Talk:Preterism/Archive 1

message: The anonymous 208.4.153.208 is now issuing threats. you are asking for legal trouble by continuing to allow the labeling of a large group of people as "heretics" - PRETERISM is a registered U.S. trademark and you continue to allow the mark to be denigrated and allow Dee Dee Warren to create business losses for our organization. Either put a stop to this negative attack on PRETERISM, or remove the definition completely from your website. I am tired of trying to negotiate with you guys and getting nowhere with you.
Any topic is open for reasonable NPoV articles on the Wikipedia.  Microsoft is a registered trademark, and yet there is no problem discussing the negative aspects of their business practices in the Microsoft article.  Stop issuing threats and start collaborating, if you want to have any hope of getting your point of view heard. Hu 19:41, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
:Using terms like "Orthodox" and "heretical" are inflammatory and denigrate those who are being described.  They also imply that whoever is not an "orthodox preterist" is an UNorthodox preterist. The least you should do is demand removal of these terms by boths sides and put a stop to this nonsense. 
::(This was originally a post from 208.4.153.208.  — Asbestos | Talk 22:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous 208.4.153.208 issuing threats 

message: It looks as though there is quite an edit war brewing here.  I just want to remind everyone to keep it polite, work together on this and don't bite.  I've added this article to my watch list and will protect if necessary.  Remember the three revert rule (and especially that it's about to get teeth!).  It's a lot better to work together and discuss changes than keep reverting.  That's all my unsolicited advice for today.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: Removal of the previous comment was uninentional - I was looking for a "reply" link somewhere and removed the contents thinking it would save the previous posts.  My apologies
:We usually just add replies below the last comment.  It's also useful if you sign your messages with: ~~~~.  This adds your id and the date and helps keep the page easy to follow.  You may also want to consider logging in.  This would give you an easily accessible talk page for discussions not directly related to the article (and also has other advantages, both socially and practically).  Keep talking -- sannse (talk) 23:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for being too quick in calling your mistake "vandalism." But do create an account and start logging in, or people will usually be more ready to view your edits as bad faith.  — Asbestos | Talk 23:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unintentional

message: Abestos, I found a few more entries using "orthodox" that I changed to partial in the spirit of comprimise.  Also you said "other known as orthodox preterism" that I changed to "otherwise known as" as the wise was omitted.  FYI - another full preterist who contacted me has some suggested changes and would like to work with me over the next ten days who contacted me in the spirit of collaboration a few days ago.  He however said what I had written was very "close" to being what he would agree to.  I think perhaps some of the more neutralizing statements I made may be what he was alluding to.  
Dee Dee Warren 23:30, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
:As I said, I know nothing about the subject, but it looks to me like your edits are on the side of NPOV. Also, to be nitpicky, I added nothing to the article - merely removed the second half of the contents of a bracket (the "other" was already there) :).  — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: we keep passing in the ether

message: BTW - the addition of the headings was a very good idea.  It makes the piece easier to follow.  BTW are italics allowed?  How are they done?  Dee Dee Warren 00:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Italics are done using single quotes - two for italics, three for bold. So this turns to this, and this turns to this.
:A good resource (still refered to constantly by myself) is The wiki markup.  — Asbestos | Talk 00:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Headings 

message: Another reminder here Anon - please sign your messages.  If you don't want to use the autosign, then at least put a signature of some sort after your text (simply "--anon" would be sufficient).  It is also not appropriate to call Dee Dee a "vicious hater.." or to make any other such personal attacks. Please keep it polite.  I'd urge you to look again at Dee Dee's proposal, or come up with one of your own.  It's important to accept that this article is not likely to ever be fully satisfactory to you, or anyone else with very strong views in this area.  That's the nature of collaboration and compromise.  Aim for an article you can live with, that your opponents can also live with, and that fully explains the issues to those like me without strong views either way.  And of course that follows the policy of NPOV.  By the way, you have mentioned a couple of times about admins overlooking this article -  I am one (among other roles - see my user page) but that does not give me special rights over the article content.  Admins have a very specific role here, which mostly means just allowing you all to get on with editing the article, although one of us will protect the article if necessary -- sannse (talk) 13:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: To Anon

message: As I feel strongly that my definition is correct the proposal is not fully satisfactory to me.  It is made in the spirit of compromise.  What is abundantly clear here is this:  Anon has produced a definiton that he claims supports his position, I have challenged it in historical context, which has not be responded to in any depth.  I have produced a definition by the two major Christian publishers, and Anon has given virtually no rebuttal except to say that why should we choose those over his? I can rejoin why should we choose his over those?  It is abundantly clear here as far as Wiki's policies go that there is no bright line and that the only way that both views can be satisfactorily represented is to recognize the common denominator that runs through all the definitions proposed - and that is that preterism deals with the past fulfillment of prophecy to varying degrees.  That does not violate any definition proposed.  Then in the subsections devoted to the opposing views, it can be factually stated  what each position is, even each position on the definition can be stated.  This is very NPOV and in line with the spirit of Wiki.
Here again is my proposal
Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies in varying degrees. The two major camps are popularly known as Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as preterists (partial or full).
I/we would then revise the partial and full sections to deal the issues of historicity, and we can include the "definiton" controversy as part ofthe factual statements of the positions of both sides. 
This is a compromise.  It is not what I would fully want, but I can live with it.  I do not see, and none has been presented, why one could not.  It is historicaly accurate,and accurately reflects that there is an issue with the definition to someone from a strict NPOV.  To be faithful to the NPOV we state the facts later of the controversy if it is important for the readers to know. --  Dee Dee Warren (sig added by sannse)
:This all sounds very good to me Dee Dee.  Anon - I strongly urge to you accept this, or to explain fully what problems you have with it.  In particular, Dee Dee has given alternative sources that indicate that the definition you supplied is not universal, and raised sensible questions about the validity or interpretation of the source you quote - so, perhaps you could agree that this needs to be explained in the article, and the alternative definitions included. -- sannse (talk) 14:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support the idea that this will be solved through compromise. Anon, if you don't like the proposed solution, in addition to explaining what you dislike about, please post an alternative compromise. Arguing against something is no good unless you also argue for something.  — Asbestos | Talk 15:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vis a vis my proposal 

message: Just had to throw my two full preterist cents in ...
I want to acknowledge that Dee Dee has been really good at accepting constructive criticism from myself and Asbestos over the past several days.  Dee Dee and I are currently discussing changes to this entry in order to make it acceptable to both full and partial preterists.  As one of the Admin types noted, neither side may like everything that will be in there; however, I am convinced that the resultant entry will be sensitive to history and take a NPOV.
For those who keep reverting the definition to reflect either a partial or full preterist bias, please, STOP.  Give Dee Dee, me, and others some time to work this out.
Have a great Thanksgiving!  :)
Mike Beidler 17:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Toward a Mutually Acceptable Definition 

message: Dee Dee:
Regarding polemic labels, I had considered that and am still open to it.  Just didn't want to cross that bridge quite yet.  But now that you've brought me there ...  I'd say that's a secondary issue that we can address once we've come to an agreement regarding the opening paragraph.  I hate to have those labels mentioned, but I understand completely where you're coming from.  I'll sleep on it.
DEE DEE TO MIKE:
Okay we can deal with it later - it seems like it really needs to be addressed at some point as it is really a major issue in the inter-relationship.  You know that I personally, as well as some other orthodox preterists, in our writings only use the polemical labels, and there are full preterist counterparts who do likewise.  So this is common enough that I think it needs to be addressed.
Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Re: the majority status statement ... I figured you might want to tweak that a bit.  Your version is better.  But change "contrary to Full Preterism" to read "in contrast to Full Preterism."  (BTW, do we want to captialize the various positions, or keep them lower-case?)
DEE DEE TO MIKE:
See what I put below in the revised proposal.  I think we should keep the designations consistently uppercase (but only in the "popular" titles, not in the alternate titles.... ie.  Partial Preterism versus orthodox preterism and Full Preterism versus consistent preterism).
Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Change "first century AD which they believe is inconsistently denied by Partial Preterists" to "first century AD; as such, full preterists believe partial preterists are being inconsistent in their hermenuetic, i.e., their method of biblical interpretation."
DEE DEE TO  MIKE:
Does the Wiki have an entry for hermenuetics?  If so that could be a link.  See what I propose below.
Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Change "There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, one of them being a variation of Partial Preterism which places fulfillment of some passagaes in the first three centuries encompassing the fall of Rome, and the other being a Preterism that denies the inspiration of the text in that while it agrees with the Full Preterists that all prophecy was predicted to be fulfilled within the first century, the Bible was simply wrong." to the following:
:"There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, the first being a variation of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some passages in the first three centuries culminating in the fall of Rome.  A second variation of preterism can be found in certain liberal schools of thought which hold that the the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation.  However, these prophecies never came to pass, thus proving the non-inspiration of the text and the non-divinity of Jesus Christ."
DEE DEE TO MIKE:
No problem with that.
Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Mike Beidler 21:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike's Response

message: It is also surprising or distressing when  you see an edit done when such a heated discussion is ongoing like the one that was just done (by a new person, not anyone on this discussion).  One change I have no issue with and the other I have issue with but I am not going to change it or worry about it as it will be discussed in the entire proposal - I object to "many" being changed to "some" - it is in fact "many" 
I will refrain from changing it now but I really wish that party would have discussed it here first.  It is so frustrating to see changes while a proposal is being hashed out.
Admins, I don't know if it is possible to "lock" the article for about a week to let us discuss it so that needless fire and confusion is not thrown in the middle of this.  I am a newbie so I don't know if such a request is inappropriate.
Dee Dee Warren 03:39, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
:It's easy not to notice that there is an active discussion on an article talk page - most people edit without looking at the talk page first, and only visit here when they realise there is a problem (this is generally just fine, in most cases there is no dispute anyway).  I won't protect, that would be outside the accepted uses for page protection.  But I have added a notice to the page to ask people to come here before making large edits.  Hopefully that will help -- sannse (talk) 12:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  a new edit done 

message: Oh my...you ARE arguing that the Princeton Scholars don't know what they are talking about, while YOU, a biast part of this discussion do!  As an FYI, I changed the article to match the definition given by Dr. Miller and Dr. Fellbaum from Princeton University.  Besides Webster, they are a neutral source of information and they are accurately defining Preterism.  You seem to be the only one disagreeing with not one, but TWO independent sources which define preterism accurately.  I am sorry you don't like it...these are facts.
MY RESPONSE:  
I will change the article back.  Your edit is inappropriate and I solicit the assistance of the admins.  You have not dealt with the historical and contrary information I have presented and have demonstrated frankly a belligerence here that I wish you would stop.  I am making the edit and messaging the admins.  You have not dealt with  my points.  There is not by any means a consensus on this, and Princeton didn't even spell Revelation properly.  Princeton's seminary being a known liberal seminary that denies inerrancy is hardly a neutral source - please deal with points forthrightly.  Zondervan and Nelson are written by our peers - conservative theologians.  It is ironic that you appeal to a liberal source you would reject on any other subject (I don't know if the two gentleman you cited have any theological view - I am speaking generally of the seminary).  There is no consensus, I have given solid evidence, and it is apparent that it is yuo with the agenda on the definition.
Dee Dee Warren 17:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
:Reading as an uninvolved party.  Dee Dee's explanation here makes sense to me.  The definition anon has added clearly describes some of the prophesies and not all.  It's also important to realise that dictionary definitions are limited for our purposes, they are simply too short to describe all the issues.  Of more use are longer articles, for example from another encyclopaedia.  Do either of you have a good (neutral) example of one of these? I'm going to revert anon's change, it is not a good idea to start the article with a quote from another source in this way -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh my