Talk:Preterism/Archive 2

message: ===Proponents of Partial Preterism===  
*http://www.americanvision.org
*http://www.tektonics.org
*http://www.preteristlist.com  
===Proponents of Full Preterism===
*http://www.Preterism.com
*http://planetpreterist.com
*http://www.preteristarchive.com 
*http://www.livingpresence.org
*http://members.tripod.com/~kendavies/index.html
*http://www.preterist.org 
*http://www.Preterism-eschatology.com
*http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com
*http://www.eschatology.org
===Critics of Preterism===
*http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/august99.htm
*http://www.apocalipsis.org/Preterism.htm
*http://www.thingstocome.org
*http://www.tektonics.org/hythere.html
:Category:Christian eschatology
Dee Dee Warren
I suggest you post this Dee Dee.  You should remember though that there is no such thing as a finished version on Wikipedia so you can expect further edits to the article from other contributors.  But this looks good (although I have no knowledge in this area as I've said before) -- sannse (talk) 22:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/august99.htm
*http://www.apocalipsis.org/Preterism.htm
*http://www.thingstocome.org
*http://www.tektonics.org/hythere.html
:Category:Christian eschatology
Dee Dee Warren
I suggest you post this Dee Dee.  You should remember though that there is no such thing as a finished version on Wikipedia so you can expect further edits to the article from other contributors.  But this looks good (although I have no knowledge in this area as I've said before) -- sannse (talk) 22:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics of Preterism

message: Hi Dee Dee,I think your new intro is good. However, I worry that it was written with the current naming arguments too much in mind, and not so much with the aim of explaining the term and the various positions.
Partial Preterism is introduced, but only as a name, and with the note that it is named such in contrast to Full Preterism. We don't see what it does stand for, though. Full Preterism's position is explained, but the note that they belive PP's to be inconsistant is again confusing as you haven't stated their position.
Also, I'd change the line starting with "Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either Full Preterism or Consistent Preterism in an appeal to its claim...", as, again, this is describing the FP's as arguing for a name, instead of a position.
I think that it's good, but really the arguments on this Talk Page shouldn't make one think that the introduction is to be why the groups are named the way they are. Rather, the main focus shoud be about what the two groups believe, with a secondary emphasis on naming. I think this point is slightly brushed aside at the moment.
 — Asbestos | Talk 00:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Intro

message: Of course, writing the first stages of a Wiki entry on Preterism is nowhere near as sensational as putting a man on the moon ... but it could be more important.  So much for humility, eh?
I want to publicly thank Dee Dee for her invaluable assistance in writing this entry.  I am hoping that my Full Preterist brothers and sisters will understand what I've attempted to do in this (historic?) collaboration.  One of the great things about working with Dee Dee on this is that we were able to put down the theological fists and step back a bit to objectively view our respective positions, regardless of the light in which we found them.  There is nothing to fear in truth; indeed, there is everything to gain.
By no means, however, is this entry complete.  Both Dee Dee and I have plans to make it better: some additional Scripture references (not too heavy though), a recommended reading list, and some expansions on the varied beliefs within Preterism.  We will continue to e-mail each other with suggestions, and I would love to see others do the same without resorting to what I call a "Wiki-war."  The best thing to do, if you want to add or change something, is post it here on the Discussion page, or e-mail us.
As a sidenote, I'm editing the latest entry to fix up some typos that squeaked through the collaborative process (changing "bio-physical" to something else), and to eliminate a repeated paragraph (Preterism within Christian Thought was posted twice).
If anyone wishes to dialogue with me regarding this entry, feel free to e-mail me at InerrantWord@aol.com.  
Mike Beidler 04:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's One Small Step for Prets, One Giant Leap for Pret-Kind 

message: Kalos said:  Well, I understand what you are saying, but I just don't like that the current article makes it sound like the majority of Full Preterism's critics use both the creeds and the Bible itself. I am not sure that this is true. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, I don't know. I definitely believe that the phrase "claim to" is unnecessary and that we should avoid using "this view" twice in the same sentence. I would be happy with the article if it was reverted to the "many" version and these minor edits were made. At least for the time being. --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Kalos 

message: You are right about the claim to.  I was thinking of a different one.
Okay so I have no issue wiwth the "this view" redundancy fix.
I have no issue with the removal of "claim to"
I don't disagree with your insertion into the "many" paragraph on factual grounds.  You are in fact correct.  I am throwing up the cautionary flag that this WILL cause an edit war.  You see already how the lesser statement of "many" did.  I think if we three, two full prets, and myself agree upon the original many, since anon has not decided to join the conversation, we would have cause to switch it back and make those stylistic chagnes you suggested.
Dee Dee Warren 18:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Excellent!
:I agree that the best thing to do is to change "some" to "many" and make those other two minor edits (removing "claim to" an changing "this view" to "Full Preterism"). Thanks Dee Dee. What do you think, Mike? --kalos 19:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalo 

message: What do you think Kalos (sorry for dropping the S before)?
Dee Dee Warren 15:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
:No problem, Dee Dee. I am fine with what Mike suggested, but "by no means" is informal and for an encyclopedic entry is should probably be replaced with "not", in my opinion. --130.101.14.198 13:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalos 

message: Will one of you guys make the changes then?  I would prefer it not be me.  Also it appears that someone has went in and given a ton of information for the proponents of full preterism cites.  I really don't think that is necessary and looks like an advertisement - over the top - for the various sites/ministries (you guys know I don't consider them ministries, but yourselves and the supporters would).  Also, honestly, to just go in and do that for one side is inappropriate.  If I were to go in and give descriptives for one, I would do so for all.  This is not the place for us to be advertising "our side" in such a manner.  What happens when I go in and give a descrption for my site?  Everyone gets up in arms?  This is shameless site plugging and inappropriate.  It should be avoided by both sides.  This is not our billboard.
Dee Dee Warren 23:09, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Hi Dee Dee,
:I posted Mike's sentence with my minor edits. I do like it much better now. I don't know who posted the additional links, but I don't understand what is so upsetting about it. How do you know that the person who posted the links propagated "shameless site plugging" and was not simply trying to be informative? Even if this many links is bad wikiquette (I don't know if it is or isn't), don't forget Hanlon's Razor! So what do you want? Fewer Full Preterism links? More Partial Preterism links? I don't have a problem with either. BTW, I am 130.101.14.198 when my session expires. --kalos 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalos and MIke 

message: Hey Kalos, thanks for making the changes.  Hanlon's Razor applies when there is a possibility of stupidity - I use the Razor quite often.  Maybe it is just me but the links IMHO are supposed to be simple reference, not advertisements, but if you guys are fine with it, I will add the descriptives to the other side as well.  Notice I wasn't saying one side should have them and not the other, I was saying both should not - this is an encyclopedia style article, you never see such things in an encyclopedia or even in books that have endnotes "for further reference."  I can't speak obviously being quite a noob here myself, but I don't think, on a gut level, it is appropriate for a Wiki, which is why I didn't just rush in to put in taglines for the sites I would support.  Up to you guys, I just find it very unnecessary - Wiki isn't to advertise anyone's sites.  Listen, and I am saying this though I would derive DIRECT benefit from this, after all my site is listed.  I am championing a position that denies my own site advertisement.
Dee Dee Warren 18:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Hi again Dee Dee,
:First off, I did misunderstand what you were saying. I thought that you were upset that there were so many links under the Full Preterism section, and not under the others. I didn't realize that you were upset about the descriptions (didn't read close enough). Sorry. I don't know whether I think descriptions are helpful or not, but I lean towards not. Still, making assumptions about why someone posts things is a bad idea. The poster has now explained why he or she added the descriptions, and I'll be giving the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that the purpose was to advertise or do anything shamelessly. --kalos 21:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  response 

message: Anon (208 IP) who had stated that he was done participating earlier went in and reversed the changes that Kalos made without coming to discuss here.  That is not appropriate in light of the conversation here, and in light of the admins advice to discuss things here first - Kalos do you wish to reverse the changes?  I will do so if you like.  I will wait a few days to see if Anon (208 IP) decides to re-enter the conversation.
Dee Dee Warren 16:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I wish the changes to be reversed. It was much better before. It is silly that anon208 would simply say not everyone agreed when he (or she) was not willing to discuss it first and all who were did agree. Go for it, Dee Dee. --kalos 20:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Dee Dee (I don't have my account information here) 

message: ----
I was just wondering what you guys typically do: Do you just add it to the end and partially-quote what you are responding to?
Or do you respond in the related section, and after all your response make a quick mention at the bottom of what you have added to the discussion?
The reason I am asking is because I am used to using online forums where you can easily see what has been added since the last reading, and of course in the case of Wiki I can look at the "History" of the Talk page, which might not be necessary if there is a common way each of us are adding to this page.
Hope my verbose query makes sense. --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr)
----
:I try to respond in the section that I am responding to, unless there are already multiple sections of the same topic. --kalos 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re. Additions to this "Talk" page 

message: Not sure why you thought it necessary to remove the "Vine & Fig Tree" preterist page, since it has an often-overlooked "Why Does it Matter?" section, as well as some responses to others in the Preterist community - in other words it helps to answer questions that may arise to a person investigating the issue of Preterism in general, and Partial vs. Full specifically. Could it be because the focus of the site is other theological issues? Or, I must ask - with tongue firmly planted in cheek! - is it because the page begins with the Webster's dictionary definition implying "Preterism" is "Full"? ;) --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 18:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of Vine & Fig Tree? 

message: Good to have a name.  I removed Vine and Fig because they are a full preterist site.  If you wish to add them under the full pret list, then please feel free.  I didn't even notice the definition issue.  With John, I still think that is a bit much in comparison to the other entries.  Personally I think noting that he has a radio show briefly is fine - but this isn't a battle to die for IOW, you heard my opinion, whatever you decide isn't going to get a fight from me.  I think though it opens the door for others to come in and put in really long descriptives for their favourite sites, and it just will be mini entries on sites, not really an encyclopedia article on preterism generally.  But that is all you need to hear from me, I don't want to harp on a minor point.
Now, a more important issue is the recent change by Anon208 - without comment, and I think without justification.  The comment was that "all did  not agree."  Well all that are participating in this collaboration by posting in this discussion thread have since the issue came up.  Also one of your changes that definitely should not have been reverted is one of better grammar (would condemn, this view etc) and there should no zero controversy in that change.  The "many" is the issue, and we three were in agreement with a comprimise statement.
Thoughts?  I would like to change it back.
Dee Dee Warren 18:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Darren 

message: My entry above I got confused - I meant Kalos' changes, not yours Darren - so part of my comments were directed to Kalos.  Sorry about that confusion.  I think all can follow what I meant though.
In other words, the links issue was towards you leaving it in your hands.
The "many" change issue was directed towards Kalos and Mike.
Dee Dee Warren 18:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  whoops got confused 

message: Darren:  I see I neglected your question - I kind of do both, respond in the original message and also respond in a separate one.  The Wiki server is very slow for me for some reason lately so I have been just adding a response to the end.  
Kalos:  I will wait a bit to see if anyone else comments, and if not, I will change it back.  Perhaps Mike has something to add.
Dee Dee Warren 21:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darren and Kalos 

message: Thanks, Dee Dee I didn't realize I put Vine & Fig Tree under "Partial", to be honest he says outright he is still investigating so doesn't call himself either, but he attacks the ways Partials are attacking Fulls as ignoring Scripture etc. so that is why he may appear to actually *be* a Full. To me this is a good resource since it is the closest thing to an objective voice in the Preterist community - including some email exchanges re. the differences, rebuking some who have called for formal excommunication based on the Creeds, etc... Much to be learned by seeing what both sides say - in this case on a single site.
re. John Anderson - I thought the description was helpful not to say it is the greatest thing (or especially "this author's favorite") but rather to explain why it is so valuable. The reason I would suggest this resource over nearly all others is that his radio program has BOTH Partial and Full Preterists on regularly... And includes debates with Futurists (pre-trib, amill, etc.) and the programs are archived for at least the last 6 months or so.
re. posting in Talk:... - I've got a slow connection or something too, or at least the Wiki server is slow in responding, so I think from now on if I've got a few different things I'm going to respond to I'll just do this - add it to the end and paraphrase what I am responding to, unless of course my memory is shot. I am presuming, however, that most of us still click the "history" tab to see what is new since we last posted something... In the way I have just described, I guess I'll do that, but only once will be necessary then I can see what answers I need to provide, questions I need to ask, etc.
(apologies for my verbal diearea ;) ) Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  responses to my queries 

message: As a totally disinterested third party (I'm Jewish, it's all heresy to us!), I want to express my appreciation for the way the editors having been working through their disagreements to come up with an article that's informative, balanced, and interesting. Sure, sparks have flown occasionally (how can they possibly not on such a subject?), but the net result shows to me how well the Wiki concept can work. Keep it up! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A view from the peanut gallery 

message: Whoever you are, I'd love for you to identify yourself by name. Obviously, you're a full preterist, as am I. However, a major difference between you and I seems to be that your skin isn't thick enough to face the fact that MANY Christians who are eschatologically educated deem full preterism to be unorthodox. 
Your point that Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church and were originally considered heretics is well taken; but, of course, there doesn't exist a Church (capital "C") that embodies all truth to which we can appeal, so we are left with the PERCEPTIONS of Church members. Those perceptions, while based on the Creeds and not necessarily correct, exist nonetheless. Face the facts, you "heretic." It would be nice to have some company.  ;-) 
And please know that Dee Dee is not making a personal attack with this Wiki entry. She is not using this entry to make you look bad. You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it yourself. 
Also, your assertion that the Catholic Church wouldn't think full preterism is heresy is simply groundless. Using The Catholic Encyclopedia as your authoritative reference is like someone using Shelby Spong's books to prove your point. Why not use the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly states that it looks forward to a future, bodily return of Jesus to this earth, as well as a physical resurrection? If an archbishop told the pope he was a full preterist, the College of Cardinals would be voting for a new pope soon as a result of his fatal heart attack. (If the RCC were to embrace full preterism, its Magisterium would lose all authority. To take a view completely the opposite of what it's been preaching for centuries would be death to the RCC's power. It ain't gonna happen.)
 
Mike Beidler 21:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike's Response to the Anon Full Preterist