Talk:Another Gospel/Archive 1

2465:

be something that focuses on the commonality in mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Eastern thought, e.g. the Nicene Creed. At least that's the sense I understand authors like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton using it. So you could probably find a quote from one of them illustrating the term. And although this book is not notable enough to have received third-party commentary, there's plenty on Lewis and Chesterton, so someone somewhere probably addresses their use of the term "orthodox". This author seems (not having read this book) to be on the moderate wing of the counter-cult movement, which accepts Catholic and Eastern churches and the bulk of historic Protestantism (whether Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican or so on) as "orthodox". There is also a more extreme wing that rejects e.g. the historic Catholic and Eastern churches as non-"orthodox" "cults", and even historic Protestantism they theologically disagree with (an Armininian and a Calvinst might each consider the other to have "another gospel"). So on that basis, I think this author is using it in a similar way to Lewis and Chesterton. --

3619:— I believe the editing process for this page is back on track — through the constructive efforts and hard work of many people (which is, of course, as it should be). There will obviously continue to be ongoing discussions about ways to improve the content further, but it appears to me now that this can be accomplished in a regular fashion and that this page no longer requires extraordinary attention or oversight to any greater degree than the average Knowledge (XXG) article does. While it certainly couldn't hurt to get even more editors interested in and improving this page, I propose that it may be OK now to close the formal RFC and allow work here to continue normally. What do others think? 2517:

use it. Its not immediately clear what "orthodox Christianity" means, since the term has many different definitions. If they themselves don't define it, and there are no third party sources discussing their use of the particular term, we need to either (1) refer to third party sources that discuss the range of meanings the term is used in generally, and identify one of those meanings with that of these authors, or (2) strike all mention of the phrase "orthodox Christianity" from our discussion of this work. If as your argument that (1) violates

31: 748:

add some rudimentary explanation for entities like Regent College, Zondervan, and the origin and connotations of the phrase "another gospel" — not as a means of belittling these things or biasing the reader against them, but with a view toward lifting the page up from its current condition (IMO, really not much more than an insider book review) and transforming it into an encyclopedia article.

1908: 507:

and the other is 100% right. Again, I think it would be helpful if we could get some other people (more neutral than either you or I) involved in this discussion. What would you suggest as a good way to accomplish this? Should we try one of Knowledge (XXG)'s various dispute resolution procedures? Should we ask editors in one or more projects to get involved?

2569:(this phrase is instantly identifiable by the intended readership as an allusion to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of first-century heresies in his New Testament writings — an observation which, to be sure, we haven't been able to make in the article because a suitable source hasn't been located yet). Failing to mention that one of the things Tucker does in 3084: 2867: 2633: 2431: 2343: 2207: 2088: 3478:, if your going to add something you need to be able to back it up, with a source, a reliable source. You cant go around adding your POV on artcles. I agree with User:Cirt, but if the other user can find a reliable source he should add it here and then you guys and can discuss whether its reliable enough to be in an encyclopedia. 2393:. I agree, of course, that a citation to a reliable source confirming the existence of ambiguity and concern over what various people mean by "orthodox Christianity" would be highly desirable. Do people feel that a general source of this type (not necessarily one referring specifically to the use of the term by Ruth Tucker in 420:, which I consider to be excessive. Cirt and I evidently do disagree, not only on what should be in this article, but also on the interpretation of some WP standards and policies, but threatening to have someone blocked at this stage of the game is (IMO) premature and not conducive to constructive improvement of the article. 1389:

Eastern Orthodox Church would take special exception to Protestants of any variety staking a claim on this phrase as referring to themselves; the NPOV principle really demands that the term either be replaced with something else, or else quoted and respectfully flagged as representing the author's opinion.

2841:

Jehovah's Witnesses; Christian Science; New Thought and Unity; the Worldwide Church of God; the Way International; the Children of God; the Unification Church; Hare Krishnas; Bahá'ís; and Scientology. Although Knowledge (XXG) policy calls for articles to be supported principally via secondary sources,

1367:

intended audience of the book will instantly recognize it as a "counter-cult" work). Also, it is appropriate to briefly describe Regent College (an institution possibly familiar to many evangelicals, but not generally known to others) in order to understand the context and significance of saying that

3836:

In my view, listing individual university courses that have included this book on their reading lists, as well as listing other works citing it, is puffery, and something we do not usually do. Some books have hundreds of citations, and it's just not good sense to list them all. Moreover, in Ankerberg

3497:

We can't say that the book is written from an "evangelical" perspective, or that the publisher is an "evangelical" publisher, as Richwales tried to do earlier, unless there are sources saying so. So Cirt is right to resist you there, Rich. You can't change the text and leave the old sources in place.

2845:

does permit a limited use of primary sources "only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" — an exception which would reasonably seem to allow the inclusion of a list taken directly from the table of contents. I would therefore support

2464:

Richwales, I think some information explaining the concept of "orthodox" as the authors use it would be good. I don't think you'll find other sources discussing their particular use of the term, but you could probably find some other authors that use the term in the similar way. Often its intended to

1457:

then it goes back to Cirts version. I think everyone deserves a chance, you both are passionate editors just looking for the best for this article. Richwales if you fail to provide a or any source your work will be reverted (may I recommend you add multiple sources). I hope I got this right and good

3782:

I have no objection to closing this RFC — though I'm not going to demand that it should be closed if others still want to keep it open. Note, in any case, that the original problem (as far as I was/am concerned) was never about specific disagreements with content, but rather about whether we had an

2545:

I was hoping that adding a link to the existing "orthodox Christianity" disambiguation page in a "See also" section might suffice to give the reader a neutral basis for understanding the term and its inherent ambiguities. It might possibly also be justifiable to wikilink the phrase within the quote

2375:

Thanks. The portions of that paragraph (in the opening sentence) about how the groups discussed "seem to meet people's needs" and "strive for religious respectability" are just as POV as the assertion that they "deviate from orthodox Christianity", and these comments should also be quoted as in the

747:

might feel impelled to "reach out to", etc. — but at the very least, there need to be some reference points provided for a reader who may not be conversant with this perspective and its particular set of tacit assumptions. I believe it's perfectly appropriate, and not at all POV-pushing, to want to

3562:

At a quick look through, the only serious fault I can see is the reference to orthodox Christianity. This is POV. "orthodox" is a value judgment, an opinion. Every single form of Christianity claims to be orthodox, and pretty well all reject at least some others as unorthodox. NPOV means not taking

2516:

If we are going to quote the authors using a term such as "orthodox Christianity", it must either be clear from the context what the authors mean the term to use (e.g. if the term is universally understood, or if they themselves give a definition), or else we must be able to define the term as they

1393:

I will concede that I could have done a better job of providing sources for my material, but I take exception to the accusation that my edits constituted crude blundering or malicious vandalism and deserved to be rebuked with what I perceived as a level of brusque, contemptuous ferocity that I have

1332:

I did complain about this page and did nominate it for deletion on the basis that (in my opinion) the subject was non-notable and the article was irredeemably POV. I was overruled, and I accept this. Since the page is going to remain, I want to see it made more neutral and encyclopedic, including

632:

a piece of common knowledge to most readers of the book may make it that much less likely that any source (other than a hopelessly POV source intentionally ridiculing the book) can be found. I find myself very close to suggesting that this may be one of those exceedingly rare cases where we should

3019:

says that when putting a link into a "See also" section, we "should provide a brief annotation ... when the meaning of the term may not be generally known" — a condition which certainly applies to a Latin phrase like this which is not commonly used or understood. And even if we disagree regarding

2826:

This source says that "Appendices describe lesser-known cults, such as Swedenborgianism and Rosicrucianism". So, the article text saying "less active groups are also analyzed" might be more properly worded as "lesser-known groups are also described" or something similar. I would caution that the

1700:

I also have concerns about the value of this source (it's basically just a summary or mini-review) and its neutrality (it is, after all, part of an online store site run by or for the publisher of the book in question). Especially if this one item is being relied upon so heavily as the primary or

1382:

might feel a desire or need to "reach out to" is (in my view) heavily POV. These phrases could be included as direct quotes (assuming they are) — and/or neutral wording could be added to make it plain that these phrases reflect the viewpoint of the author and those who share her religious faith —

506:

You and I both clearly have strongly held opinions here. I feel you misunderstand my motivations and are overreacting — and I imagine you probably feel I'm distorting your views and have a hidden agenda — and I doubt either one of us is willing to simply back down and concede that he's 100% wrong

412:

neutral and encyclopedic, in part by making it more comprehensible to readers who may not share, understand, or even be aware of the evangelical Christian perspective of the book's author. In my view, keeping edits of this sort out of the article presents a greater risk of POV-pushing than making

2186:

That sentence probably isn't really necessary anyway, and the best way around the POV question would be simply to take it out. If you feel it just has to stay, then at a minimum, the last part of the sentence (the part most objectionable on NPOV grounds) should be replaced by the following exact

1388:

Certain phrases need to be modified for greater neutrality. For example, "orthodox Christianity" implies that a certain variety of Christian faith is correct and others are not — which is why I attempted to replace it with "mainstream or evangelical Christianity". Note, too, that members of the

1340:

I will also freely acknowledge (as indicated on my user page) that I am a believing, practising member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a "Mormon"). My own religious beliefs may make me more sensitive than some to possible bias in this article — something which, indeed, may be

623:

As for the question of an explanation of the book's title as being an allusion to Galatians 1:6, I will concede that I haven't been able (yet) to find a source explicitly spelling out this connection. This frustrates me to no end, because I strongly believe not only that this reference is common

3429:

backed up with sources is to counter the claim (made earlier in the talk page) that I was abusing this talk page and trying to use it as a discussion forum on the article's topic. In my opinion, I was in fact using the talk page correctly, with a view toward improving the text of the article by

2840:

The specific list of "groups and individuals" listed in this section doesn't occur anywhere in the Zondervan ad page, as best I can tell. The actual table of contents from the book itself shows chapters for the following twelve groups (in the following order): Mormonism; Seventh-day Adventism;

423:

I would like to request a careful and reasoned discussion of these issues, preferably involving editors who have not been involved so far (and, in particular, editors other than Cirt and myself). I'll also stop my efforts to work on this article for the time being, in order to clear the air and

2820:

on the web site of the publisher, Zondervan) says the book is a comprehensive survey of alternative religions, "including the new groups since the 1960s". It doesn't say the book "focuses on groups active since the 1960s" — so it would appear that this statement is not only not true, but (more

2243:

The original reference to "orthodox Christianity" is indeed POV. Unfortunately, removing the word "orthodox" and changing the wording to say simply "Christianity" is just as POV, because different groups have widely differing views on what "Christianity" is. (Mormons, SDA's, and several other

1366:

Certain insider references in the article need to be explained in a balanced manner for an "outsider" audience. For example, readers may not be aware of the significance of the book's title (the Apostle Paul described heresies within early Christianity as "another gospel", and as a result, the

984:), it is appropriate that they should be made aware — in a neutral fashion — of where the book is "coming from". To fail or refuse to acknowledge this in any way would make the current article an "insider piece" at best, and a piece of POV, pro-evangelical apologetic/polemic writing at worst. 717:), in order to make the article more accessible to a general audience. In my view, the article (as it currently stands) is an "insider piece" that relies way too heavily on an assumption that the reader is familiar with (and perhaps even embraces) a mainstream/evangelical Christian perspective. 559:

wikiproject crowd for opinions re: whether it's appropriate for this article to be edited (and, if so, how to edit it) so as to make the evangelical viewpoint of the book plain (or plainer), but without thereby pushing either a pro- or anti-evangelical position — or whether the article is truly

135:

When you use the expression "orthodox Christianity" it links to an article on the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. Protestants use the expression "mainstream Christianity". You could also say "traditional Christianity" to mean the same thing, that is churches which believe in the standard

1371:

is included in its curriculum. I would also suggest (though I did not do so earlier) that a brief parenthetical comment explaining what Zondervan is would be helpful to the general audience — again, not with a view to belittle or marginalize this or other evangelical Christian institutions or

1142:

will not therefore allow me to do so, but I would like to suggest that it would be of considerable assistance to some other Third Opinion Wikipedian who might be considering taking this request if the dispute could be made quite a bit more specific and could focus on particular edits or texts,

274:

or balanced viewpoint. Calling a non-mainstream group a "cult" is inherently a highly POV statement, and just because a religion disagrees with tenets of present-day mainstream Christianity does not automatically mean mainstream Christian belief is right and the other group is wrong. If this

2579:

I agree with SJK that finding, and citing, secondary sources which discuss the term "orthodox Christianity" in the context of the Christian countercult movement in general — without necessarily restricting ourselves exclusively to sources treating this phrase in this one book alone — would be

2893:

That edit didn't address the issue of the specific list in question being unsourced w/r/t the cited source (the publisher's page). I've replaced the long list with a new version that closely matches (and is sourced to) the actual table of contents of the book. See my earlier comments for a

2683:

I've reinstated the phrase "rather than in terms of belief or by any standard of orthodoxy". This use of "orthodoxy" is not ambiguous or problematic in the same way that the phrase "orthodox Christianity" is. And Tucker's theological quarrel with the groups in question needs to be clearly

1838:

of people, not just you and I) can discuss these things in more detail. But I feel it's crucial to get more people (from many different positions — evangelicals, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox, and possibly even Scientologists) discussing this page and trying to reach a broad consensus.

1743:

of the material in question. Much of it is extremely controversial, and yet I feel it is being reported in the current article as if it were a set of objective facts. I don't doubt that the Zondervan e-commerce page does in fact say the things it's being cited as saying, but I

1820:

say that any challenge to material is out of order unless it's immediately substantiated by sources provided by the challenger. I will try my best to find additional sources representing as many views on this topic as I can, but you and other editors need to be doing that

1093:

I'm also going to hold off on any further comments of my own for now, until after we've had a third opinion (or after it becomes apparent that no third opinion is forthcoming). Please don't anyone misinterpret my failure to respond as meaning anything other than this.

2560:

Omitting entirely the portion of the quote that uses the phrase "orthodox Christianity" would be a mistake because Tucker's theological objections to the teachings of the groups in question is at the core of the reason for her book. Indeed, this is almost certainly

641:

a policy!) and add the explanation on the basis of its obvious truth, even if it can't be formally verified. Again, I'd really like to see comments from other people here, so no one out there will get the idea that either Cirt or I could be trying to claim

742:

I certainly could take issue, from a neutrality standpoint, with the way the article currently talks about "cults" that "seem to meet people's needs", "strive for religious respectability", clash with "orthodox Christianity", have members whom readers of

3872:

sentence supported by the citations: e.g., "The book has been cited in other scholarly works and in university coursework." I don't see any need to even summarize, however, unless as a counterpoint to its notability being seriously questioned elsewhere.

2573:

is to explain her disagreements with the beliefs of the groups she is denouncing — albeit mentioning this in a neutral fashion that doesn't make it sound like Knowledge (XXG) is endorsing or tacitly accepting her POV — would seriously unbalance this

3339:

Going forward, sources should be proposed if changes are going to be made to the article - barring that, we cannot make random changes based on the POV of individual editors. We should instead rely on proper sourcing, which already exists in this

1765:, its targets, or any other religious-based apologetic / polemic undertaking is inherently controversial basically by definition — we have a right and a duty to insist on a balanced spectrum of sources, both sympathetic and hostile to the subject. 773:

Yes, I'll admit that I had (and perhaps still have) reservations about this article and its suitability for Knowledge (XXG). However, the consensus was that the article should stay — and I accept that — and I'm remaining involved with the page

266:

to merit its own article. There have been many, many books written by evangelical Christian authors which have attacked other religious/spiritual groups with differing beliefs; what is it about this particular book that makes it so special?

2376:

source (and explicitly marked as quotes via quote marks). Also, the part about "reaching out" to members of these groups is already included in the existing quote, making the statement in the first sentence of the paragraph superfluous.

2525:

holds, then I feel (2) is our only other option. On the other hand, one could take a more liberal interpretation of those policies, say one which focuses more on the spirit than the letter; or even invoke yet another of our policies,

193:

As I understand it, the expression "orthodox Christianity" is being used here to refer to "mainstream Christianity", also known as "traditional Christianity", rather than to its more common meaning of "the Eastern Orthodox Churches".

3057:

as the only infallible source of Christian teaching" is a fair summary of "sola scriptura". Cirt, what particular POV are you accusing Richwales of pushing in that edit? His annotation seems quite neutral. And I also agree, that per

1518:

I would ment just let him look for reliable source and if he finds them disscuss it here before an edit war breaks out okay. The talk page is a great place to discuss and come up with compromises. I would like to remind tou guys to

1377:

The way the article currently talks about "cults" (a pejorative term in and of itself) which "seem to meet people's needs", "strive for religious respectability", clash with "orthodox Christianity", and have members whom readers of

2550:

giving the reader any guidance for finding out what Tucker means by "orthodox Christianity", we would be unhelpful, and possibly even contributing to confusion if some readers were to start wondering if the reference might be to

3498:(I've added a little on the author and publisher, sourced to the publisher's website.) My comment on the article as a whole would be that it makes thin sources go a long way; once we're reduced to listing books that have merely 2401:

is unlikely to exist: friendly sources would probably overlook the matter because they themselves would likely use "orthodox Christianity" in the same way, and (without making any suggestion of a new deletion debate) I suspect

3377:

I admit I've had concerns about the appropriateness of this page and did seek to have it deleted. But since I was overruled and the article is going to stay, I want to make it as good a Knowledge (XXG) page as possible. I am

2291:

by including a footnote alerting the reader that the phrase "orthodox Christianity", in this context, should not be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Possibly something like the following preliminary draft proposal:

2546:

itself: yes, I know we are generally discouraged from adding links within quotes, but linking to what is clearly a disambiguation page is not imposing an inappropriate outside interpretation in this case. If anything, by

1786:

in particular. One of the things I am working on in my proposed reworking of this page is to add something (with sources, don't worry!) explaining the connection between this book and the Christian countercult movement in

2258:

used (some would say misused, but whatever) not only in the Zondervan ad page, but also in numerous places all through Tucker's book itself — while at the same time making it plain to the general reader that (1) Tucker is

3393:

I have been working on it for less than a day and still need to do a lot of work hunting down good-quality sources to cite. Hence, it's premature to say at this point that I'm not even trying to substantiate my

2614:. Secondary sources have not discussed the term usage in the context of how it is used in this book. That would just be the POV of the individual Wikipedian that would be supposing to add it in to this article. 1087:

Thanks. I'll hold off, for the time being, on trying to bring in people from projects (in deference to the "third opinion" ground rule that they only want to get involved in disagreements involving exactly two

3365:

I am attempting, in good faith, to improve this article. It is currently, in my belief, a heavily POV "insider" piece — not much more than a friendly book review — which requires significant work in order to

229:

is often lauched against the Roman Catholic Church by Protestant fundamentalists. I know this may sound controversial, but it is fairly common to hear Protestant pastors claim that the Catholic Church teaches

3408:

My position is (I believe) fairly well, and reasonably carefully, explained in my comments included earlier in this talk page (prior to this RFC call). I hope people will take the time to read that material.

1356:

was written from a mainstream or evangelical Christian perspective. I believe it is essential to make this explicitly clear — not as a means of pushing an anti-evangelical POV, but rather with a view toward

2122:

I expanded on the idea of using quotes for the description (last paragraph of the "Contents" section), in order to denote clearly what the source (as opposed to Knowledge (XXG) itself) is saying and promote

2278:

by sticking to exact quotes from the existing source (the Zondervan ad page), and/or from the front flap of the book itself (the primary source upon which the Zondervan ad page is based); (2) preserving

2300:

spawned historical heresies"; "highlights important controversies within each movement as it aims for religious respectability"; describes how the doctrines and practices of these groups "deviate from

2251:

page on Zondervan's e-commerce web site) — so saying that various groups' "practices and beliefs are compared and contrasted with those of Christianity" is, strictly speaking, an unsourced statement.

980:

or evangelicalism is bad on account of the above view. I am simply saying that in order for average readers to properly understand the book and its significance in the appropriate context (again,

3787:) of disagreements about content. I think there are still some things left to be done on this page, but that is not (in and of itself) a reason to keep an RFC open. We all need to remember that 819:

this page, any more than I do), so I'm going to approach a few relevant projects and ask some more people to get involved. (Don't worry, I won't ask the Scientologists — at least, not yet.)

2130:

I also added a statement from the book defining cults in a theological sense (a group with a "prophet" giving an extra-Biblical message). Since we're supposed to give preference to reliable

3502:

another book, or listing individual university courses that have added the book to their reading list, we are operating at the very limit of what we can reasonably ask sources to do for us.

628:

for the article to explain the use of this verse as the basis for the book's title for the benefit of readers who may be largely unfamiliar with the subject. Ironically, the fact that this

161:

She pinpoints how the doctrines and practices of a dozen contemporary groups—as well as the New Age Movement—deviate from orthodox Christianity and shows how to reach out to cult members.

1701:

sole source for so many things in the article, I would hope we could improve on the quality by finding more sources (from diverse places) to fill out and balance the page's foundation.

3195: 1212: 469: 1748:

believe many of the things being said are one-sided (and, if left to stand by themselves, constitute blatant POV-pushing even if they are backed up by a friendly source or sources).

2801:

Most of the groups have been active before the 1960s, in the case of the Mormons before the 1860s. And why are the last two singled out? As far as I know they are still around.

2325:

Perhaps Cirt or someone else will have a better idea for improving this part of the article in keeping with WP policies and a proper treatment of the subject. Comments, anyone?

3767:

To my understanding, this issue has now been resolved to the satisfaction of involved editors. Does anyone disagree with that statement? If not, can we declare the RFC closed? --

3710:. Its a very broad and confusing term, and how can we quote the usage of such a term without giving the reader the means to explain how it is meant in the context of the quote? 2487:

an accurate analysis of what is going on, but we as Wikipedians cannot come to that conclusion ourselves as to what the author has said - or use sources to interpret that that

2688:

if we were to convey the impression to the reader that the author's objections were principally about authoritarianism, lifestyle, aggressive recruiting tactics, and such.

1719:

Please be more specific. Do you doubt the veracity of any statements in the article that this source is supporting? Why? What other sources can you provide to dispute this?

3671:

OK by me. If there is a consensus that this page would benefit from a continued degree of extra visibility, I don't have a problem with keeping the RFC open for now.

3723:

find another source, which while not specifically discussing this book, discusses the range of meanings of the term, and then decide to apply one of them to this book

1694: 157: 2389:

I still say that the mention of "orthodox Christianity" — despite now being part of a direct quote — needs to be qualified or footnoted in some way for purposes of

606:

from the school's own web site adequately substantiates this claim and would be acceptable as a source. Comments on this (either from Cirt or from anyone else)?

3374:, and treat the subject fairly and neutrally without making Knowledge (XXG) itself imply by omission that the book's viewpoint is correct and uncontroversial. 1341:

desirable in an editor in order for the article to be fair and neutral. Again, I am not operating under any sort of covert mission to sabotage this article.

1593:

Yes, thank you. I'm working on a draft revision of the article (in my personal namespace) and should hopefully have it ready for comments in a day or two.

1022:. I have added that review into the article. Curious that you are able to find these sources now, but were unable to do so during the AFD you nominated in a 1337:

and stop insinuating that my earlier AFD request implies that I surely must now be acting on some ulterior motive or hidden agenda to vandalize this page.

602:

As for the question of a source for the statement that Regent College is a graduate school of Christian studies located in Vancouver, I would propose that

3382:

trying to sabotage or vandalize the page and am distressed at the continuing implication that I must somehow be acting in an ulterior or disingenuous way.

2263:

using this phrase to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and (2) Knowledge (XXG) itself is not taking sides by embracing any specific religion as being

2414:

that would be bothering to take the time to critique this book's use of "orthodox Christianity" as meaning something different from Eastern Orthodoxy.

275:

article is to remain at all, it needs to acknowledge that Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, and many others will have serious disagreements with it.

1834:

need to get more editors involved with this page ASAP. I am going to continue working on my proposed revision (the draft in my namespace), and we (

3814:

closing of the RFC. It has only been open for one week. Per the normal RFC processes, a bot will come by to close it after a period of inactivity.

1697:

from Zondervan's web site). As best I can tell, this one source is currently cited in six different places within the first half of the article.

1139: 3706:

As per my other comments below, I oppose quoting their use of the term "orthodox" unless we can explain in the article what they mean by it, per

2254:

We need to come up with a way of handling this that remains true to the wording of the sources — since the exact phrase "orthodox Christianity"

2247:

Simply dropping "orthodox" is also a problem because, in fact, the phrase "deviate from orthodox Christianity" comes directly from the source (

408:, I take issue with his claim that my recent edits were "blatant POV pushing" or "completely inappropriate". I was trying to make the article 84:

No. They are either later editions of those works, or this is a later edition of this book and it was published previously. I will check...

3259:) is an appropriate review of the book and proper source. I promptly then added that source into the article. It is interesting to note that 1333:

making the subject matter more accessible to a general audience. I'm acting above board here, and I respectfully request that other editors

1268:) is an appropriate review of the book and proper source. I promptly then added that source into the article. It is interesting to note that 3405:

say that any challenge to existing material is out of order unless immediately substantiated by sources provided by the challenger himself.

1312: 1892:

Evidently this page has problems with users understanding that article talk pages are intended to suggest sources to improve the article,

2835:) except where very clearly marked as quoted material or as someone's opinion — so the existing word "groups" in the article should stay. 1930:. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Another Gospel/Archive 1 at the 2063:", citing source 2. I think the "international" would add value, and the "Vancouver, Canada" bit is redundant (we have wikilinks). -- 2033:

The reason I want to add the above is that I believe it is important to provide some explanation of Regent College in furtherance of

1782:. A statement or source may easily be relevant even if it discusses the "countercult" issue generally, but not necessarily the book 2766: 174:

With that information the meaning is clear to me, however some people might think the article was talking about the Eastern Church.

1969:

In the "Reception" section of the article, I propose to add the following parenthetical comment after the name of Regent College —

853: 3516: 919: 3926:, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section. 3648: 3333: 3316: 3270: 3249: 3215: 3187: 3165: 1863: 1618: 1483: 1423: 1279: 1258: 1228: 1204: 1186: 843: 483: 450: 373: 307: 3425:

Slight clarification on my point #4 above: The reason I pointed out that a challenge to existing material doesn't need to be

3897: 3853: 3371: 2937: 2060: 1977: 1779: 1762: 3397:

Although I accept my obligation to come up with sources to support my proposed improvements, I do feel it worth noting that

1520: 1866:) fails to address my above request, fails to be specific in his complaints, and fails to back up his claims with sources. 3386: 2184:

The author relates key historical controversies within each group or movement as they strive for religious respectability.

1622: 850: 1704:

I think I may also have some other general concerns regarding sourcing for this page, but I'd like to start with this.

3028:

is not in fact called for, or that a more neutral explanation can be had than what I proposed — or that I'm misreading

1931: 1757:

Regarding this particular source, if it weren't coming from a major publisher (Zondervan), I would challenge it as a

581:

want to know if non-evangelicals consider the current article to be NPOV w/r/t this point, we could probably ask the

2296:

The book explains how "alternative religious movements appear to meet people's needs"; how their founders' "alleged

1348:. My main "issues" with the page — things which I was attempting in good faith to improve — include the following: 1326: 38: 847: 3748:

Otherwise, if (3) is opposed, then in my view the alternative is (4), which is to remove all uses of the term. --

3273:) for some reason did not suggest these sources during the AFD, but did after the AFD was subsequently closed as 2651: 136:

Christian teachings including Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox but excluding "cults" and "heretics".

3515:

01:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) N.B. The publisher's Christian allegiance is evident from their mission statement:

2244:

subjects of Tucker's book object strenuously when evangelicals try to classify them as not being "Christians".)

1935: 3837:

for example the citation is simply a reference to the title and author as part of a single footnote that lists

2782: 1306: 1159: 3127:

Please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection,

3024:

and note, BTW, that we are all advised to use this term with great care). If you feel that an explanation of

2846:

replacing the current list with what the book's table of contents says (citing the book itself as the source).

1927: 1383:

but, in my view, they cannot simply be stated in the (expected to be neutral) voice of Knowledge (XXG) itself.

1023: 779: 624:

knowledge amongst the book's intended audience (as well as many of the book's detractors), but also that it's

487: 1997: 74:

Some of the books which are said to cite this one were published years before it. Has there been a mistake?

3568: 2758: 2318: 3730:

Options (1) and (2) are obviously the best, but I'm not sure the sources or quotes needed actually exist.

1372:

beliefs, but rather to make the material on the page more readily accessible to everyone who might read it.

263: 251: 3445:

It is best to do the source research first, and then argue only those points that your sources support. --

2754: 2026:

because the page is about the school itself, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the

913: 3738: 2611: 2589: 2522: 2397:) would be acceptable? I'm concerned that an extremely narrow source focussing explicitly on this issue 2131: 1939: 1761:. And especially given the highly contentious nature of the subject matter — material from or about the 2945: 2786: 2301: 3792: 1524: 1453:

I would say give Richwales a chance, allow him 2 weeks to add a , or a source. If he fails to do so it

556: 3655:

has further complaints about the article. Not to mention that the RFC has only been open for one day.

3020:

the neutrality of this annotation, that does not automatically mean it constituted "POV pushing" (see

2742: 1397:

I hope the above will be helpful to someone who is willing to come here and offer a "third opinion".

3059: 3033: 3029: 3021: 3016: 2963: 2959: 2023: 3800: 3676: 3642: 3624: 3563:

sides in such disputes, that is, not using terms like "orthodox" without adding an "according to".

3483: 3435: 3416: 3327: 3310: 3264: 3243: 3209: 3181: 3159: 3041: 2971: 2899: 2855: 2693: 2597: 2419: 2330: 2195: 2149: 2045: 2007: 1857: 1844: 1709: 1646: 1612: 1598: 1532: 1477: 1463: 1417: 1402: 1302: 1273: 1252: 1222: 1198: 1180: 1144: 1099: 989: 837: 824: 651: 512: 477: 444: 429: 367: 331:

I went back and double-checked. I added back all the changes that were not either: 1) unsourced 2)

301: 280: 94:

Got it. They are later editions of the other works that cite the book, that came out afterwards.

47: 17: 3398: 2874:, Removed descriptors of groups in first paragraph, changed to just straight, simple list format. 2527: 1361:

and transforming an "insider piece" into an encyclopedia article accessible to a general audience.

3892: 3848: 3564: 3546: 3525: 3509: 3452: 2778: 2750: 2070: 1693:

I'm concerned about the extent to which the page is currently using and reusing a single source (

3230:. This goes up to and including an attempt to cite another Knowledge (XXG) article as a source. 1625:- that appears to just be his POV material pushed in, with absolutely no sources to back it up. 1472:

Thank you very much for providing this third opinion. Of all the above new sources suggested by

1243:. This goes up to and including an attempt to cite another Knowledge (XXG) article as a source. 900:

Here are some secondary sources which, taken as a whole, should substantiate my claim that (1)

2746: 2552: 1981: 359:

added explanation of what Regent College is; taken from the lede of the Regent College article

195: 175: 147: 137: 105: 75: 3227: 3117: 2842: 2832: 2280: 2124: 1805: 1329:), I'll speak up again in order to explain the situation more clearly from my point of view. 1240: 465: 271: 255: 2806: 2794: 3923: 3788: 3784: 3742: 3734: 3707: 3367: 3223: 3063: 2607: 2585: 2518: 2496: 2390: 2288: 2275: 2034: 1915: 1758: 1358: 1334: 1236: 981: 816: 714: 658: 643: 634: 582: 461: 332: 3370:

for general readers, make clear (in a balanced fashion) its connection to and role in the

3011:

as the only infallible source of Christian teaching" is a fair summary paraphrase of what

2317:

2. ^ The phrase "orthodox Christianity", in this context, should not be confused with the

925: 2271: 2022:

The last source is a self-published primary source, but I believe it is acceptable under

1801: 1427: 1134: 1067: 928: 380: 2406:

is simply not notable enough outside the Christian countercult movement for there to be

3821: 3796: 3692: 3672: 3662: 3638: 3620: 3606: 3479: 3431: 3412: 3350: 3323: 3306: 3287: 3260: 3239: 3205: 3177: 3155: 3101: 3037: 3003: 2988: 2967: 2954: 2915: 2895: 2884: 2851: 2831:

as well as by Zondervan, because of their POV — should be avoided in this article (per

2790: 2709: 2689: 2664: 2621: 2593: 2506: 2448: 2415: 2360: 2326: 2224: 2191: 2169: 2145: 2105: 2056: 2041: 1955: 1920: 1873: 1853: 1840: 1775: 1726: 1705: 1662: 1642: 1632: 1608: 1594: 1564: 1528: 1497: 1473: 1459: 1437: 1413: 1398: 1320: 1292: 1269: 1248: 1218: 1194: 1176: 1115: 1095: 1077: 1033: 1009: 985: 901: 863: 833: 820: 676: 647: 534: 508: 497: 473: 440: 425: 390: 363: 342: 321: 297: 276: 113:

As far as I can tell, but the citations have later publications in additonal formats.

3741:, but I would argue we can be flexible in interpreting those policies, or even invoke 3219: 1813: 1797: 1232: 1138:

because I have prior history with one of the editors involved in this dispute, and my

522: 454: 3887: 3843: 3772: 3753: 3541: 3520: 3504: 3474:

I think that wikipedia is a place were everyones contributions are very gladly taken

3447: 3071: 2645: 2535: 2470: 2065: 2010:, descriptive page on the University of British Columbia's student services web site. 922: 241: 3945:

Last edited at 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

3936: 3903: 3877: 3859: 3825: 3804: 3776: 3757: 3696: 3680: 3666: 3628: 3610: 3572: 3552: 3531: 3487: 3458: 3439: 3420: 3354: 3291: 3190:) fails to get the page deleted at AFD, during which there was unanimous consent to 3105: 3075: 3045: 2992: 2975: 2919: 2903: 2888: 2859: 2810: 2713: 2697: 2668: 2625: 2601: 2539: 2510: 2474: 2452: 2423: 2364: 2334: 2228: 2199: 2173: 2153: 2109: 2076: 2049: 1959: 1877: 1848: 1730: 1713: 1666: 1650: 1636: 1602: 1568: 1536: 1501: 1467: 1441: 1406: 1296: 1207:) fails to get the page deleted at AFD, during which there was unanimous consent to 1165: 1119: 1103: 1081: 1037: 1013: 993: 931: 867: 828: 680: 585:

wikiproject people — though I would propose going there only as a very last resort!)

538: 516: 501: 433: 394: 346: 325: 284: 245: 207: 198: 187: 178: 166: 150: 146:

Unless the book was written from an Eastern Orthodox point of view. Was it? Thanks.

140: 117: 108: 98: 88: 78: 3874: 3218:) edits the page itself, adding poor sourcing, and violating site policy including 2774: 1231:) edits the page itself, adding poor sourcing, and violating site policy including 3720:

find another source that specifically discusses what this book means by "orthodox"

1774:

The subject of this article, BTW, needs to be understood in the larger context of

1394:

rarely seen in the close to five years I've been contributing to Knowledge (XXG).

937: 2802: 2297: 904:

accepts implicitly that various religious movements (such as those described in

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1282:) for some reason did not suggest these sources during the AFD, but did so now. 709:

trying to "push across my POV into this article". What I'm trying to do is to

3066:, it is best we give a brief summary of unfamiliar terms before using them. -- 2182:

OK, but the following sentence is POV if it's not included in a quoted form —

1808:, I (a person challenging the verifiability and/or neutrality of material) do 916: 603: 3007:

link (and which you removed) was not POV-pushing. The phrase "belief in the

998:

Of the sources you suggest above, we should only use those that are directly

934: 3933: 3816: 3687: 3657: 3601: 3345: 3282: 3096: 2983: 2941: 2910: 2879: 2762: 2704: 2659: 2616: 2501: 2443: 2355: 2219: 2164: 2100: 2059:, an international graduate school of Christian studies affiliated with the 1950: 1868: 1721: 1657: 1627: 1559: 1492: 1432: 1316: 1287: 1110: 1072: 1028: 1004: 858: 671: 529: 492: 405: 385: 337: 316: 204: 184: 163: 114: 95: 85: 235: 2350:= quoted from the source, publisher website itself, per above suggestion. 3768: 3749: 3067: 2821:

importantly for our purposes) it is not verifiable from the cited source.

2641: 2531: 2480: 2466: 560:

neutral and encyclopedic on this point as it currently stands. Comments?

237: 2949: 1412:

We cannot rewrite or add in things to this article to suit the POV of

3783:

environment that would allow constructive handling (in an atmosphere

2770: 2014:

Regent College: An International Graduate School of Christian Studies

3868:. If these items need to be mentioned at all, then summarize into a 3596:- Removed "orthodox" per comment above in RFC by Peter Jackson, see 2555:(which I trust we editors all understand is obviously not the case). 1998:"Honouring our elders: Dr. James Houston, founder of Regent College" 2958:

doctrine. These cannot currently be added to the article body per

2936:

I've added a "See also" section to this article, with links to the

856:

to support the claims you are making about this article's subject?

3054: 3008: 1641:

It's not done yet. I'm still working on it. Please be patient.

2162:. That is pushing it a bit too far with that one primary source. 1426:). And most certainly not, if this is not supported by secondary 104:

Is 2004 the correct date for the first publication of this book?

2741:'s. It covers a wide range of groups and individuals, including 2738: 2013: 1490:. I have already added that source into the article. :) Cheers, 270:

Also, the article seems to me to not even be trying to convey a

3302:

Every single sentence in this article is appropriately sourced.

2789:. In addition, less active groups are also analyzed, including 3430:

pointing out things which I believe(d) need(ed) to be fixed.

1902: 25: 3832:

Listing university courses and other books that cite this one

2894:

justification for using a primary source in this situation.

1896:

as message boards to discuss and put forth personal opinions

1557:

Oh in that case I fully agree with you. Thank you very much.

3385:

I am working on a proposed draft revision of the page in my

1976:(a graduate school of Christian studies affiliated with the 3726:

remove all references (including direct quotes) to the term

3637:

closing the RFC at this point in time. It is apparent that

3336:) has made about this article are not supported by sources. 3196:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Another Gospel (book)

2816:

The cited secondary source (a product description page for

1213:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Another Gospel (book)

815:

shouldn't just be a debate between me and Cirt (he doesn't

669:

sources for you to push across your POV into this article.

637:" policy (yes, I was surprised to learn that WP:IAR really 3036:— then, please, let's discuss the issues in more detail. 2270:

If it were up to me, I would handle this by (1) honouring

3168:) complains about notability and neutrality of this page 1189:) complains about notability and neutrality of this page 262:

It's not at all clear to me if this book is sufficiently

2030:

article is not based primarily on sources such as this.

3918: 3883: 3597: 3536: 3253: 3231: 3169: 3092: 2875: 2655: 2439: 2351: 2215: 2159: 2096: 1345: 1262: 1244: 1190: 417: 376:) is inappropriate. Other Knowledge (XXG) articles are 358: 294: 1344:

My original set of edits (to which Cirt objected) are

3717:

find a definition of "orthodox" in this book to quote

936:(this last one is not from an evangelical group; see 782:" or am hoping to sabotage it, but because I want to 416:

I also feel intimidated by the tone of Cirt's recent

3795:for final completion of this or any other article. 2438:, even more quoting directly from cited source, see 2962:, but are appropriate additions to the article per 2187:quote (in quote marks) from the publisher's page: 912:was targeted primarily to an evangelical audience: 2640:. Removed. Per suggestion from third-party editor 2584:constitute "POV pushing" or violate the intent of 1812:have to bear the sole burden of proving my case. 939:for more on their perspective concerning "cults"). 203:Okay. I have corrected the article accordingly. 3001:With respect, the qualification I had put on the 2287:quotes (with quotation marks); and (3) promoting 1934:, discuss relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy at the 521:So you are disputing that you added and re-added 3053:Richwales, I agree with you that "belief in the 2495:- as unfortunately that would be a violation of 2304:"; and "shows how to reach out to cult members". 1739:As I've already said several times, I doubt the 1070:. That should hopefully be sufficient, for now. 183:So which denomination is it referring to then? 3922:, and are posted here for posterity. Following 3120:and this article. 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2606:Disagree. Would prefer removal to violation of 1352:In general, the page fails to acknowledge that 335:violations, or 3) blatant POV pushing. Cheers, 3319:) wishes to make are not supported by sources. 2214:, removed that sentence, per above complaint, 1143:preferably identified by diffs. Best regards, 3916:The comment(s) below were originally left at 3713:I think we must choose one of the following: 2134:sources, I took this excerpt from a quote of 8: 2530:. Otherwise, I think (2) must be adopted. -- 2730:This section could be a little more clear: 486:) to get this page deleted, this smacks of 2981:I trimmed a bit of POV-pushing out of it. 2016:, front page of Regent College's web site. 3791:this or any other article, and there is 2684:understood; we would be misrepresenting 1900:the article. Therefore, template added: 976:trying to promote a POV claim here that 131:"Orthodox" vs. "mainstream" Christianity 1018:Thank you for the source suggestion of 424:provide room for such a conversation. 2580:perfectly appropriate here, and would 1486:), I only saw one that was suitable - 1024:failed attempt to get rid of this page 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1926:Any such messages will be deleted or 7: 3112:RfC: NPOV and article Another Gospel 2702:No objections to the reinstatement. 2189:"aims for religious respectability." 1623:User:Richwales/Drafts/Another Gospel 314:material. Completely inappropriate. 3116:Question raised by an editor about 2737:focuses on groups active since the 555:I would like to propose asking the 290:POV changes and unsourced additions 24: 3924:several discussions in past years 1991:— with the following as sources: 1458:luck. Any questions ask me okay. 527:to this article, multiple times? 404:With all possible respect toward 3194:, aside from the nominator. See 3091:, added it back, per above. See 3082: 2865: 2631: 2429: 2341: 2205: 2086: 1906: 1359:providing context for the reader 1211:, aside from the nominator. See 29: 3391:This draft is not finished yet; 657:Unfortunately we stray towards 3372:Christian countercult movement 3252:) suggests some other sources 3131:. 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2938:Christian countercult movement 2827:word "cults" — used freely in 2061:University of British Columbia 1978:University of British Columbia 1780:Christian countercult movement 1763:Christian countercult movement 1261:) suggests some other sources 711:provide context for the reader 310:) introduced POV wording, and 1: 3826:02:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 3805:19:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 3777:09:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 3733:Some will argue (3) violates 3539:is very good work by Cirt. -- 3465:Previously uninvolved editors 3919:Talk:Another Gospel/Comments 3758:08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 3697:01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 3681:21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 3667:20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 3629:07:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 3611:12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3573:11:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3553:02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3532:02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3488:00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3459:02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3440:01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3421:00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3355:00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3292:00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 3257:Journal of Christian Nursing 3106:12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 3076:09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 3046:07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2993:06:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2976:03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2920:06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2904:21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 2889:14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 2860:07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 2811:20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC) 2714:19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2698:19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2669:16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2626:16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2602:16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2540:08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 2511:22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2475:22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2453:22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2424:22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2365:19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2335:18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2283:by marking the exact quotes 2229:17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC) 2200:17:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC) 2174:17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC) 2160:This is way too much quoting 2154:06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC) 2110:12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2077:08:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 2050:07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 1960:20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1878:20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1849:20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1731:19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1714:19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1689:(Over?)using a single source 1667:16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1651:16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1637:15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1603:07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1569:02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1537:02:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1502:01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1488:Journal of Christian Nursing 1468:01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 1442:04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 1407:01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 1297:22:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1266:Journal of Christian Nursing 1166:22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1120:21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1104:21:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1082:19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1038:21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1020:Journal of Christian Nursing 1014:21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 994:21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 868:19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 829:19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 681:18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 539:07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 517:07:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 502:06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 434:06:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 395:06:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 347:05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 326:05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 246:10:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 3904:16:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 3878:16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 3860:15:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 3558:Comments from Peter Jackson 3136:Previously involved editors 2410:hostile or neutral sources 1655:Okay, we can discuss here. 3959: 3937:19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 3841:works. Propose removal. -- 2267:authentic and true faith. 2055:No objection. I'd go for " 1918:for general discussion of 1315:)'s comments and those of 633:invoke Knowledge (XXG)'s " 453:) to this page introduced 400:Making this page more NPOV 208:23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 199:22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 188:20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 179:20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 167:19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 151:19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 141:19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 118:19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 109:19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 99:19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 89:19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 79:19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 3932:*1 image, 17 citations. 3931: 3146:Summary of recent actions 1938:, or ask for help at the 524:wholly unsourced material 464:, and material violating 2783:Erhard Seminars Training 2726:Classification of groups 846:) - can you suggest any 418:comments on my talk page 285:22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 225:The charge of preaching 3470:Comments from House1090 3360:Comments from Richwales 2759:Worldwide Church of God 2319:Eastern Orthodox Church 2314:quotes from front flap. 2239:"Orthodox" Christianity 1062:Third opinion requested 353:Poorly sourced addition 3617:Time to close the RFC? 3493:Comments from Jayen466 3368:provide proper context 2755:Seventh-day Adventists 2491:have not commented on 665:sources as opposed to 2946:orthodox Christianity 2787:Church of Scientology 2565:the book is entitled 2302:orthodox Christianity 1759:self-published source 460:, material violating 221:Roman Catholic Church 42:of past discussions. 3583:Comments from Editor 3578:Comments from Editor 1830:Finally, we really, 1796:And as I understand 1335:assume my good faith 439:See above. Edits by 70:Cited by other books 3785:assuming good faith 3685:Okay, sounds good. 3255:only one of which ( 2908:Okay, sounds good. 2743:Jehovah's Witnesses 2483:- good points, and 2140:Unmasking the Cults 1264:only one of which ( 1066:I have requested a 908:) are bad, and (2) 661:if we only rely on 18:Talk:Another Gospel 3912:Assessment comment 3588:Further discussion 3141:Comments from Cirt 3129:Further discussion 2932:"See also" section 2779:Silva Mind Control 2751:Unification Church 2002:BC Christian News, 1140:personal standards 1133:I can't provide a 468:. In light of the 3943: 3942: 2747:Christian Science 2553:Eastern Orthodoxy 2138:in Gomes's book, 1982:Vancouver, Canada 1946: 1945: 1888:Note: Not a forum 1521:assume good faith 854:secondary sources 383:sources of info. 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3950: 3929: 3928: 3921: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3856: 3851: 3846: 3549: 3544: 3528: 3523: 3512: 3507: 3455: 3450: 3090: 3086: 3085: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2795:Swedenborgianism 2639: 2635: 2634: 2437: 2433: 2432: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2249:Another Gospel's 2213: 2209: 2208: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2073: 2068: 2008:"Regent College" 1910: 1909: 1903: 1162: 1155: 1154: 1150: 635:ignore all rules 456:wholly unsourced 312:wholly unsourced 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3958: 3957: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3917: 3914: 3898: 3893: 3888: 3854: 3849: 3844: 3834: 3765: 3590: 3585: 3580: 3560: 3547: 3542: 3526: 3521: 3510: 3505: 3495: 3472: 3467: 3453: 3448: 3362: 3236:2 February 2010 3202:2 February 2010 3174:21 January 2010 3143: 3138: 3114: 3083: 3081: 2934: 2866: 2864: 2829:Another Gospel, 2767:Children of God 2728: 2632: 2630: 2430: 2428: 2342: 2340: 2312:Another Gospel, 2241: 2206: 2204: 2120: 2087: 2085: 2071: 2066: 1967: 1907: 1890: 1691: 1160: 1152: 1148: 1146: 1064: 646:of this page. 402: 362:= this edit by 355: 292: 260: 223: 133: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3956: 3954: 3941: 3940: 3913: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3808: 3807: 3764: 3763:Closing of RFC 3761: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3614: 3613: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3581: 3579: 3576: 3559: 3556: 3494: 3491: 3471: 3468: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3410: 3409: 3406: 3395: 3387:user namespace 3383: 3375: 3361: 3358: 3342: 3341: 3337: 3320: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3279: 3278: 3233: 3199: 3171: 3148: 3147: 3142: 3139: 3137: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3113: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3026:sola scriptura 3013:sola scriptura 3004:sola scriptura 2996: 2995: 2955:sola scriptura 2933: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2848: 2847: 2837: 2836: 2823: 2822: 2818:Another Gospel 2799: 2798: 2791:Rosicrucianism 2735:Another Gospel 2727: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2686:Another Gospel 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2576: 2575: 2571:Another Gospel 2567:Another Gospel 2557: 2556: 2514: 2513: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2404:Another Gospel 2395:Another Gospel 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2368: 2367: 2323: 2322: 2315: 2308: 2305: 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2177: 2176: 2136:Another Gospel 2119: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2080: 2079: 2057:Regent College 2028:Another Gospel 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2011: 2005: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1966: 1965:Regent College 1963: 1944: 1943: 1932:Reference desk 1921:Another Gospel 1911: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1784:Another Gospel 1776:evangelicalism 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1734: 1733: 1690: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1451:Third Opinion: 1445: 1444: 1391: 1390: 1385: 1384: 1380:Another Gospel 1374: 1373: 1369:Another Gospel 1363: 1362: 1354:Another Gospel 1303:TransporterMan 1284: 1283: 1246: 1216: 1192: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1090: 1089: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 978:Another Gospel 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 910:Another Gospel 906:Another Gospel 902:evangelicalism 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 745:Another Gospel 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 579:really, really 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 488:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 470:failed attempt 401: 398: 354: 351: 350: 349: 291: 288: 259: 249: 232:another Gospel 227:Another Gospel 222: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 171: 170: 154: 153: 132: 129: 128: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 121: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3955: 3946: 3938: 3935: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3920: 3911: 3905: 3902: 3901: 3896: 3891: 3884: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3876: 3871: 3867: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3858: 3857: 3852: 3847: 3840: 3839:several dozen 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3813: 3810: 3809: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3762: 3760: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3746: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3731: 3725: 3722: 3719: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3711: 3709: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3659: 3654: 3650: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3595: 3592: 3591: 3587: 3582: 3577: 3575: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3565:Peter jackson 3557: 3555: 3554: 3551: 3550: 3545: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3530: 3529: 3524: 3517: 3514: 3513: 3508: 3501: 3492: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3469: 3464: 3460: 3457: 3456: 3451: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3428: 3423: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3407: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3357: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3297:Going forward 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3276: 3272: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3234: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3186: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3172: 3170: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3144: 3140: 3135: 3130: 3126: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3119: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3098: 3093: 3089: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3056: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3005: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2931: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2881: 2876: 2872: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2825: 2824: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2771:Hare Krishnas 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2725: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2656: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2559: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2524: 2520: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2445: 2440: 2436: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2348: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2320: 2316: 2313: 2309: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2277: 2273: 2268: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2250: 2245: 2238: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2216: 2212: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2190: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2161: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2128: 2126: 2118:Two additions 2117: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2097: 2093: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2069: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2036: 2031: 2029: 2025: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1964: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1923: 1922: 1917: 1912: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1887: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1698: 1696: 1688: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1624: 1621:) means this 1620: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1387: 1386: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1347: 1342: 1338: 1336: 1330: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1167: 1163: 1157: 1156: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135:Third Opinion 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1069: 1061: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 938: 935: 932: 929: 926: 923: 920: 917: 914: 911: 907: 903: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 869: 865: 861: 860: 855: 852: 849: 845: 842: 839: 835: 832: 831: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 785: 781: 780:don't like it 777: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 746: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 716: 712: 708: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 682: 678: 674: 673: 668: 664: 660: 656: 655: 653: 649: 645: 640: 636: 631: 627: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 605: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 584: 580: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 558: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 540: 536: 532: 531: 526: 525: 520: 519: 518: 514: 510: 505: 504: 503: 499: 495: 494: 489: 485: 482: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 457: 452: 449: 446: 442: 438: 437: 436: 435: 431: 427: 421: 419: 414: 413:the changes. 411: 407: 399: 397: 396: 392: 388: 387: 382: 379: 375: 372: 369: 365: 361: 360: 352: 348: 344: 340: 339: 334: 330: 329: 328: 327: 323: 319: 318: 313: 309: 306: 303: 299: 296:= changes by 295: 289: 287: 286: 282: 278: 273: 268: 265: 257: 253: 252:WP:Notability 250: 248: 247: 243: 239: 236: 233: 228: 220: 209: 206: 202: 201: 200: 197: 192: 191: 189: 186: 182: 181: 180: 177: 173: 172: 168: 165: 162: 158: 156: 155: 152: 149: 145: 144: 143: 142: 139: 130: 119: 116: 112: 111: 110: 107: 103: 102: 100: 97: 93: 92: 90: 87: 83: 82: 81: 80: 77: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3944: 3915: 3886: 3869: 3865: 3842: 3838: 3835: 3815: 3811: 3766: 3747: 3739:WP:SYNTHESIS 3732: 3729: 3712: 3705: 3686: 3656: 3652: 3645: 3634: 3616: 3615: 3600: 3593: 3561: 3540: 3535: 3519: 3503: 3499: 3496: 3475: 3473: 3446: 3426: 3424: 3411: 3402: 3390: 3379: 3344: 3343: 3330: 3313: 3305:The changes 3281: 3280: 3274: 3267: 3256: 3246: 3235: 3212: 3201: 3191: 3184: 3173: 3162: 3152:16 May 2009 3151: 3128: 3124: 3115: 3095: 3087: 3052: 3025: 3012: 3002: 2982: 2953: 2935: 2909: 2878: 2870: 2828: 2817: 2800: 2775:Unity Church 2734: 2729: 2703: 2685: 2658: 2648: 2636: 2615: 2612:WP:SYNTHESIS 2590:WP:SYNTHESIS 2581: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2547: 2523:WP:SYNTHESIS 2515: 2500: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2463: 2442: 2434: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399:in this book 2398: 2394: 2354: 2346: 2324: 2311: 2284: 2269: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2253: 2248: 2246: 2242: 2218: 2210: 2188: 2183: 2163: 2144: 2139: 2135: 2129: 2121: 2099: 2091: 2064: 2039: 2032: 2027: 2021: 2001: 1990: 1975: 1968: 1949: 1947: 1936:Village pump 1919: 1913: 1897: 1893: 1891: 1867: 1860: 1835: 1831: 1817: 1809: 1783: 1745: 1740: 1720: 1703: 1699: 1692: 1656: 1626: 1615: 1558: 1491: 1487: 1480: 1454: 1450: 1431: 1420: 1396: 1392: 1379: 1368: 1353: 1343: 1339: 1331: 1323: 1309: 1300: 1286: 1285: 1276: 1265: 1255: 1225: 1208: 1201: 1183: 1145: 1132: 1109: 1071: 1065: 1027: 1019: 1003: 999: 977: 973: 909: 905: 857: 840: 812: 783: 775: 744: 710: 706: 670: 666: 662: 638: 629: 625: 583:Scientology 578: 528: 523: 491: 480: 455: 447: 422: 415: 409: 403: 384: 377: 370: 357: 356: 336: 315: 311: 304: 293: 269: 261: 231: 226: 224: 196:Steve Dufour 176:Steve Dufour 160: 148:Steve Dufour 138:Steve Dufour 134: 106:Steve Dufour 76:Steve Dufour 73: 60: 43: 37: 3793:no deadline 3789:no one owns 3427:immediately 3322:The claims 2298:revelations 2040:Comments? 1916:not a forum 1108:Thank you, 1002:this book. 848:independent 778:because I " 36:This is an 3599:. Cheers, 3094:. Cheers, 3060:WP:SEEALSO 3034:WP:POVPUSH 3030:WP:SEEALSO 3022:WP:POVPUSH 3017:WP:SEEALSO 2964:WP:SEEALSO 2960:WP:MOSLINK 2952:, and the 2785:, and the 2657:. Cheers, 2489:themselves 2441:. Cheers, 2217:. Cheers, 2098:. Cheers, 2024:WP:SELFPUB 2004:June 2001. 1928:refactored 1741:neutrality 1149:RANSPORTER 3882:Removed. 3875:• Astynax 3797:Richwales 3673:Richwales 3639:Richwales 3621:Richwales 3480:House1090 3432:Richwales 3413:Richwales 3399:WP:BURDEN 3394:concerns. 3324:Richwales 3307:Richwales 3261:Richwales 3240:Richwales 3206:Richwales 3178:Richwales 3156:Richwales 3038:Richwales 2968:Richwales 2942:occultism 2896:Richwales 2852:Richwales 2763:Mormonism 2690:Richwales 2594:Richwales 2528:WP:IGNORE 2493:this book 2416:Richwales 2327:Richwales 2192:Richwales 2146:Richwales 2132:secondary 2042:Richwales 1940:Help desk 1854:Richwales 1841:Richwales 1706:Richwales 1695:this page 1643:Richwales 1609:Richwales 1595:Richwales 1529:House1090 1474:Richwales 1460:House1090 1430:sources. 1414:Richwales 1399:Richwales 1270:Richwales 1249:Richwales 1219:Richwales 1195:Richwales 1177:Richwales 1096:Richwales 1088:editors). 986:Richwales 933:. Also, 834:Richwales 821:Richwales 811:And this 667:secondary 648:Richwales 644:ownership 626:essential 604:this page 509:Richwales 474:Richwales 441:Richwales 426:Richwales 364:Richwales 298:Richwales 277:Richwales 258:problems? 61:Archive 1 3649:contribs 3340:article. 3334:contribs 3317:contribs 3271:contribs 3250:contribs 3216:contribs 3188:contribs 3166:contribs 3015:means. 2950:prophets 2652:contribs 2574:article. 2485:possibly 2353:Cheers, 2307:-------- 1948:Cheers, 1914:This is 1864:contribs 1787:general. 1778:and the 1619:contribs 1484:contribs 1424:contribs 1327:contribs 1313:contribs 1280:contribs 1259:contribs 1229:contribs 1205:contribs 1187:contribs 851:reliable 844:contribs 557:Religion 484:contribs 458:material 451:contribs 374:contribs 308:contribs 3866:Support 3594:Update: 3228:WP:NPOV 3118:WP:NPOV 3032:and/or 2843:WP:PSTS 2833:WP:NPOV 2654:). See 2281:WP:NPOV 1806:WP:NPOV 1523:and be 1455:2 weeks 1241:WP:NPOV 784:improve 663:primary 577:(If we 466:WP:NPOV 272:neutral 264:notable 256:WP:NPOV 39:archive 3812:Oppose 3743:WP:IAR 3735:WP:NOR 3708:WP:PCR 3635:Oppose 3224:WP:NOR 3064:WP:PCR 2803:Borock 2773:, the 2769:, the 2765:, the 2757:, the 2753:, the 2749:, the 2608:WP:NOR 2586:WP:NOR 2519:WP:NOR 2497:WP:NOR 2412:at all 2391:WP:PCR 2289:WP:PCR 2276:WP:NOR 2035:WP:PCR 1832:really 1804:, and 1301:Given 1237:WP:NOR 982:WP:PCR 813:really 715:WP:PCR 659:WP:NOR 462:WP:NOR 333:WP:NOR 3870:brief 3653:still 3500:cited 3401:does 3125:Note: 3055:Bible 3009:Bible 2310:1. ^ 2272:WP:RS 1898:about 1816:does 1802:WP:RS 1525:civil 1428:WP:RS 1068:WP:3O 1000:about 972:I am 705:I am 381:WP:RS 16:< 3934:Smee 3822:talk 3817:Cirt 3801:talk 3773:talk 3754:talk 3693:talk 3688:Cirt 3677:talk 3663:talk 3658:Cirt 3643:talk 3625:talk 3607:talk 3602:Cirt 3569:talk 3537:This 3518:. -- 3484:talk 3436:talk 3417:talk 3351:talk 3346:Cirt 3328:talk 3311:talk 3288:talk 3283:Cirt 3275:Keep 3265:talk 3244:talk 3220:WP:V 3210:talk 3192:Keep 3182:talk 3160:talk 3102:talk 3097:Cirt 3088:Done 3072:talk 3042:talk 2989:talk 2984:Cirt 2972:talk 2916:talk 2911:Cirt 2900:talk 2885:talk 2880:Cirt 2871:Done 2856:talk 2807:talk 2793:and 2739:1960 2710:talk 2705:Cirt 2694:talk 2665:talk 2660:Cirt 2646:talk 2637:Done 2622:talk 2617:Cirt 2610:and 2598:talk 2536:talk 2507:talk 2502:Cirt 2471:talk 2449:talk 2444:Cirt 2435:Done 2420:talk 2361:talk 2356:Cirt 2347:Done 2331:talk 2274:and 2225:talk 2220:Cirt 2211:Done 2196:talk 2170:talk 2165:Cirt 2150:talk 2125:NPOV 2106:talk 2101:Cirt 2092:Done 2046:talk 1956:talk 1951:Cirt 1874:talk 1869:Cirt 1858:talk 1845:talk 1836:lots 1821:too. 1814:WP:V 1798:WP:V 1727:talk 1722:Cirt 1710:talk 1663:talk 1658:Cirt 1647:talk 1633:talk 1628:Cirt 1613:talk 1599:talk 1565:talk 1560:Cirt 1533:talk 1498:talk 1493:Cirt 1478:talk 1464:talk 1438:talk 1433:Cirt 1418:talk 1403:talk 1346:here 1321:talk 1317:Cirt 1307:talk 1293:talk 1288:Cirt 1274:talk 1253:talk 1233:WP:V 1223:talk 1209:Keep 1199:talk 1181:talk 1161:TALK 1116:talk 1111:Cirt 1100:talk 1078:talk 1073:Cirt 1034:talk 1029:Cirt 1010:talk 1005:Cirt 990:talk 864:talk 859:Cirt 838:talk 825:talk 677:talk 672:Cirt 652:talk 535:talk 530:Cirt 513:talk 498:talk 493:Cirt 478:talk 445:talk 430:talk 410:more 406:Cirt 391:talk 386:Cirt 368:talk 343:talk 338:Cirt 322:talk 317:Cirt 302:talk 281:talk 254:and 242:talk 205:Smee 185:Smee 164:Smee 115:Smee 96:Smee 86:Smee 3899:466 3855:466 3769:SJK 3750:SJK 3737:or 3548:466 3527:466 3511:466 3476:but 3454:466 3403:not 3389:. 3380:not 3068:SJK 2966:. 2642:SJK 2592:. 2588:or 2582:not 2563:why 2548:not 2532:SJK 2521:or 2481:SJK 2467:SJK 2408:any 2265:the 2261:not 2072:466 1980:in 1894:not 1818:not 1810:not 1607:If 974:not 817:own 786:it. 776:not 707:not 472:by 378:not 238:ADM 3885:-- 3824:) 3803:) 3775:) 3756:) 3745:. 3695:) 3679:) 3665:) 3651:) 3627:) 3609:) 3571:) 3543:JN 3522:JN 3506:JN 3486:) 3449:JN 3438:) 3419:) 3353:) 3290:) 3238:- 3226:, 3222:, 3204:- 3176:- 3154:- 3104:) 3074:) 3062:, 3044:) 2991:) 2974:) 2948:, 2944:, 2940:, 2918:) 2902:) 2887:) 2877:. 2858:) 2809:) 2781:, 2777:, 2761:, 2745:, 2712:) 2696:) 2667:) 2624:) 2600:) 2538:) 2509:) 2499:. 2473:) 2451:) 2422:) 2363:) 2333:) 2285:as 2256:is 2227:) 2198:) 2172:) 2152:) 2142:. 2127:. 2108:) 2095:. 2067:JN 2048:) 2037:. 2000:, 1958:) 1876:) 1847:) 1800:, 1746:do 1729:) 1712:) 1665:) 1649:) 1635:) 1601:) 1567:) 1535:) 1527:. 1500:) 1466:) 1440:) 1405:) 1295:) 1239:, 1235:, 1164:) 1153:AN 1118:) 1102:) 1080:) 1036:) 1026:. 1012:) 992:) 930:; 927:; 924:; 921:; 918:; 915:; 866:) 827:) 679:) 654:) 639:is 630:is 537:) 515:) 500:) 490:. 432:) 393:) 345:) 324:) 283:) 244:) 234:. 190:. 159:- 101:. 91:. 3939:. 3894:N 3889:J 3850:N 3845:J 3820:( 3799:( 3771:( 3752:( 3691:( 3675:( 3661:( 3646:· 3641:( 3623:( 3605:( 3567:( 3482:( 3434:( 3415:( 3349:( 3331:· 3326:( 3314:· 3309:( 3286:( 3277:. 3268:· 3263:( 3247:· 3242:( 3213:· 3208:( 3198:. 3185:· 3180:( 3163:· 3158:( 3100:( 3070:( 3040:( 2987:( 2970:( 2914:( 2898:( 2883:( 2854:( 2805:( 2797:. 2708:( 2692:( 2663:( 2649:· 2644:( 2620:( 2596:( 2534:( 2505:( 2469:( 2447:( 2418:( 2359:( 2329:( 2321:. 2223:( 2194:( 2168:( 2148:( 2104:( 2044:( 1984:) 1954:( 1942:. 1924:. 1872:( 1861:· 1856:( 1843:( 1725:( 1708:( 1661:( 1645:( 1631:( 1616:· 1611:( 1597:( 1563:( 1531:( 1496:( 1481:· 1476:( 1462:( 1436:( 1421:· 1416:( 1401:( 1324:· 1319:( 1310:· 1305:( 1291:( 1277:· 1272:( 1256:· 1251:( 1226:· 1221:( 1215:. 1202:· 1197:( 1184:· 1179:( 1158:( 1151:M 1147:T 1114:( 1098:( 1076:( 1032:( 1008:( 988:( 862:( 841:· 836:( 823:( 713:( 675:( 650:( 533:( 511:( 496:( 481:· 476:( 448:· 443:( 428:( 389:( 371:· 366:( 341:( 320:( 305:· 300:( 279:( 240:( 210:. 169:. 120:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index