused him a certificate' essentially means they wouldn't provide a reference, which practically meant he would not get another preaching job in the church.". So for practical purposes he was fired as a minister. Again quoting myself above, he was fired as a minister, and he then left the church. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want to prolong this. But let me just say that forcing someone to leave by some means may have the same effect as firing someone, meaning getting rid of the person. But they certainly are not the same thing. --Emico 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disaffected

message: I hate to wade into a pre-existing controversy, but this article has a long section beginning "Perhaps of greater importance is WHICH scriptures are being referred to here".
This section appears to be off-topic, and also does not seem to have a citation.  Since it is apparently an argument, not an encyclopedia entry relevant to the topic Bereans, I suggest it should be deleted. Geoffrey.landis 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to make the article a little clearer by adding topic headers for the biblical Bereans, the historical Bereans, and the scriptural discussion.  I did not delete, edit, or alter any of the text, just moved it to what (I hope!) is an easier-to-follow order.  Geoffrey.landis 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three weeks ago I suggested deleting the off-topic material.  Since there was no commentary opposing this (in fact, no commentary at all), I am deleting it now. (if you disagree with the deletion, go ahead and revert my 25 July edit.) Geoffrey.landis 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete OT material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bereans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025050750/http://www.thebereanchronicles.com:80/index.html to http://www.thebereanchronicles.com/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050422120441/http://bartleby.com:80/65/be/Bereans.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/be/Bereans.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205045220/http://www.catholic.com:80/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified