User talk:Homestarmy/Archive 3

John Hagee

Homestarmy, I noticed that you are having a long-running discussion with some other users on the John Hagee talk page. What sort of things were going on to spark such a discussion and what do you personally believe about Hagee's beliefs, particularly about the so-called "end times?"

I am a Christian. However, I do believe that Hagee is a threat to peace IF people take what he says to heart. Anyone who misinterprets the Bible and says "the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ" is dangerous. In a way, Hagee is no different from Iran's president Mahmound Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has made comments about the emergence of the "mahdi," who will appear after global chaos erupts. Hagee is encouraging war with Iran to hasten the return of Christ.

Jesus Christ will appear for the Second Coming in his own time. It is not up to us to hasten His coming. We have been living in the "last days" for the past 2,000 years (Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3). The "antichrist" doesn't have to be a single political dictator (1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). The word "antichrist" never appears in Revelation, only in those 4 passages in 1 and 2 John.

Dispensational and premillennial theories are unscriptural and dangerous for people to believe. I used to believe them myself and they still scare me somewhat, but now I know better ever since the recent Israel/Hezbollah war led me to rethink my beliefs. Clinevol98 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What happpened was this new user showed up and started saying things about Hagee that, well, I didn't agree with, so I started giving rebuttles, and a conversation developed. Unfortunently I have a good bit of homework to do with Java, i'll try to reply to you some time later. Homestarmy 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i've got some time now. Firstly, Hagee's end time theology seems to be the focus of a lot of his sermons, he likes to look at the crisis's in the middle east and point out how they fit in with prophecy in Revelations, and really, I don't see much problem with that. Sometimes I feel he focus's on it a bit too much to the detriment of really evangelizing to listeners, but TBN mostly recycles the same sermons by him a lot, I could be missing some of the picture. I don't think Hagee is trying to say the Bible explicitly commands the U.S. in particular to aid Israel, but i'm pretty sure he's following the whole "Whosoever blesses Israel, I [God] will bless" thing, which I know is in the OT somewhere, and Israel does need a whole lot of help. Now, the pre-emptive strike probably isn't the best of ideas, as most of the people in the Middle East aren't saved and thusly would go to Hell when they die, which would be a problematic end for them, finding a way to step up evangelism there without getting caught would probably be a better solution, but that's just me. If worse comes to worse, we will probably have to fight Iran one way or another :/. I don't remember Hagee saying anything about the United States fighting Iran immedietly bringing the second coming though, that'd be some crazily liberal interpretation of Revelations alright to somehow fit that in there. On the Mahdi, from what i've heard, the Mahdi of Islam has some traits which are, ah, remarkably similar to the Anti-Christ of Christianity, so I really don't think there's grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president there. I know what you mean about Kingdom Theology though, but Hagee really doesn't seem to be a Kingdom Theology kind of guy, he seems to be simply saying that all this bad stuff is going down, so it looks like the Rapture is coming pretty soon. I'm curious though, how do you find both Dispensational and premillenial end-times theology to be flawed? I don't really know if I believe either of them, (Mostly because I haven't thought about which camp i'm in much, I just sort of believe what I read in the Bible :/.) but what exactly do you believe? Homestarmy 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I believe. I fall in the postmillennial/partial preterist camp. Jesus will return one day to end time and judge everyone, saved and unsaved. There is no "pre-tribulation rapture" or even a tribulation itself. Jesus will return and "rapture" Christians at the Second Coming, at the end of time. There is no "secret" coming of Jesus to "rapture" Christians before the Second Coming. A "rapture" before the Second Coming or a Third Coming of Christ is found nowhere in Scripture. Verses used to justify them are taken out of context or misapplied to fit a theory.

There is no literal millennium during which Jesus will rule over the Earth. That time period is purely symbolic. The millennium is only mentioned once in the Bible, in Revelation 20. Keep in mind that Revelation is a HIGHLY symbolic book and most of it is not meant to be taken literally. Think about it: if there is a literal minimum, that is a major event. So why would it not be mentioned by Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles? The millennium is taking place right now as Satan is restrained. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from his "abyss" for the Battle of Armageddon, which itself doesn't have to be a literal battle.

Current events involving Israel and the Arab world have nothing to do with Bible prophecy. God does not work through Israel anymore and Israel is not "God's timepiece" as so many dispensationals like to say. We are all "baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12-13) and the plan for salvation is the same for Gentiles and Jews. Israel in 1948 was restored by an act of man, not an act of God. Geopolitical Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy. All of the Old Testament passages about blessing Israel applied to the Old Covenant and how God worked through Israel during the Old Testament. A New Covenant through Jesus Christ is now in place, and God's plan for Israel is the same as it is for us; we are saved through Jesus.

Matthew 24 is talking about events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Jesus Himself said "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." Taking that for what it says, it sounds like Jesus was talking about events that will surround the destruction of the temple by the Romans (the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus and Daniel talk about). This verse has been misapplied to mean that the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel will be the generation that sees the rapture and that the "Antichrist" will rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 38-39 is not a "Russian/Iranian" invasion of Israel. Meshech and Tubal are not Moscow and Tobolsk. Meshech and Tubal were tribes that traded with the Israelites in that day (Ezekiel 27:13). Besides, the word "Moscow" wasn't even used until 1147 (Moscow). The word "Moscow" comes from an extinct Finnic language. So how can anyone make an idenfitication from the ancient Hebrew to a word that was first used 1700 years later? Notice in Ezekiel 38 it talks about this army fighting with bucklers, shields, and swords. No modern-day armies use these kinds of weapons. This may seem obvious, but it is worth noting because the dispensationalists pride themselves on taking Scripture literally. However, this is one of those passages they choose to take figuratively because it fits in with their theories. Why would Israel need to use the weapons of the invaders for fuel for 7 years (Eze 39:9-10)? Israel has nuclear power. Also notice that this invasion makes no references that it will occur just before or in tandem with the Second Coming. The Israelites were in captivity in Babylon at this time, so what good would a story of a 21st Century do for them? This is a passage that was intended to comfort and encourage the Israelites at that time who were in bondage in Babylon. It's important to put the entire book in context. Notice how before the prophecy against Gog and Magog is talked about there are prophecies against Ammon (Ezekiel 25), Moab (25), Edom (25), Philistia (25), Tyre (26), the King of Tyre (28), Egypt (29), Pharaoh (32), and Edom once again (35). Clearly, those passages applied to that day in age. So why should Ezekiel 38-39 fast forward 25 centuries later?

So what do these chapters mean? The best explanation is that this is talking about the invasion of Israel by Antiochus Ephipanes in 168 BC. Notice he says "latter days;" and this invasion occurred 4 centuries after it was first written. This "Russian invasion" is nothing more than a theory. Sure, it might happen someday (surely not anytime soon), but it won't be because it was Biblical prophesied. Besides, how likely is it that Russia will invade Israel anytime soon anyway? Israel and Iran might fight soon, but Russia fighting alongside Iran? No way.

I could go on and on and on talking about how Daniel 9:27 is not the signing of a "7-year peace treaty" by the "Antichrist" with Israel and Arab states. I've already talked about how the idea of a singular "Antichrist" who rules the world is not found anywhere in Scripture.

What I'm saying about Hagee is that encouraging a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it would fit in with suspect Bible prophecy is scary and dangerous. He makes irresponsible comments and writes irresponsible books like "Jerusalem Countdown." The first error in that book is right on the front cover: "Iran's nuclear arsenal is ready." By the best estimates, Iran won't have the capacity to make nuclear weapons until 2009-2015.

And yes, there are grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president on one point; they are looking forward to global chaos so their savior can return. Jesus will come in God's time. It is not up to us to hasten it. We are to live our lives for Jesus, evangelize and disciple the lost, and everything else will take care of itself. Hagee is out to sell books and videos by his "fire and brimstone" sermons. Hagee should be more concerned on saving people in Iran rather that dropping bombs on them to fulfill prophecy.

Now don't get me wrong, I support Israel. But not because I'm commanded to in the Bible. I support them for political, not theological, reasons. They are the lone democracy in the Middle East and we should stand behind them.

Also keep in mind that the belief in the Mahdi is a radical Shia Muslim belief. Shia Muslims are the majority in Iran, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims (85%) are Sunni. While it is scary that Iran's president sees himself to bring about the Mahdi, it would likely spark a fierce response from Sunnis who disagree with him. Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he's also smart. Can you imagine the world's response if he attacked Israel? The world would come to Israel's defense and Iran would be nailed hard at this juncture, not Iran's.

Personally, I don't think Jesus will return until the Great Commission is fulfilled. This means not just evangelism but discipleship in ALL nations. Just imagine how long it will take before this is done on a widespread scale in the Middle East and places like China. This will take a long time and is not close to happening. The millennium stands for a very long time, which is what Jesus told us to expect (Matthew 25:19). Of course Jesus could return at any time and we should be ready for it, but I can't say that I'm really expecting Him to.

If you'd like to hear more I'd be glad to keep talking with you. What do you believe? I used to believe in the premillennial theories until I began looking into them during and after the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I'm still frightened by what some people believe the Bible says about current events, but I'm learning to put those theories away because, after all, I think they are just theories. Clinevol98 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i've never debated anything about revelations before, it's just one of those things I dunno why we can't live and let live about :/. After all, did Christ ever command us to all have the same end-times theology? :) . You've said a whole lot of things that would likely take me a very long time to examine, (Some of which I don't think I agree with, such as there being no rapture and that verse about helping Israel being cancelled) but if I may be so bold, from what i've heard from Hagee's sermons and from people who give sermons like his, i'm not sure you're hearing them correctly. You say their looking forward to chaos and death, and that Hagee want's a pre-emptive strike, but the quote from him on his article here didn't actually give an adequate reference for that, (and, therefore, I removed it) for all I know, somebody just put that there to discredit him and cited a random conference thing he went to. And none of them ever seem to want chaos and death, they just seem to want people to really realize right quick that its happening and that it will get worse, probably so that they'll go and get saved....while they still have time. Homestarmy 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I didn't say that there isn't a rapture. There is a rapture, but it doesn't occur before the tribulation. The rapture will occur at the end of time at the Second Coming. The Bible nowhere explicitly talks of a "secret" coming or "Third" coming of Jesus before the Second Coming. Also, nowhere in the New Testament are we commanded to support "God's chosen people"/Israel. God's chosen people are Christians. God does not work through Israel anymore and I don't believe we are commanded by God to support modern-day Israel. Again, I do not want you to get me wrong on this. I support Israel and they have every right to go after those who seek to destroy them. Although I do not believe that God has a very specific end times "plan" for them, He obviously remembers His relationship with them and watches over them as He does everyone else.

Of course Jesus wanted us to have the same end times theology. Division among Christians is the last thing He wants. In fact, dispensationalism and premillennialism are the "new kids on the block" when it comes to end times doctrines.

Second, have you ever visited raptureready.com and their message board? There are lots of people out there, Hagee included, who believe these events are at hand and maybe even welcome them. It is as if they believe the world is an awful place, they don't want to live on Earth anymore, and they want to escape as soon as possible. Personally, I would love to live a long life here on Earth before I die or before the Second Coming. Do you believe that all this stuff is coming soon, because we very well could be here another 1,000 years.

They are very anxious for these things to happen now because they believe Scripture says they are to happen now (from the Matthew 24:34 verse). If Hagee didn't really say that unsourced comment then obviously I won't hold him to that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he already has or will make a statement like that in the future. The man scares me with what he believes will shortly take place. He favorite phrase is "there will be a 'nuclear exchange' in the Middle East." That's not evangelism. It sounds like getting people to believe your opinion and buy all your ministry materials based on fear. Hagee's telecasts are part sermon, part advertisement. Clinevol98 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While its true we are not to have any divisions, we are also told all be decided in our own minds concerning smaller things, and a lot of times differences in end times theology really don't matter. However, I think in this case they might matter based on some of the things you're saying, for instance, you say you would love to live a long life here on earth, is that through love of life? Nextly, while its true the NT doesn't tell us to support Israel, the part of the OT that is recommending it so you'll be blessed wasn't part of the Law, it came from one of the prophets I think. Nextly, in revelations, surely you have to admit that Israel in particular is the scene of at least some things mentioned surrounding Armageddon, I mean, there's all that temple being rebuilt stuff, and even if you take it symbolically, why would the symbolism cite the temple in Israel when there's a whole world full of land it could of referred to? Nextly, dispensationalism and premillenialism as newly defined constructs may be making an entire series of doctrines in a new bundle, but even the apostles and people in the NT sure acted like they expected Jesus to come any day now, which is a big thing for premillenialism and whatnot. While it certainly doesn't make premillenialism or dispensationalism as a whole right, it does seem to cast doubt on the idea that there was widespread acceptance of a notion that Jesus wasn't coming for a very, very long time. On the rapture, I mean the rapture in the Left Behind series sense, what else could Christ's warnings about being ready for Him to return and those warnings about His arrival like "a theif in the night" refer to, a theif probably wouldn't take 1,000 years (or, as you say, a symbolic amount of time possibly countless millenia longer) upon arriving at the scene to do something. On Raptureready.com, i'm afraid I can't trust a site that says under its hell-fire preaching topic here that hell-fire preaching is a good thing, because it shows a lack of understanding that hell-fire preaching really barely says anything about the gospel, if it even mentions it period, and i'm fairly certain Hagee mentions Christ's name many times in his sermons. My favorite ministry is the one which runs The Way of the Master, and most of them seem fairly dispensationalist to a point, but they certainly aren't much like Raptureready.com. Hagee seems to believe that nuclear war will take place because, as i've told that editor on the Hagee talk page several times, Iran seems to hate us. A whole lot. From the antics their president (And really, much of their religion) cause, I wouldn't be surprised if nukes starting flying, and it would probably be from Iran first honestly. (And likely for lousy reasons to boot). I think we'd probably shoot most of them down first though, and besides, what's to be afraid about, we are commanded not to be afraid of war and talks of wars. And really, Hagee doesn't seem to be telling people to fear Iran and cower and tremble at the nukes to come, but he always seems to talk about things in the context of getting ready for Christ to come back, so even though its hardly a very direct form of evangelism, its probably much more effective than the touchy feely stuff going on in most big churches now. And while he does sell his things, he has to get funding somehow to run that show of his, that kind of stuff costs a very large amount of money, and even a pretty fair sized congregation probably couldn't be expected to tithe that much. (And yes, I know Hagee is a tithe person, and I don't like it either) Homestarmy 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I say I want to live a life here on Earth because that is what I want to do. Frankly I'm not looking forward to the same things that dispensationals look forward to. Jesus told us to keep on living for Him and preaching the Gospel until the end. He didn't say "become absorbed in prophecy and make it your all-consuming thought" (1 Thessalonians 5:2) as so many people do. Paul warned us against doing this (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2).

I really like Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. I don't quite know what you mean by that statement about "love of life".

I agree with you about Hagee's form of evangelism; it's not a direct form of evangelism at all. Jesus, Paul, and the apostles didn't evangelize people based on the fact that global chaos was about to erupt and there wasn't much time. The based their evangelism based on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and he bore the sins of the world upon Himself so that we might have eternal life with Him. They didn't go around scaring people, which I believe is what Hagee does to a certain extent whether he means to do it or not. He shouldn't be scaring people into getting them to getting saved. He also shouldn't decree that we don't have much time before the nukes start flying and the rapture, because he doesn't know that. Only God does. He should show people the truth straight from the Bible on how to be saved rather than getting people to buy into his suspect prophecies.

Personally, there is no way Iran attacks Israel, at least in the next few years. As I said before, the man is crazy but not stupid. Besides, he doesn't even have a nuke yet. Also remember that he is in a very small minority in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate Arab nations don't like to see a strong and especially nuclear Iran. It's not in our or their best interests.

I believe the reason Jesus' Second Coming is talked about in an imminent sense is because Jesus wants us to be ready. He could come at any instant. For example, you don't snooze off in class during a lecture because what if the teacher decides to have a pop quiz? We need to be prepared for it to happen at any instant, but the coming itself will come like a thief in the night. However, I do believe that the millennium represents a very long period of time. As you say, this fact doesn't discredit postmillennialism at all.

As for the rebuilding of the temple being talked about in Revelation, I'm not very familiar with that. I'll look into it. On raptureready.com, I was talking about looking at the message board and reading the statements that people make there. What did they say about hellfire preaching that you disagreed with? They frightened me so much that I have blocked that website from my computer! Clinevol98 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

On the life thing, I was simply concerned that you were loving your life, to the effect of violating John 12:25. I'm really more of an evangelism are-you-saved kind of a guy rather than a "Believe my end times theology/belief for/against predestination/believe my view concerning transubstantiation" sort of guy. On the apostles, it certainly is true they wern't evangelizing based solely on Revelations because, well, obviously, it probably hadn't even existed then, but I don't think I agree with you that they wern't scaring people another way, after all, they often used the Law in their sermons. While the Bible never tells us the people were really afraid of this, they did often preach about people being saved from the wrath to come, and after all, it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God. Hagee does however seem a wee bit too confident in the timetable he's predicting though, but even though I do think he really ought to focus more on Jesus and the wrath to come, he's right about one thing, wars will start happening eventually (even if their not the one's he's thinking of). I gotta say though, on Iran, the reason a lot of those other arab countries probably don't like what Iran is doing probably isn't because their more moderate, but because their all mostly Sunni and Iran is mostly Shiite :/. The second temple thing seems to be derived from Revelations 11:1, not necessarily explicitly, but because since the temple has been torn down ever since I think around 100 AD, it would logically have to be built back up sometime in the future before power can be given to the two witnesses. For Raptureready, as I looked at more of their site much of it seemed OK, but on the hell-fire bit, the article specifically said that it was a valid method of evangelizing. I don't think whoever wrote that (and there appears to be just one person who wrote all those articles) understands that hell-fire preaching almost never presents the gospel very well, and sometimes fails compleatly at the law too, so you're not only telling people of condemntation and not giving them a solution, but you're also not defending why people are condemned in the first place. I didn't look at their message board, but in my experience, looking at the people who post on forums isn't necessarily the best way to get the point of view of the website its hosted on, because a lot of times really anybody can post on those things whether their with the website or not. Homestarmy 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Arab nations do not want to be intimidated by a nuclear Iran and it is not in their best interests to support Iran in their nuclear ambitions. As you said it also has to do with the Sunni/Shiite split.

I don't really think we are commanded by Jesus to hate our lives by John 12:25. God created us in His image. Does He really want us walking around beating ourselves up and hating the life that God has given us to serve Him? I think what Jesus is talking about there when he says "love his life" is excessive self-pride and self-gratification and not having God first in your life. Jesus also says other things that seem bizarre at first reading, such as Luke 14:26. I mean, do you "hate" your life? Clinevol98 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean like hating yourself for existing, I merely mean not loving your life, which doesn't necessarily mean hatred for it. It's an in the world vs. out of the world kind of thing, whereas you shouldn't love what's inside the world. However, you have to understand, the Arab world is a very complicated thing to deal with because its just so unlike the west due to Islamic rule everywhere, it is filled with all sorts of nasty propaganda and myths, and i've heard a report or two that many nations are starting to support Shia Islam more because Iran is more powerful. Both Iran and most other arab nations hate Israel pretty much, and as far as i've read, no arab nations (Well, maybe besides Egypt, but their special) really are against Iran a great deal on this. Homestarmy 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Arab world is complicated, but I can assure you that the Arab World does not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. They do not want to see Iran become the major power play in the Middle East. Remember Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's, and Jordan's stances on the Israel/Hezbollah war? They actually condemned Hezbollah! They saw that war (and rightly so) as Iran flexing its muscles in the region and became worried. Other Westernized Arab nations, like the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain, don't share Iran's hateful desires.

I think it's simplfying a situation to make this scenario "Arabs vs. the West." Some fellow Muslims have a hatred for fellow Muslims. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat to regional peace and security and Iran's Arab neighbors know that.

What surprises me is the fact that a lot of people are looking to a "Russian/Iranian" joint attack on Israel soon. Sure, Iran hates Israel, but Russia? They have helped Iran in the construction of one of their nuclear reactors, but an all-out invasion of Israel very soon? How likely do you see that? Clinevol98 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people i've read about seem to think the other Arab countries may of condemned that war with Lebanon because it was too soon for their liking, and while the simple existance of this theory alone certainly doesn't make it right, i'm not so certain other arab countries were against the fight based on Iran's participation, after all, Syria is perhaps an even bigger player in helping Hezbollah and those kinds of groups get weapons, and i'm fairly certain their dominated by Sunni islam rather than Shia. I don't think all the countries around there really care a good deal about Iran attacking them, and I don't think they'd really be eager to stop Iran or condemn them too much either if they attack Israel. On Russia, I gotta admit, i'm not really sure how that extrapolation came into being with Revelations, I think it has to do with some OT prophecy concerning people quite a distance to the north of Israel joining up with a bunch of other armies to try and beat Israel, and supposedly, this location is somewhere in modern day Russia. I gotta say though, I agree that Russia wouldn't be very high on my "list of people who want Israel to die" list. Another big thing that I wonder about with end times prophecies concerning this war is that no matter how many prophecies dispensationalist type people show as to how the end is nigh, I never see one of the most important things of all that needs to happen, namely, that the Antichrist will have to effectively rule the whole earth under one world government. There's just so many factions in world politics right now, I don't see how even the Antichrist has much hope of uniting them now in merely a single lifetime, even if he somehow takes, say, the whole Arab world or the whole European world, there's still Eastern countries, Africa (Which is split between a highly evangelical pentecostal Christian filled south and a hardline Muslim north) and Latin America to take into account. Homestarmy 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Iran's biggest ally is Syria. I read somewhere that they have what they called a "mutual defense pact" with each other. An attack on one of them is considered an attack on both of them. Also keep in mind though that we have Iran, in effect, surrounded. We've got troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and warships/military bases all over the Persian Gulf and so do our allies. I really don't see Iran making any sort of dumb move until we begin bringing troops home from Iraq, which doesn't appear to be anytime soon. In fact, Iran is bogging us down in Iraq by fueling the insurgency. Also remember that Israel (or possibly the US) won't hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran if they feel they are close to getting a nuke. If this attack caught Iran off guard, Israel might cripple their defenses before they knew what hit them.

You say that you're not sure how the Russian invasion of Israel extrapolation came into Revelation; that's because it's not in Revelation. It's in Ezekiel 38-39, and to me it's just a theory. The nation to the north of Israel somehow automatically becomes 21st Century Russia. But couldn't it theoretically be Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine, or any nation in Europe? Those nations are all north of Israel too. A 21st Century invasion being described in a book that was written in 500 BC (or thereabouts) cannot be inferred from that passage for the reasons I've already described. Besides, even if that is what it says, it's not close to taking place. As you said, Russia isn't very high up on the "people who want Israel to die" list and probably won't be anytime soon. They are helping Iran purely as a business interest, not because they share Iran's hate of Israel. Europe and the US are putting pressure on Russia to curb their modest "alliance" as well.

I totally agree with you regarding the antichrist. According to the dispensationals, this one man will unite the entire world. People are so skeptical of politicians now, so what makes people believe that the entire world will unite around a one-world government? People would become paranoid and never rally around a cause like that, at least not anytime soon. That is a nightmare scenario to most people and they would never support it or call for it. At this stage, is would be impossible to unite all different people groups as well. We are many generations away before a climate that would be receptive to a global government will come along.

Also remember that, according to the dispensationals, this antichrist will control all transactions between people and maybe even track them (Revelation 13:16). Many people (including Hagee) take this to mean that the antichrist will have everyone injected with some sort of RFID chip in their body that will literally track their every move. There would have to be some sort of supercomputer that would have to be able to keep track of the movements of billions of people all at the same time (Which apparently does exist, according to Jack Van Impe, because it can do 6 billion calculations per second. However, programming that computer to track microchips implanted in human beings is a different story, wouldn't you say?). Also keep in mind that people will apparently willingly be injected with this chip or somehow have it already in them when the antichrist arises (like if it becomes a societal norm over many years). Can you imagine that happening today? This would seemingly do away with cash and credit cards too. Again, we seem to be a long way away from that. Thoughts? Clinevol98 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Syria and Iran have something special between each other then I guess that's one thing, but think about it, in terms of how loud outcry has been against Iran, who has been more adament against them, the United States, or those middle eastern nations nearby? On Israel being able to defend itself, all of the wars Israel have fought so far have been near their own borders, and in some of them, their powerful airforce couldn't move into action until after their also powerful ground forces removed the enemies Anti-aircraft weapons. The fastest air route to Iran would be over Syria probably, and considering they probably still have forces on the other side of the Golan Heights, i'm not sure how Israel would really be able to hit Iran quickly, and I don't see how such a small country would have room for nuclear weapon silos to blow Iran up before Iran blew them up. On the Antichrist, its always possible we in the U.S. are somehow under some Orwellian goverment conspiracy deal and that the Antichrist has been secretly controlling the rest of the world for awhile now, but conspiracy theories like that are the only way it seems possible for the Antichrist to just take over really fast. The RFID chip thing isn't actually as silly as it may sound, there's been some news articles out recently about chips they can put in people's heads that people can use to literally play videogames using their brain as the controller, and there's also one which will re-route nerves to get around damaged tissue. (It can be re-programmed remotely.) So if they can do that with something as sensitive as the brain, it seems entirely possible for RFID chips to be the Antichrist's brand of choice, though of course, something metaphysically more evil is entirely possible. Wireless signals in something as tiny as a TomTom can reach up to GPS satellites, so it seems they could easily be re-programmed to the Antichrist's purposes. Homestarmy 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. Remember that people will willingly have these chips put into them because they will adore this one-world ruler. That isn't happening anytime soon.

Middle Eastern nations aren't crying out against Iran because they are afraid to. Believe me, they don't want Iran to get a nuke. Israel also has nuclear weapons and complex missile defense systems that can shoot down most missiles. Germany also recently covered most of the costs on 2 nuclear submarines for Israel that nuclear missiles can be launched from. Having said that, I'm not a "nuclear war" doomsdayer. Iran knows they would be annhilated if they attack Israel.

Remember, the RFID stories you have heard are very isolated cases. It's not like everyone has a microchip in their head. I guess the base technology is there, but definitely not on a widespread scale. Besides, Revelation 13 isn't talking about a one-world ruler tracking people anyway. It's a parody of marks the Roman Empire put on people and isn't a literal mark. There is hardly anything meant to be taken literally in Revelation. Clinevol98 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know if middle eastern nations are afraid to say anything or not, if they aren't actually saying much of anything? The muslim world often operates on a principle of not commenting on atrocities commited in the name of their religion, how many Muslim nations do you know which have a firm majority of people who belive Al Qaida commited 9/11 for example? (I've seen the polls, generally, a commanding majority believe the U.S. did it to themselves to make Islam look bad.) Also, remember, a nuclear weapon doesn't just have to fly into a target, Iran could probably try and smuggle at least one inside of Israel, and with Israel's limited land size, that nuke would do tremendous damage. (Of course, then Israel might have a large crater in it that shouldn't be there in terms of Revelations, so there probably will be an attempt on Israel, it will just probably fail). And why do you think that almost nothing in Revelations can be taken literally, is it merely because Dispensationalists and the like say that they and they alone have the one true "literal" interpretation? Because, you know, you'd be surprised how many people say they have the one true interpretation of things when in reality, if you read it yourself without any presuppositions one way or another about the correct way to read it, you might figure out something on your own that neither side really gets right. Homestarmy 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are simplfying this entire situation. Of course Muslims believe that the US did 9/11 to itself. They have a warped worldview. But don't think the Muslims are one cohesive unit. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq; Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Because the Sunnis and the Shias hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews and the West!

It would be incredibly difficult for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. Why you ask? Because they would have to sneak it right under the noses of the huge US military presence in the Middle East. They would most likely try to launch a nuclear missile, which they don't have the nuclear warhead to do it with yet. And as you say, any attempt they try to pull this off will probably fail, because Israel is more than capable of shooting a nuclear missile down.

Revelation is not meant to be taken literally because it is apocalyptic literature. Read the book. Is there going to be a literal beast out of the sea? Is there going to be a literal woman who literally gives birth and a literal dragon that literally attempts to eat the child right after it is born? Of course not. So why should Jesus literally reign 1,000 years on the Earth with Satan literally tied with a literal key in a literal abyss? You cannot pick and choose which verses you take literally and which verses you take figuratively. Revelation and every book of prophecy must be read and interpreted in its proper historical context, and dispensationalists don't do that. They want every little thing to somehow apply to them today. This doesn't mean that the Bible is useless today, because of course it isn't. But I don't believe the Bible speaks specifically of current events outside of saying that wars will continue to the end of time and Jesus will one day return to end time.

I believe that dispensationalists misinterpret Revelation and many other passages of Scripture and construct theories around those misinterpretations and taking verses out of context. Most of the things in Revelation are about the Roman Empire and how God's people would be victorious over it. Remember how Rome severely persecuted Christians? The letter must be written with symbols, or a "code" if you will, so if the letter got into the wrong hands (remember, it was being sent to 7 ancient churches, not Christians of the 21st Century; this is just about the only thing that can be taken literally in Revelation) the Romans would have no idea what it was talking about. Ironically, dispensationalists take this fact figuratively, saying it applies to periods of world history with absolutely no basis for doing so! Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are meant to give comfort and peace to people at that time. It is a word for people at that time. Why should Revelation apply to the 21st Century? Revelation 1:1 says "...what must soon take place."

The events that Daniel prophesied didn't come to fruition until much later after they were revealed, and look what Daniel 8:26 says: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Meanwhile, John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy, because the "time is near" (Revelation 22:10). It seems to be an urgent message from God to His people. Understand what is being said in its proper context. Why should Daniel and Ezekiel apply to the 21st Century? It is much more plausible for it to apply to the people at those times. We shouldn't think that every bit of prophecy somehow applies to us, because it doesn't. What good would a document concerning events to happen 2000 years from now do for members of the Early Church who were under fierce persecution? Clinevol98 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of glad we've had such a long conversation, because it gave enough time for this to make it into the news: Times online article. It does seem to support your prior assertion that most other middle eastern countries didn't want Iran to have nuclear technology or weapons, but now it seems the situation has changed, current events sure are fast these days eh? :/ Of couse, the Muslim world does have that self-destructive thing going on, which is good to distract them, but they still show plenty of willingness to attack everyone outside the middle east as well. The US military presence is mostly only large in Iraq and in Turkey, and Iran could easily go through Syria by several routes. But yes, Israel will probably stop them, i'm just saying, Iran will probably try to destroy Israel with a nuke eventually is all, even thought it won't work. On Revelations, why can't there be a literal beast of the sea, there are literal demons in the world aren't there, and Satan is literally real, and angels literally exist, just because characters sound fanciful doesn't mean they don't exist. On the woman giving birth, you have to understand, metaphysical forces that involve Hell and heaven don't really work on the same level as the reality we know, but that doesn't mean they don't happen and aren't literal, literal doesn't mean they have to happen in the standards of our reality. And actually, I can choose which verses to take literally and which ones to take figuratively, I just try to choose the right ones to each category :). Remember, even Paul says in a metaphor he's making concerning Abraham and Abraham's wife I think that "these things may be taken figuratively...." so often times, things in the Bible are literally figurative, their not mutually exclusive categories. I think people who are eager for dispensationalism simply want to get a better idea of how close the end is, which is a bit distracting because it sort of takes away time from evangelism and certain groups (cough Millerites cough) start ignoring Christ, but I don't think their occasional habit of going overboard makes Revelations a figurative and fairly useless book, (I mean come on, if its compleatly figurative, it could mean absolutly anything) it just goes to show how people really aren't good at paying attention to the whole Bible sometimes. I gotta say, if there are dispensationalists out there who think the message to the seven churches was only figurative that's a bit crazy, but I think that simply because i've read it myself and it looks pretty literal to me, so once again, its an issue of reading the Bible for yourself without compleatly over-riding presuppositions one way or another with end-times theology. On Revelation 1:1, remember, this message was originally given to John as a prophecy, and a day to the Lord can be a thousand years, and a thousand years only a day, so its likely a matter of a message being given from God's perspective rather than man's. So all of the things concerning "soon" and "later" in the Bible don't necessarily mean "soon" or "later" in man's sense of the words. The book would be useful to the early church leaders because, as you've pointed out, the first part was directly addressed to several churches, and there were some instructions for them which they could act on immedietly. Therefore, the first part is useful for the early church leaders, and the second parts will likely be useful whenever the end times really start coming. (Plus, the first part can remind us today of the sort of standards the church's needed to keep themselves to). Homestarmy 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is good reason to take the book figuratively for the reasons I've described. As you say and as I said before, the book after all is addressed to 7 1st Century churches, not "O, Christians 21 centuries into the future." You say that the book is useful when the end times start coming; the end times are already here (Hebrews 1:1-2). It is a favorite statement of the dispensationals to say "the end times are upon us; the rapture is nigh!" But you could have made the same statement 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, or even 1900 years ago. The "last days" have been here ever since Jesus came to the Earth for the 1st time.

It is important to understand Biblical time references in context as well. While it is true that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, remember that God told Daniel to "seal up" his prophecy because it concerned the distant future (the rise of various global empires throughout ancient history), and it did; about 400 years into the future. But John was not told to seal his vision up, because the time was "at hand." Considering the events concerning Roman persecution of Christians, it makes sense for most of Revelation to concern those events and for the time to be "at hand".

And yes, there are people who, for no reason at all, take the 7 churches that the letter is addressed to in a figurative fashion. They say that we are living in the "Laodicean Age," or the age of apostasy. Of course, this is the 7th and last church mentioned which fits in with their "last days" mindset. The one thing that should definitely be taken literally in Revelation is taken figuratively by the dispensationals!

Of course Satan and demons are literal (in fact, they are literal and spiritual) beings, but as I said before this book must be understood in context. The fact that Satan is literal is a fact that is established throughout the Bible. Literal beasts out of the sea are not established elsewhere in the Bible and neither is a literal millennium. If Revelation said "don't worry, Rome is doomed," the message of the book would have never gotten out, so it had to use vivid imagery. Daniel's visions used similar imagery to describe the rise and fall of various ancient empires; they were not literal beings at all. It is important to understand the historical context in which the book and all prophecy books are written.

It would be nearly impossible for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. You say that the US has a large military buildup in Iraq and Turkey; those are 2 countries Iran shares an eastern border with and would have to go through if they were to smuggle a nuke on the ground. They don't share a border with Syria. Also don't forget how many ships we and other Western nations have in the Persian Gulf looking for weapons smuggled on tanker ships (we just completed an exercise that regarded this very scenario a few days ago). So it would be hard (almost impossible, in fact) for them to go around the Arabian Peninsula with one too. Besides, I think Iran won't attack Israel in the short-term anyway. They're crazy, but not stupid :)

Also check out this article [1] from the Council on Foreign Relations. It says that the Arab World has "mixed opinions" about Iran going nuclear, but they are specifically worried about:

• spreading conflict in the region that is not in their best interests (Israel/US vs. Iran)
• rising Shiite (minority group but vast majority in Iran) influence
• rising Iranian supremacy in the region (political, economic, and cultural threat to Arabs)
• lack of nuclear safety
• economic threats (sanctions affecting oil output/revenue)

The article also says that Hamas and Hezbollah and other radical elements support Iran in going nuclear; wow, what a surprise. However, I think this quote says a lot from an Arab political analyst: "No country in the Arab world will shed any tears over Tehran's spilled nuclear facilities." This also is a big statement: Arab nations have signed bilateral defense agreements with the US to keep (yes, keep) the US in the Persian Gulf as a hedge against Iranian threats. "A major concern for these states is that the U.S. military may decide to pull out entirely, leaving these states vulnerable to a rising Iran." Imagine that, some of them actually want us there! But they cannot speak with any sort of clout on this because they cannot be seen has overtly supporting US policy because that would be "political suicide" for them because we are so unpopular in the Middle East. A powerful Iran is simply not in the best interests of countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Egypt.

However, this article is more worrisome and sure gives the dispensationalists fuel for their theories. Keep in mind that a mutual business interest is one thing; an all-out invasion of Israel is quite another. Clinevol98 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably give a more detailed reply later, but for now, I thought you might be interested in this piece of news: [2] Homestarmy 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

At this stage, that appears to be all talk. Sure, they may be willing to sell weapons, but did you notice how the article never stated what countries were interested in potentially receiving them? They were only "ready" to supply air defense systems to Lebanon and the article never said anything about which countries wanted them.

Also, I e-mailed Lionel Beehner, the guy who wrote the articles on Arab views of a nuclear Iran and "Russia & Iran: Brothers in Arms." He seems very qualified; he holds a master's degree in international relations from Columbia University. So this isn't raptureready.com message board chatter. Here is what he had to say:

"Thanks for your email Matt. I wouldn't be all that concerned. Russia does not want a nuclear Iran anymore than we do but disagress with the EU-3 and us on how to thwart Iran from going nuclear. True, its interests at Bushehr seem to trump its anti-nuclear rhetoric, given the financial stakes there (other nuclear projects are in the works, I read). But I think it might be willing to tamp down its arms sales, which in the larger scheme of things, is pretty small potatos (compared to what it sells India and China for instance)."

" I'm not convinced Russia is selling Iran nuclear know-how or that Bushehr is having much impact on the ten-year timeline of when Iran would become nuclear capable (note: the israelis point to a three-year timeline). To my knowledge, they (the RUssians, that is) are enriching the uranium, not the Iranians. THey've offered to enrich uranium on a limited basis for other plants as well, but that plan was rejected. Remember, this is difficult stuff we're talking about. They've only begun their second cascade and progress on the first went slower then many expected.

On the issue of alliances, I think the Iranians are very distrustful of the Russians and will never form any meaningful alliance with them that could threaten US interests. Larger, multilateral alliances may take shape (keep an eye out for the Shanghai Cooperation Org, which has made overtures to Iran in the past to join) but their remains a large amount of enmity b/t Russia and Iran that is part cultural, part historical.

That said, I'm no way insinuating Russia will come around and support a UN resolution that targets Iran's oil sector. Nobody I talk to says that's in the offing."

Not looking too good for the dispensational theories, eh? Clinevol98 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I forgot about this for awhile heh. I gotta say, personally, i'm not really amazingly dedicated to current dispensational theories, because I prefer to concentrate on more important things, such as evangelism. Evangelism doesn't really often deal with end times theology :/. Dispensational theories are indeed kind of crazy sometimes, but I notice a lot that it depends on who you read about as to which particular theories they try to concentrate on, so I don't much spend a lot of time trying to memorize them all. Many of the overall theories they seem to propose seem somewhat reasonable, after all, most Middle Eastern countries do hate Israel and have hated anyone who controls Israel when it isn't them, so I think its highly likely that when the rapture is near, that the Middle East will probably be attacking Israel in some form or another. But as for specifics, like attacks coming from Russia, I don't really care so much about those, their interesting to me to listen to, but I don't think that its the only possible way everything's gonna go down. However, why would Iran and Russia need to be allies for Israel to be attacked? Russia, as with most European countries, is rapidly becoming more and more demographically Muslim, and the rebels in Chechyna aren't really political rebels, their pretty much all Islamic radical rebels. I think its highly possible that Russia simply won't be Russia before long, so they probably won't attack Israel technically :/. Homestarmy 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right not to be worried about Russia invading Israel, because it is not prophesied in the Bible and it is unlikely to happen at this time. You are also correct to be more concerned with evangelism and fulfilling the Great Commission. The problem I have with people like Hagee, Jack Van Impe, and Hal Lindsey is that they spend virtually all their time talking about the "end times." They really aren't evangelizing anyone. If anything, they're spreading fear (at least that's what they did to me).

What shocks me even more is the fact that these supposed "prophecy experts" still have credibility in Christian circles. Hal Lindsey predicted that Russia would invade Israel in the 1980s and Jesus should return by 1988, since that was a generation after Israel was reborn. He then predicted that the Battle of Armageddon would take place in 2000.

Van Impe predicted that the Y2K bug would usher in a period of global chaos and by 2001 the "Antichrist" should be here. Given that, he should have absolutely no credibility, correct? Wrong. Even before that, he set several dates for the "rapture." If I remember correctly, he mentioned 2003, 2004, 2007, 2012, and 2018 as possible dates for the "rapture." Now he claims to not know the exact date of the Second Coming but says that is definitely coming soon. After he spews this crap from his mouth, he and Lindsey still have TV shows, write books, and have a large following of people who eat out of their hands.

Israel has been and always will be attacked by their neighbors. That struggle will continue for eons and will only probably end at the end of history. The latest war in the Middle East isn't a sign that the "rapture" is near. Since you asked, Russia and Iran have to be allied for an invasion because the dispensationals think that that's what Ezekiel 38 says.

Also keep in mind that Hagee claims to have the ear of government officials in the US and Israel. These theories are dangerous if foreign policies are constructed around them, which was my point from the very beginning. Clinevol98 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have references for those, I think they could (and should) be added to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians. (Yes, I know the article name is weird, its a long story). But i've never heard Hagee say that he has the ear of anyone, that's news to me.... Homestarmy 13:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have references for the Van Impe predictions, but I do clearly remember him saying them in the years before the year 2000. However, I can prove that Van Impe made a video called "2000 Time Bomb" [3]. An argument can be made that Hagee is a date-setter too, because he frequently says that this generation is the "terminal generation;" the generation that will see the "rapture."

And yes, I know what you mean by the "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" article. While everything in it is true and an article like that does need to exist, it does seem biased against Christianity. There probably needs to be one huge article with unfulfilled predictions by religious figures in general. A list such as this would still mostly be bad predictions from Christians though, because it's mostly dispensational premillennialists in Christian circles making the predictions that blow up in their faces.

As for Hagee, he claims to have "high level US and Israeli sources" giving him information in his book Jerusalem Countdown (I haven't read the book and don't want to, but check the amazon.com reviews of the book). Also, read this article [4]. Clinevol98 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to improve that article, but since the name change, I just don't see much promise for it, the purpose is only defined by consensus of editors now. (Plus, there's self-references in the intro, that's ordinarily a no-no, but with this title, there's not much choice) There was some discussion about having one big "Religious predictions" article, but due to western bias, i'm concerned most of the content will still be from Christianity, and I think that would send an implicitly negative message :/. But as for him merely having sources, how does that show he has high level influence? Homestarmy 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, think about it; evangelical Christians are the base of the Republican Party. Ken Mehlman and Oliver North have attended his "A Night to Honor Israel" crusades. Hagee also claims to speak with Benjamin Netanyahu. He may not necessarily "influence" these people per se, but he definitely has the ability to get in touch with them. Again, this just further proves that Hagee does not focus on evangelism. He's trying make it seem like he is some foreign policy expert when he has absolutely no training or experience in this field. He's too busy getting in touch with his "unidentified Israeli sources" to write books over preaching the Gospel.

Just read this article I found which is written by Hagee [5]. In it he claims that Iran will hit "New York City and Wall Street, London, and Jerusalem" with nuclear missiles when Iran won't have a nuclear bomb for at least another 4 years. Iran also doesn't have missiles to hit the United States. North Korea doesn't either for that matter. The man is spreading fear whether he's trying to or not. If he has such "expert" sources, he shouldn't be saying these things.

In addition, his "source" claims that Iran could have a bomb within 2 years, which is contrary to pretty much all other reports. People forget that Iran needs to enrich uranium to around 95% for it to be weapons-grade, and the latest reports show that they have only crudely enriched it to around 5%. They also need tens of thousands of centrifuges at many nuclear plants to do the enriching; at last count they only have a few hundred. Also, why should we assume that Iran will perfectly execute every step to building the bomb? In that e-mail I posted from the CFR guy, he said that Iran had problems with their "second cascade;" something to do with uranium enrichment. They'll have problems along the way most likely, so it might take longer than four years (I've heard some estimates say 2015). This isn't downplaying a threat, because Iran is a threat, but these are the facts. I don't believe that Hagee has ever heard the word "brinkmanship."

His "source" also told him in that article that Israel would attack Iran between April and September of 2006. Incorrect. So Hagee or his "source" shouldn't have much credibility. Clinevol98 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations on Luther Page

Dear Homes:

A discussion is underway between me and a newcomer who is undoing a lot of my work on the notes in this article. Would you weigh in? Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He's done a bunch, most of little consequence. What I object to is taking all references, wherever they are in the page, and wrapping them up all into one note. (all the notes with a,b,c,d,e,f, etc. prefix subscripts). He also split references to two or more sources into two or more <ref> tags. So, now, if you work through the notes section, many of the footnotes are out of order. In addition, there is no easy way to move blocks of texts to new pages. You have to stop, comb the whole article looking for the text of the notes and cut-and-pasting each one over to the new page. That will slow down the revision campaign. On splitting the notes, besides not being standard, extra, unneeded lines are added to the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom

Could you please talk to him? He's much more likely to listen to you than to me and he seems to be self-destructing. JoshuaZ 06:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And he just went over WP:3RR on the article again. I really think he could be a productive editor if he was more cooperative. JoshuaZ 06:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the general template. I won't object if you or another editor other than Paradox feels that the neutrality is disputed enough to justify the templare. It might be reasonable to see if he would be willing to be unblocked under the conditions that he not edit the J4J mainpage. JoshuaZ 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

You the only guy on the GA review page? You seem to be fighting a lonely battle, my hats off to you (even though I don't own one). LuciferMorgan 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If criterion 2. b. of GA is disputed, I suggest the Science editors motion for a change in the criteria. Right now it's there in black and white - FAs are delisted based on criteria shortcomings, so GA shouldn't be different. Also, all articles with zero cites were warned beforehand to sort things out.

Besides, if they feel the delisting is unfair they can opt for a review, and have sufficient reasons why it shouldn't have been delisted. The word "required" in the criteria makes their case collapse like a stack of cards. Those with few cites I'll just nominate for review. LuciferMorgan 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Good Articles" question

Hiya,

You seem to have been around the GA process for a while. I wanna ask a question, but am afraid of starting a foodfight if I ask on the project talk page.

I'm just looking at the most recent GA, New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway. The only reason I'm discussing that article is simply because, at the time I had these questions, that was the most recent GA.

If I were reviewing it, I would look down at the notes section, see a total of 7 notes, and think "'Next!'". No way would I accept that level of skimpiness with respect to verifiability. I get the coypvio shudders when I see only 7 notes in the middle of a large number of factual assertions. I would not even need to read the rest of the article to know it was a GA reject.[However, I would read the rest of the article, in order to offer constructive criticism.] I mean, look at this:

The New Jersey Western was the most profitable of the roads and, led by Cornelius Wortendyke, began operating at Hawthorne in 1869. Later that year, Wortendyke signed an agreement with Dewitt Littlejohn to give the NY&OM trackage rights over the NJW to reach New York City. This agreement was pivotal, as the two roads would soon see themselves merged in 1870 to form the New Jersey Midland Railway (NJM)

In my mind, this article needs should contain far more {{fact}} tags than it has photos.

I would reject it despite its nice maps and photos. Nice maps and photos are the least of my concerns (tho having at least 1 is kinda required, if I read WP:WIAGA correctly.. but I'm surprised WP:WIAGA makes no mention of infoboxes!).

Would I be in the wrong?

Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

GA question#2

HI again,

Anyone can list anything! There are no checks at all, unless someone just happens to get around to it. That's true for inexperienced reviewers; it's true for counterfeits ("bogies").

Am I out of line for wondering about this?

I'm walking in and commenting on a process that has existed for a while, I know...

[And thanks for the answer to q#1]. --Ling.Nut 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

sarcasm and JesusFreak

Heh, I was wondering how folks who know me would respond to that post. Basically, if I want to explain POV to a home-schooled "Jesus Freak," I want to put it in terms that he will understand. Another editor posted a response that amounted to a challenge, but why be confrontational? I want to make NPOV make sense even to someone who thinks that their beliefs are the truth, not POV. I wrote it with irony, but not sarcasm. I was really trying to get to the NPOV idea from JesusFreak's viewpoint. Jonathan Tweet 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Electron Beam Welding

I've responded on the talk page. Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of laser beam welding? Do you think that meets the requirements of GA? Granted, there isn't much on how it's used, but there's at least a line about it in the lead. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to make a pretty convincing case that the two general references at the bottom cover most of the text, but I personally think it borderline is broad enough. However, people more familiar with welding may spot something else missing. Homestarmy 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila: would appreciate your opnion

Hi Homestarmy,

Is that "home state army?"

Anyhow, if you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could look at Jogaila and especially at the discussion of its GA at the bottom of its talk page. It's a bit of an unusual case, in that although there is ongoing bickering over spelling issues, the bickering seems not to affect the article...

Thanks, --Ling.Nut 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Is it common practice to delist an article by review without notification? Most users don't keep Wikipedia:Good articles/Review on their watchlist, after all. Just wondering. – ClockworkSoul 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is that rule posted, because it's not being followed on most articles that are being considered for GA-delisting. – ClockworkSoul 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I really should try to get more sleep: my level of comprehension has been way down lately. Thanks, though! :) – ClockworkSoul 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I was a short with you: I unfairly took my bad week out on you. It won't happen again. – ClockworkSoul 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

feeling a little cranky

Forgive me for doing a core dump... but...

I wanted to stop being a total metawikipedian around WP:GA/R, and go actually review some more articles. So I went to look.

I...it's difficult to say. I want to keep impartiality. But I am feeling cranky.

I have spent.. I haven't looked at the history.. but hours upon hours upon hours on the page I submitted (which first got me interested in this process). In my admittedly biased opinion, it is a very important topic.

The article still has warts; it might not make GA. I wouldn't be surprised or hurt at all if it didn't. In fact, I would be faintly surprised if it passed.

Among the nominees I looked at today: one of the articles took less than 2 days to write, start to finish. And I think it might just be GA.

Another.. the topic is...[null set]. And I think it might be GA.

Yet I know... I know, if I ever even mention the N-word (that would be "notability".. stop letting your imagination fill in the blanks) I will instantly become a hated heathen, an Outcast Unclean. I have been there before!

Around GA/R, what is the status of the N-word-that-may-not-be-spoken?

I'm sure you've read this: User:Worldtraveller.

Later, --Ling.Nut 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

late reply

Hi Homestarmy,

Yeah, I definitely hear what you're saying about the GA page, and about working on other projects. Maintaining a balanced perspective is important. :-)

I may be pretty light on contribs for a couple weeks starting now, but I plan to hang out on GA from now on.. just in moderation. :-) If you need help with any of the administrative-type tasks you mentioned, give me a holler any time (but that offer starts after mid-December or so. busy now.. sorry).

later! --Ling.Nut 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin Alphabet

I should point out that it does fail WP:WIAGA criteria 1c as I mentioned on the article's talk page. I know they are small problems but I should point out that when the problems are fixed the article can always be renominated at WP:GAN. Tarret 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well lets leave that up to the articles editors. If they ask to put it back on the list I guess we can, after all the editor is always right. Tarret 02:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns at Agrippina

Fixed. Moreschi 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There should indeed. Thanks for picking that up. Best, Moreschi 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! At last someone tells me a few things that are wrong. Brilliant! All of that's pretty easy, I'll go and fix it now. Cheers, Moreschi 22:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

HAH! Your puny list is no match for my awesome CITING powers!!! Anything else you want doing? Cheers, Moreschi 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (with apologies for plagiarizing the wit of Adam Cuerden)

Well, i'm about to have dinner, so I might not be able to look at it again for a bit, but maybe someone else can just read down the article and find a few things. Homestarmy 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates

My thought was that the sentence "You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it." is in the instructions (nr 2) :-)

Fred-Chess 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

Hi Homey,

Can I ask you to explicitly vote (or repeat your vote, if you have already voted in the long discussion) on Agrippina (opera)? It has been the subject of extended discussion, and deserves closure.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your comments, which I think have been addressed. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you feel able to vote conclusively or not? Thanks for all the help. Best, Moreschi 20:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I don't like to vote on articles which seem to me borderline in terms of references, but the debate is still going on, i've asked a few other GA people to maybe take a look at the conversation. I think i'd rather wait to make a statement one way or the other for now. Homestarmy 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. BTW, Folantin added several cites from Viking earlier today. Best, Moreschi 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry to be a pest...

You may also wanna see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Candidates#lotsa_undiscussed_editing_of_the_project_page.._many_people_may_want_to_have_a_say.

• --Ling.Nut 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Claude Nicolas Ledoux

Re: Claude Nicolas Ledoux.

I left a message on Folantin's talk page saying that he would be a more appropriate person to review this article, since the person who responded on the article's talk page seems to share his (Folantin's) views of GA.

If Folantin doesn't pick this up in two days or so, would you mind doing it? But let Folantin have the first crack; I asked him first.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Claude Nicolas Ledoux. Would you please review Claude Nicolas Ledoux, or find reviewers?--Ling.Nut 11:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i did send an email..

It takes a somewhat strong position. If you don't get it in a day or two (subject: "Because it gives me satisfaction to think I'm helping the encyclopedia") then drop a line on my talk page. :-)

Cheers!--Ling.Nut 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus Arbitration

There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs.ParadoxTom 03:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Srikeit 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think i've shortened it to about 499 words. Homestarmy 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

J4J RfAr

Concerning your summary - [6]. I obviously haven't been paying as much attention to the talk page as I should have. I had no idea that the discussion had gotten that bad at times. JoshuaZ 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments here I suspect that bringing the RfAr actually is what resulted in the block since it brought to Dcm's attention(since he's on the ArbCom) a matter which he had probably not been thinking about since his last discussion on the matter. JoshuaZ 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

not particulalrly enjoyable

Sigh. Everywhere I go, I am reminded of my lower station in life. I must admit, it is a little tiring: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Tamil people in FAR.

Sorry so negative. I was exhausted this morning. I am dealing with serious burnout (not from Wikipedia, but from school), and huge deadlines. I really need to ignore my watchlist until my outlook on life is a bit better, :-)

Later--Ling.Nut 01:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sword of Christ

The more I look at the user's edits the more your analysis seems to be accurate. I would suggest making a note of it on the ANI discussion about the user. In any event, he is so close to getting an indef block it might not matter anyways. JoshuaZ 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur - I agree with you, Homestarmy. I really try to AGF but perhaps I go too far sometimes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:GA/R

Homestarmy,

Two or three discussions are just kinda hanging there, seemingly unresolved. I was gonna archive them but am not sure. In this case, should I archive them as No Consensus?--Ling.Nut 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's Clear the Air

Sorry but this is going to be long...I am appealing to you because you seem to be one of the more level headed persons involved on the Jews for Jesus article. Please understand that it was not an intent to ram down a certain POV that brought me there. It was this sentence in the RfAr by Inigmatus: "I am one of many fustrated editors with JfJ. Even though I know the page needs help, I think if we had more input from those who do not hold to Judaism, or Messianic Judaism, or even Christianity, that we would make some true NPOV progress."

Although, I self identify as Christian, for about 10 years I was agnostic, and still remain agnostic on certain Christian religious doctrines. Therefore, I believed I could give an objective review of this article and the apparent dispute. I could not. Because of the intransigence of certain editors, the article as currently written is a joke. What editors at that article must realize is that the article isn't about Chrisitanity, Judaism, Messianic Judaism, it's about Jews for Jesus. The debate about that sentence is not necessary if the focus on the article is on the organization. Nor is classifying it Christian or Jewish or Apostate or whatever. However, if even minor edits will be scrutinized and reverted without discussion, no consensus will ever be reached.

Which brings me to this. My objection with Pastor Leigh, is not because I believe JfJ is Christian or Jewish. Personally I don't care what they are or are perceived to be. It is really about undue weight. Pastor Leigh may be a Pastor with a 100 or so followers, his opinion really shouldn't be used to denote JfJ's Christianity. Billy Graham, Pat Robertson with their millions of followers, OK, I can see that (but I'd still have reservations). The Pope, with his billion followers, well there you go, but not Pastor Leigh. I really would suggest you place that quote somewhere else and not in the introduction.

That being said, I won't make any changes at the articles anymore. Or contribute any new thoughts. I'm leaving the discussion, except to answer questions. So you needn't worry about an edit war. It's unfortunate that the the mediation never took place, and also unfortunate that I had to come across Humus Sapiens. I hope he and I never cross Wiki paths again.

Good luck. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, for a subject I care so very little about, it was causing me waaaay too much grief. FTR-- the edit didn't make me sad. It's the lack of attempt to reach consensus that has me down. :( Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the archive history, I see there has never been an RfC on this almost six month debate. Maybe one is in order. If the other editor's were interested in filing, one, I'd be glad to participate in it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

archive your talk page/Lucifer's tussle

Hiya,

It might be about time to archive your talk page. ;-)

Lucifer's in a tussle, which if you wanna read, is here. I know 'cause I was watching his talk page ('cause I left him a message the other day) and someone threatened to block him.

--Ling.Nut 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention an archive, maybe i'll do it :D I'll read about Lucifer too. Homestarmy 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit queasy; someone can WP:3RR and threaten a block over {{fact}} tags? There's something inherently Strong Bad-ish there. I'll think about this after finals.

--Ling.Nut 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairfield Osborn Preserve

Yes, i would like to see the article improve through the GA process, whether it succeeds in attaining GA or not. My simple review notes have already elicited some improvement. Could you explain what you mean by your comment "admittedly highly subjective reference standards" ? Do you mean you would like to see more sources ? One can hardly have enough sources, if that is what you mean. If that is your meaning, i would be pleased to insist on that as another essential element for promotion to GA. In any case i would like the article on hold for a week or two to give prior editors or new ones a chance to improve the article. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, sincerely, Covalent 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article

I noticed the article has a new category, "Christian mythology". I am curious to know your thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the diverse meanings of mythology and given proper context I understand how all religion can be addressed through that definition. However, when I look at Category:Christian mythology it appears that Jesus does not fit within the category at large. I wonder if another category may be more appropirate, but I do not have an idea which one. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Gold_Coast.2C_Queensland

Two sentences of WP:GAC need revision. --Ling.Nut 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Trains / GAR

If you inspect the "Railroad transport" section of GA, there's a load of articles which don't meet current GA criteria. LuciferMorgan 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

mmm...

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you think I have been unreasonable. Or don't, if you don't want to. It is getting boring. But I.... see the other other side of the ledger as the over-reacting/unreasonable side. But whatever.

I think this arguing is just gonna continue. Nothing can stop it. Nothing except handing out free GAs, I mean. --Ling.Nut 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More fruitful directions for creationists to concentrate

• abiogenesis
• nature of consciousness
• balance of physical constants
• questions about the role of the observer
• work done on whether God had a choice when he created the universe
• experiments suggested and ongoing in physics looking for evidence of a creator
• the nature of renormalization
• the nature of the vacuum

These and other areas are places where a scientific mechanism has yet to be successful. Attacking science in areas which are reasonably well understood and well supported with evidence is not particularly productive.

What it seems to indicate, is that creationists are not interested in:

• finding the truth
• working in a constructive manner with others who are trying to probe the mysteries of nature
• compiling evidence demonstrating that God might be necessary to explain what is observed
• allowing the pursuit of knowledge

but in trying desperately to defend biblical inerrancy. Not the best possible strategy, frankly.

This is especially true since many different sects disagree on what the bible means. To the point of killing each other.--Filll 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You do realize, your talking about me in the third person with "creationists" right? Many creationists do in fact emphasize the notable balance of physical contants, but since Creationism as a construct primarily developed in name in response to evolutionary theory, the emphasis generally focuses on, well, evolution. I myself however am not that well versed with creationist arguments, (though i'd like to create some more general ones on my own, which is primarily why I still watch the evolution talk page and read the discussions) because in my opinion, in the end, who cares if I turn an evolutionist into a creationist via my arguments? That won't make anyone a Christian, many religions have thier own forms of creationism. The thing is, Creationism isn't about trying to discover something new, before evolutionary theory came along, the idea that God created the universe was sort of supreme in the western world. Defending a former orthodox view is not in and of itself dishonest, the reason creationism starts with the presumption that God "did it" if you will is because that presumption was around way before evolutionary theory was popular. (And yes, I know there's a couple folks in ancient times who made a few evolutionary-esque comments, but there certainly wasn't the sort of thing Darwin created) The evidence that God is necessary to explain what is observed is, however, not really a Creationist sort of deal, because the Cosmological argument was around way before Creationism really got started, and most Creationist sites I know of seem to primarily concern themselves with backing up the Teleological argument, which takes longer to defend using more materially based measures. Lastly, I know of not a single creationist organization which has tried to kill others because they had different creationist type views. (and no, Islam vs. Christianity doesn't count, because the different forms of the Creation stories aren't the primary reason for that fight starting) Homestarmy 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

GA backlog

User:Montanabw is the Arabian horse guy, remember? He wants to do some GA reviews to help with the backlog. If you wanna give him a teensy bit of input/feedback after he's done some things, that would be cool & thanks in advance. :-)

--Ling.Nut 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

more GA rules == fewer non compos mentis yammerheads spewing on me

The subject line says it all. :-) --Ling.Nut 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish literature

Not sure what to do about Swedish literature. Don't wanna leave a message on several peoples' talk page.--Ling.Nut 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"clarity is good"

I think "clarity is good" may be a quote from The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. LeGuin.

Anyhow, I appreciate you for being the anchor of the GA process these days and for some time previous. You have my very sincere gratitude and even respect.

But can you please do me a favor?

When you leave a WP:GA/R message on an article's talk page, can you use something very obvious like "Good Article status of this article being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting" as the subject header? Make it really obvious. There are two reasons: one is because it is simply fair, and the other is because it wards off complaints about following the rules. The first reason is good karma; the second is anti-headaches.

Similarly, when you vote, can you vote Keep or Delist in bold letters? :-)

Really, I wanna repeat, I feel I (or some vague someone somewhere) owes you a debt of gratitude for your work there. A million thanks, sincerely. --Ling.Nut 14:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review on Kanab Ambersnail

There isn't one yet, but if it doesn't improve by the 22nd its going up for GA review, since its not especially broad in its coverage. It was me that passed it orignally. See the talk page, and let me know if I cna help. RHB 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War

Hi I noticed you left some comments at Roman-Spartan War talk page regarding the GA nomination it received. I failed this article but am receiving angry messages about this. Would you consider adding an opinion to the talk page as I wholly believe that this article is not suitable for GA yet. Hope you can help, Jhamez84 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)