User talk:FrJohn/archived discussion 3
Father, would it be okay to get rid of some of these? For instance, the AndStuff wiki is personal and closed. For many of these, it's doubtful that we would ever link them, let alone in quantities enough to justify having an interwiki link (LinuxWiki, for example). On the other hand, it may be easier to keep them than weed them out. Additionally, some of the interwiki links do not link to wikis, like those related to Google. Your thoughts? —magda (talk) 13:06, November 21, 2005 (CST)
Father, That license for the favicon was for the favicon that I created. If you read the log, I think HappyGrievling replaced it with a favicon of his version. He just didn't change the license.
Fr., the first one is link-button size, but the second is more banner-sized, and rather illegible when reduced to the size of the first. Still want the second? You're welcome to both, of course. —magda (talk) 12:08, November 25, 2005 (CST)
- Category:Skete Images - For images used by permission from Skete.com - See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Skete.com
I have noticed that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Skete.com does not include all of the images which actually use the template (cf. Image:Dionysius the Areopagite.jpg). Also, how do you make the category page show up as a gallery? —magda (talk) 12:56, November 26, 2005 (CST)
They're probably actually more in the line of "fair use" than public domain, something like what you find here or here, i.e., that the image was produced for mass distribution. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 14:13, November 26, 2005 (CST)
Fr. I noticed that Dcn. Damick, Magda, and yourself are doing some serious work with images. I would jump in and help, but don't know where to start. Do you use Firefox for your browser? If so, have you looked at the ChatZilla IRC Client I wrote about. I think this would help everyone talk about what everyone else is doing at the moment and might help speed things along. This is the last time I will mention it for a while. I am currently logged into the #orthodoxwiki channel at irc.freenode.net using the default user name. Joe 18:09 EST 26 Nov 2005
Father John, I'll give it a try. Wsk 17:33, November 26, 2005 (CST)
Please import all appropriate images from a whole category at one time and then register the category on Wikimedia Commons that they were imported from here. — I don't think I understand this sentence. Would you please clarify? —magda (talk) 22:06, November 26, 2005 (CST)
Okay, so what images do you want in this category? Each and every icon? Just want to make sure before going ahead. My plan is to go through Special:Imagelist tomorrow (or later today, in my time zone) and make sure they're in the lists by subject. —magda (talk) 23:17, November 26, 2005 (CST)
- More specifically, do you want to add [[Category:Icons]] even to the images which are already in, say, Category:Skete Images? The Skete Images category itself is in Category:Icons, but the individual images do not show up in the Category:Icons gallery. —magda (talk) 14:30, November 27, 2005 (CST)
How about images which are included in a permission category, but not a topical category—Image:Alaska.png, Image:Alexandria logo.gif—would you want them to be in the ironic "Uncategorized Images" category? —magda (talk) 16:08, November 27, 2005 (CST)
- Any idea what to do about the two almost-identical Atalla Hanna pictures? I would prefer to delete the second, but am not sure how. —magda (talk) 16:20, November 27, 2005 (CST)
- Atallah Hanna.jpg
- That's part of what has me confused, but there is a separate listing for each on Special:Imagelist (500, by name), and when clicking on the filename, those are kept in different directories, so it's not the exact same file:  and . —magda (talk) 18:20, November 27, 2005 (CST)
More image stuff
Category:OrthodoxWiki Images— It seems that some of these, such as Image:Logo wikikto en.jpg, would be better off in the Logos category. I don't see them as OrthodoxWiki logos or even system images. If you think they should remain in this category, perhaps you could add a clarifyer on the category page?
MediaWiki:Uploadtext— Should we add something like: "If you have obtained this image from the internet, please include the URL in the summary." ? (Or perhaps: "If you have obtained this image from the internet, please include the URL in the summary, unless the source is evident from the image license.")
Re: Copyright trouble
- Hello Father, I edit/create new entries on both sites (Wikipedia and OrthodoxWiki - see, for example,  and  and compare to OrthodoxWiki), so it's the same person in most cases, though I use different usernames in Wikipedia and usually even edit without loging in at all, i.e., a different IP address will appear at different times (my IP is not static). I started editing in Wikipedia before moving to OrthodoxWiki. In Christ, --Arbible 17:31, November 28, 2005 (CST)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nectarios (I created/edited this one too using username Kyrillos2 (to upload the image) and IP address 184.108.40.206)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraam_Bishop_of_Fayoum (I created/edited this one also using username Kyrillos2 (to upload the image) and IP addresses 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168)
- and many, many more...
- A general problem with wikis is the lack of explicit authorship/editorship information, and of mechanisms to ensure this is clearly present in every article. (For quality benchmarking purposes an IP or nickname cannot qualify as proper authorship/editorship information.) This is a crucial quality criterion that we teach to our students - please refer to the following presentation of mine: http://healthcybermap.org/MNKB_Quality.PDF
- In Christ, --Arbible 18:10, November 28, 2005 (CST)
- That's a nice presentation, Arbible, very clear. One clarification, though. The article in question is Cyril VI (Atta) of Alexandria (cf. wikipedia:Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria). Fr. John
- The WHOIS info of the above domains can be easily checked.
- The following resource might also be of interest, especially the sections on self-plagiarism and on proper/improper paraphrasing: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/
- I need to go now - I will be in Thailand for the coming few days, God willing, to deliver an invited keynote speech at a conference http://www.j-geoinfo.net/HealthGIS/FISH_prog.htm , so won't be available to reply/edit. Please keep me in your prayers. In Christ, --Arbible 19:36, November 28, 2005 (CST)
Thanks for the links, but can you be more explicit about what you are saying they demonstrate? Thanks, Fr. John
- Even when one is simply importing (to a different wiki)/reusing their own articles that nobody else has edited this can still sometimes be considered self-plagiarism by academic standards (also depending on the specific details of a particular import and how you approach/judge the whole matter). OPEN wiki "encyclopedias" are not academically rigorous and were never intended to be so. Nicknames are not any better than IP addresses (in this respect). One can never compare Wikipedia to Britannica, for example - see , . Please forgive me Father; you should never describe yourself as "slow sometimes". Thanks for the prayerful wishes. In Christ, --Arbible 20:30, November 28, 2005 (CST)
Food for thought:
- I have also written a bit on the wiki concept in this recent editorial of mine: http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/4/1/22 (see under 'Discussion > The wikification of GIS, maps and satellite imagery/aerial photography: imaging and geospatial information for the wide masses')
Did I ever mention that one day last year a woman showed up at my church - she had been Muslim by was converted by a miracle that she a her sister both witnessed together -- it was a manifestation of Pope St. Kyrillos? It was a beautiful story. Fr. John
I've been using the off-line OrthodoxWiki known as the seminary for the article. I am taking a course in Orthodox Christian Ethics this semester and when we were told to come up with a project for the semester... There were three of us, writing three articles each, so hopefully, before the end of the year, there will be eight more articles for that section of OrthodoxWiki. Virgil
- Actually, yes. Among the options for projects was "creating ethics-related web-pages," with the provision that we would have to show they are useful for more than just getting a grade. Naturally, I suggested OrthodoxWiki. Thankfully, it was accepted. Virgil
address of st catherine- mt siani
dearest father - would you happen to know the address to the monastery of st catherine ( mt. saini)? I would like to send a prayer request for 40 days litergy . ( seven days a week for 40 days)I was looking for information who was the heiromonk and where to send a offering.- thank- you! with love in christ- athena
- This was actually a longer search than I expected, Father. I'm still working on going to the library to finish copying out the list of names for this request. Sorry for the editing conflict. Thanks for the tip on the favicon. And what do you mean you don't know everything? :) —magda (talk) 10:14, November 30, 2005 (CST)
Fr. If you are talking about using the Google API I think that would be great. Joe 30 Nov 2005
- Ok, ok. Just give me a little time! Fr. John
- Fr. The first extension you listed looked a little more user friendly. Joe
The main difficulty with having Category:Clergy include individuals is that it would thus necessarily encompass nearly every person whose bio we have on the wiki, thus rendering it nearly useless. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 17:33, November 30, 2005 (CST)
- I'm honestly not sure. Obviously, we don't want uncategorized articles, but I'm also not sure how to supply categories for some of these folks. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 17:47, November 30, 2005 (CST)
Come Receive the Light
Fr. Is that your wife on the receive.org website/broadcast? Joe 4 Dec 2005
Japanese Church Images
Fr. John, I like the categories setting up all the images on file. I suggest adding the image of Metr. Sergius to the Japanese category. I couldn't how you linked the image to the Japanese image category, so that's why I'm sending this!! The file is: Image:Met_Sergius%28port%29.jpg. ````
The other states are not usually one-large-metropolitan-area and everybody-else. In Texas, most things (as far as I know) are grouped by metropolitan area. For instance, someone looking for a church in Dallas may find that the closest church to his location-in-Dallas is actually in, say, Irving. Since he wouldn't be going to Irving itself, he probably wouldn't look for churches there. I would love to see a google map interface with these pages somehow.
photo of Lossky
I took the photo from a conference page of the Moscow Patriarchate. http://e.korsoun.free.fr/fr/annonces/conference_20050628.htm
There was no copyright notice on the page.
Your welcome. Even despite our differences I do wish the best for all people of faith. I do ask if at possible, that I be given access to my user talk page again. I think I understand why you locked it but I think we can agree to disagree without needing to make it a large issue. --Patriarchanthony 21:31, December 11, 2005 (CST)
- Thanks! --Patriarchanthony 22:04, December 11, 2005 (CST)
Reverted pages they vandalized. Best I can do. --Patriarchanthony 21:06, December 12, 2005 (CST)
Greetings. I'm a student of Orthodox Seminary in Poland and I'm searching books and materials about hisotry of Orthodoxy in America, becouse I want to wrie my bechelor work about this. Maybe You can help for me?
Hey, thanks for the encouragement. I'll be sure to work on a better article. - Ari 23:26, January 2, 2006 (CST)
Thanks for the extra points of view and thanks for reading some of my site. I did some research on the Great Schism of 1054 for a major project but I could not find enough information on it from first hand historians and most of what I did find was written by the west so it showed bias. I'm will try and work some of your suggestions into the site. --Ari 00:03, January 3, 2006 (CST)
I did what I could to revert the perverse edits of a few spammers. I can't delete the pics but I assume a revert of them does the same thing? Not sure. But again, I did what I could. Edit this because problem resolved with sysop. :) --Patriarchanthony 01:12, January 8, 2006 (CST)
Re: Copyright Concern?
Hi We have permission to use this articles.
Thank you very much for responding. I have to apologies, but this system is absolutely new to me. The way its working is little different that just ordinary website, also, tags is different too, so I will ask for your patients and forgiveness for any mistakes I could make in future. I guess it’s going to take some time to learn. If you could advice how this information should be putted we will be much appreciated, and if you think it should be deleted, than do so. About the copyright issue you don’t’ have to worry about this, because I am the owner and administrator of the blago.org server Thank you in advance.
Original Sin Question
The following is from Our Orthodox Christian Faith: A Handbook of Popular Dogmatics by Athanasios S. Frangopoulos, theologian and teacher. Published by The Brother of Theologians, "The Savior", in Athens, Greece, 1984, Chapter 9, The Original Sin:
"4.e. The inheritance of Original Sin. The saddest and ugliest aspect of Original sin is its transmission from the first man to his descendants and; from generation to generation to the entire human race: a hereditary transmission as a state and sickness of human nature and as a personal guilt of every man."
This seems to aledge that we carry personal guilt for the original sin (which I understood to be a Catholic doctrine).
Can you explain whether this does or doesn't say that and why?
- Dear Kharaku, it's a good question. First, it's a mistake to say that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we carry personal guilt, at least in the way many Orthodox understand them to teach. Here's what their Catechism, which is the current standard of teaching, says:
- "Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin..."
- I have some issues with some of the wording in the larger context of that passage, but I don't fundamentally disagree with this. There has been a lot of scholastic influence on both Greek and Russian thought. I take many of the critiques of this kind of explanation of original sin as part of this movement away from "the Latin captivity" of Orthodox church theology (as Fr. Florovsky says). I do think sometimes people take it too far in the other direction.
- The RC Catechism also states:
- 406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
- This could help explain the different emphasis in the Orthodox tradition. Although Pelagius and his teaching were condemned at an Ecumenical Council, the battle between Augustine and Pelagius remained mainly a Western issue. The RC Catechism defends Augustine's position while carefully avoiding some of the more extreme ("total depravity") interpretations of the Reformers which virtually nullify the idea of human freedom, or cooperation with God.
- I think what we can understand Frangopoulos to be saying (to put a positive spin on it), is that we have all died in Adam and, through the Fall, have become citizens of the kingdom of darkness. We must die to Adam - not just clean things up, but die - and be reborn into new life in Christ. This is our justification (as we say during the Baptismal service), and the foundation of Church life.
- Hope that helps! — FrJohn (talk)
Original Sin Question
I guess my question is two fold. And I think you answered well the discrepency between the Roman and Orthodox churches with regard to the CCC
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
I'm still unclear though as to whether the Orthodox view is that we inherit personal guilt for the original sin. I'm not so concerned with the Roman idealogy so much as whether the Orthodox beleive we inherit personal guilt, and if so why this doesn't require a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception.
- I would say, no we don't - and this doesn't require a doctrine of Immaculate Conception. We do not bear personal guilt for Adam's sin (Fr. Meyendorff pointed out well how this idea derives from a mistranslation of Rom. 5:12 in the Old Latin), but we do inherit a tendency towards sin, a corrupt human nature, which leads quickly enough to actual personal sin. Fr. John
Good to be back - and to see all that has been done. Nice new logo!
Greetings From Dutchess County
It's a small internet isn't it? It never occurred to me that FrJohn was you! Your daughter has grown so much see we last saw her as an infant! Glad to see you are all doing well and thanks for creating this wonderful resource.
Thank you Father! Sorry, I would reply at my own talk page, but I'm not sure how to reply to what someone has wrote. Wanted to ask you... How do we redirect pages? I've done an article for Prophet Habbakuk, but I'm aware that there are A LOT of variations to the name: Habbakuk, Habakkuk, Habbakkuk, Avakuk, Avvakuk, etc. How can I redirect pages when someone uses spelling different from article's title? Silentchapel
Would appreciate your opinions on Talk:Orthodoxy in Australasia regarding whether the Macedonian metropolitanate should be listed as another Orthodox structure. (also posted on Dcn Andrew's talk page) --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 17:55, April 30, 2006 (CDT)
Greetings Fr John,
Wanted to ask you a question about the formal Greek/Eastern Orthodox view regarding what we receive in the Holy Communion. We (Eastern and Ortiental) believe that this is the true body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We (Eastern and Ortiental) also confess that His divinity was not separated from His humanity for a single moment and that His humanity is one with His divinity without commixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. Does this imply/do Easterns believe that we also receive the 'mystery of the Divinity' in the Eucharist?
Many thanks for your time.
Yours, --Arbible 13:43, May 10, 2006 (CDT)
- Haven't thought much about this, Arbible. Is there a developed Coptic theology here? My impression is that the formula "Body, Soul, and Divinity" is a Roman Catholic formulation developed in a polemic context at the Council of Trent. Perhaps there are more ancient origins. I don't think I'd have a problem with it, but at the same time I don't think this is the way we would usually express it. Hope that helps! Fr. John
- One Coptic (Orthodox) Bishop said, "We cannot say that we eat the Divinity although we confess that we eat the body of the Lord that is united with the divinity without mingling or confusion or alteration. Think about it this way: Can we say the divinity died on the cross? NO. But what died on the cross is the humanity of our Lord which is united to His divinity without separation for a single moment or a twinkling of an eye."
- But the proceedings of the First Session of the Council of Ephesus, June 22nd 431, state:
- "[The priest Peter of Alexandria, senior notary, said: ‘We also have [our hands] the books of the blasphemies of the Very Reverend Nestorius. From one of them we have selected excerpts. If [holy synod] so desires we shall read them.’
- Bishop Flavian of Philippi answered: ‘Let this be read and inserted in the Acts.’
- From: The Book of the Same Nestorius. Quaternion 4 On Dogma:
- [Similarly from the same Book, Quaternion 4
- Listen, then, and pay attention to the words, for scripture says: ‘He who eats my flesh’ (Jn.6.56). Remember that this is said about the flesh, and that this word ‘flesh’ is not added by me—so then I cannot be accused by them of misinterpreting. He says: ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood.’ He did not say, ‘He who eats my Godhead and drinks my Godhead,’ but ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.’
- And in another place:
- [But to sum up, ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.’ Remember that this is said about the flesh. ‘Just as the living Father has sent me’ (Jn.6.57), me whom you see. But in case I am misinterpreting let us listen to what follows: ‘Just as the living Father has sent me’—well, my opponent says that this refers to the Godhead. I say it refers to the manhood. Let us see who is misinterpreting here. ‘Just as the living Father has sent me’— the heretic says that here it is talking about the Godhead, meaning that he has sent God the Word. So, ‘Just as the living Father has sent me, so I live (and according to them that means the divine Word) through the Father’. But after this there follows: ‘And whoever eats me shall live’ (Jn.6.58). In that case what is it we are eating? The Godhead or the flesh?]"
- If I may pipe up: I wouldn't say that our Lord's "humanity" died on the cross, but rather that the God-man Jesus Christ died on the cross, doing so by means of his humanity. Natures cannot do things; only persons can. "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" is a classic formulation. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 18:10, May 10, 2006 (CDT)
- Many thanks for all the replies. In the Catholic mass the celebrant priest says, "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity." See 'Why Water With Wine' at http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=56093 - Do Eastern Orthodox agree with this Catholic statement, and if the answer is yes, could you please explain what 'share in' means to Eastern Orthodox? Again, thanks for your time. Yours, --Arbible 10:00, May 12, 2006 (CDT)
- Arbible, it seems to me that this would simply parallel the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Not much controversy here, I think! — FrJohn (talk)
- Many thanks, Father. So does this imply that we receive/share in the Eucharist the 'mystery of the divinity/Godhead' in some mystical way? Or is it just the flesh (i.e., only the human body and blood) of Christ that we receive? --Arbible 10:25, May 12, 2006 (CDT)
- I'm with Dn. Andrew; my understanding is that we partake of the person of Christ, not one nature or the other. I'm also a little wary of focusing too much on this question, without bringing in the larger context of what is happening with the Eucharist (which I'm not sure I have time for right now). Let's stick with Scripture and Tradition and avoid over-speculation or over-scholasticization and I think we'll be fine. — FrJohn (talk)
- Thanks very much, Father. I concur with you on this matter. Yours in Christ, --Arbible 10:52, May 12, 2006 (CDT)
Father, I was wondering if articles on individual churches/cathedrals are permitted? If so, do they have to have reached a certain level of notability before inclusion? cholmes75 11:20, May 24, 2006 (CDT)
- Hi cholmes75, I think it's great to have articles on individual churches. At this point, we don't have any guidelines on how notable a place has to be before inclusion - I'd say go ahead and add whatever you like. Thanks for your work and contributions! — FrJohn (talk)
- Great! I will try to get one added today. cholmes75 11:47, May 24, 2006 (CDT)