User talk:Ath271

Christian Science[edit]

Hi Ath, thanks for leaving the note on Talk:Christian Science listing some sources. The article does, indeed, use some of them.

I was a bit concerned to see your user page, which says that you're being paid by the Christian Science church to edit. Editing articles related to the church would place you in a conflict of interest (COI); specifically, it would violate the financial section of our COI guideline, which says:

If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly. You may use the article talk pages ... to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits (see WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things).

A church representative, Bridge Bendek, is already active on Wikipedia and has said he will not edit affected articles directly, so I hope you'll agree to respect the guideline too. You're very welcome to use the talk pages, of course.

I posted a note on Talk:Christian Science last year to clarify what would count as a COI in the context of that article; see here in case it helps. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing proposals here[edit]

Proposals at User:Ath271/Cpiral

Let's try to regularize our timing here by committing to daily remarks for a while until we conclude some proposals about the Christian Science article. Talking here might also befit the WP:COI aspect.

I agree on timing - thank you very much for the suggestion. My allocated time is modest, but I will prioritize online engagement! Re: the COI aspect, COI guidelines accommodate different preferences in interacting with COI editors on any talk page. So you should feel free to talk with me wherever you like! Here or there is good - some combo of both might work. My only concern is discussing too much content over here that topically should go over there for everyone to see, know what I mean? But sure, if you'd like to converse here and then one or both of us can cut/paste any relevant comments over there, that could work well. It's helpful to have all the relevant comments in one place in the main discussion thread - but I'm also very grateful you reached out to me here.

The CS talk page? It is too quickly archived, so I changed it to six discussions, not including there subsections. I moved your sandboxed ideas to that talk page, OK? We're not consistent enough timing our discussion contributions there, leaving many days between remarks, certainly for good reasons but perhaps not the same reasons we would find to delay responses here. Perhaps we can go a little crazy here, eh?

Thanks for changing the archive bot speed. It was sped up awhile back when the talk page was super busy and never got slowed down when the traffic decreased. So that's helpful. And yes, consistency is good and I'll take that to heart. Many thanks for moving my sandboxed comments - I actually thought the sandbox was linked to the main page and wasn't sure where to move them to.

Like what's your lead paragraph? Your outline? It seems your lead sentence could start "Christian Science is a newly emergent, unorthodox, revision of Protestant Christianity, noted for its revelatory focus, healing rational, and health-orientation."

What would you think about moving this idea to the CS talk page? Or do you object if I do that - cut and paste your idea from here over there to work with? I can weigh in there (expediently - today or tomorrow), propose modifications and more content, etc.

I've said "metaphysical family" should be defined first, before use. How about defining religious "science" first -- a method of healing using spiritual metaphysical "laws" -- then admitting the metaphysical categorization of CS, but in the context of NT being in the "metaphysical family", thus avoiding defining NRM and "metaphysical family".

Let me think on this today. How would you feel about a cut/paste of this to the CS talk page (either by you or me)?

How about a comparison-contrast between CS and NT to generate the CS theology? I like the Swedenborgian outline because its focused on the theology. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great resource. Many thanks. I'll check back soon for follow up. Ath271 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In respect for the spirit of the responses from SlimVirgin to your and my previous postings, let's see here if we can even get started towards a real (slick) proposal

a shared momentum (e.g. a two day response window makes for a four day contribution rate, minimum) to tackle while:
restating an article priority (or two, if not the already requested proposals)
agreeing on the priority's fix (Complexities might drown us.)
"proofing" (scrutinizing) the written "fix" here
sharing with others there (Simplywater) or here

Then yes, preservation for posterity is an important follow up task (updating the Christian Science talk page) where we begin to actually sully the article on its talk page again.

I think you and I could make some improvement to the depiction of Christian Science, but that much time might pass before the article would stabilize into our common good-first-impression read, the read I originally missed (and tried in earnest to change that day, concerning the theology). Imagining "no limits" except the size issue (see the cs talk page), I see our shared long-windedness (prolific and pragmatic we ex-telco persons) writing a whole new article Christian Science Theology from an influx of proposal-expressions. But first we must get the first reasonable proposal (yes?), and I yet today can't commit to even starting for days from now. — Cpiral Cpiral 05:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, so developing something here and sharing it there? Yes, I can do that. I want to work with and not around everyone interested in a closely source-based discussion!

My concerns: link-topic (source-based) priorities matter, primarily. So prioritizing a topic is a priority: "Metaphysical <CS>". (You gave me two relevant links, total of 40 min.) Now concerning the "source-based" part. There's trust, then there's learning: If "I'll learn your source if you'll mine" then a read-time fairness, e.g. mentioning a "20 min read", a such an estimate could impress a subjective awareness of the others expected aptitude, thus to help us pace our progress too. It is fair and rigorous/vigorous to count the questions and opinions we ask of one another, as well. Count my Q's to you below.

Some thoughts on the lead idea above. Agreed that it captures some basic elements. Yet even if it’s not well defined, we still need the metaphysics in there! It’s in both the RS and the self-definition (though in differing ways). How about this: “Christian Science is a newly emergent, unorthodox type of Protestant Christianity and metaphysical system noted for its revelatory focus and healing rationale."

New sections started below "metaphysics", "Lead sentence". The former needs our remembrance of your work, a major CS talk pg, RS, contrib.

Or flip the two and put "metaphys" first, which would allow us to cut “unorthodox” because “metaphysics” comes first and says as much. Plus “unorthodox” states negatively what it isn't from an “orthodox” viewpoint, which while not nec bad may not be the best choice.

Says as much? But what is it about CS that is unorthodox? Challenge: What is unorthodox cannot be the metaphysical aspect, because the "metaphysical" categorization simply demands a literalist theology (see below), and literalism is not unorthodox.

Unorthodoxies defined: "breaking with convention or tradition". Unorthodoxies are the source of NRMs. Melton NRMs (2 hr total read, 5 min reference) fixed a (distracting) stigma by promoting a more narrowed definion of 'cult'. May I burden you to answer the question "What is it about CS that is unorthodox" before we might consider NRM replaces 'unorthodox' (instead of metaphysical)? — Cpiral Cpiral 10:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay agreed. "Unorthodox" is fine.

However I don’t know that “Protestant” should be in the lead. Several authors call it that but there doesn’t seem to be consensus on the type of Christianity it represents. We do want to keep "metaphys" central along with "Xty." But I don't know that "Christianity and metaphysical system" is right, bc it sounds like it's two things not one. (Yet note we prob can't use the term “metaphysical Christianity,” a title and identity already claimed by Spiritualism (here's another example) and several Unity and Unity-New Age groups. Stepping on their toes or risking confusion with them would both be problems (esp. given one thing biographers agree on is Eddy’s consistent anti-Spiritualism). Also this term is used pejoratively by some orthodox Christians to describe New Thought groups but not CS that I’ve seen.)

CS represents the New Testament Bible literally, plus an Eddy book philosophically. (I.e. metaphysically equivalent to literalist Bible interpretations) CS is based philosophically on Quimby/Eddy, metaphysically on the Bible?

Xty is Christianity. OK. Forget Protestant then because CS and this is all NRM is "a break" (via philosophy, which has a philosophical metaphysics, superimposed on a religious metaphysics).

Well some sources do say "Prot." But not all. I don't know that it's a "philosophical break" from Xty via metaphysics (if that's your meaning). And I have trouble with "superimposed." Xty is Xty - just diff types. Not "Xty with metaphys superimposed" and "pure Xty without anything superimposed." Maybe I'm missing your meaning but I think if we get at the root of the metaphys issue, how to explain that, and see the relationship of metaphys to Xty in CS - we'll know how to explain it.

By all means "Christian" and "Science", and centrally "metaphysics". Three priorities.

Right.

But listen, titles are not "sacred" by any means. WP can use any title; a book written by you or I, or an essay, or song, etc, can use any title. E.g. the section title "Metaphysical Christian" in the "Spiritualism" link above is just two words. (The "used pejoratively" link is BS, incl. the defn of "metaphysical". Its an LDS attack, hint: Watchman.)

Watchman is JW I think? But I see the connection. Same kind of stuff. And I see your point about titles being "just words." But our words have to be precise and not recall or invoke things that confuse readers (or ourselves). That's a tall order. The balance as I see it is to not overthink it and not underthink it.

I have a small/targeted grouping of RS that works off primary sources to discuss how "metaphys" is used in CS. That might help us clarify things. I'll gather it together and post it tomorrow.

Mentioned above, below. The next priority is to get to filling out the sections below, esp. with that.

I just posted this bunch of sources here. (20 min to read summary or skim whole post; 1+ hr to read and think about full quotations and see if you disagree with any of my summaries)

I’ve gone a little over our agreed-on 2 days (thank you for suggesting a standard to stick to, helpful) but will make up for it by developing more for discussion on Mon-Tues, working off ideas you’ve floated re: the Theology section and taking into account any new ideas you have to share. Ath271 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make it three days to "must write something" mode if learning, thinking upon sources other than our (RS) proposals. Proposals should go quickly once we sync on somethings. — Cpiral Cpiral 10:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make it two days. We started with one-day, response-time obligation. Creative productivity is spurred by a continuity of timely inspirational influences, fearlessness, and whacky (even adversarial) exchanges, all in a safe, comforable, environment or base. Making smaller contributions, less numerous topics also helps, once we sync up here on your talk page on 1) just what to do, and 2) the main sources to do it with.

Thank you for your prodding - seriously. We academics are used to 6-month review times for every little thing we publish. This is a new world. But I get it and can go with it.

Just yesterday, I acquired a copy of Science and Health.

Wish this were online searchable. Maybe at the church site. At the same time I have reservations about using too many primary sources in the article - it's already overladen with them. I worry about exegeting S&H and thus coming up with OR. Should I not be?

We probably should create User:Ath271/Cpiral (just click on it), and move the actual creative work (Proposals below) to there, and when we're all done, delete it (the Cpiral subdirectory). (It could be permanently removed from history after the proposals work below serves us, and we record for posterity at Talk CS.) It depends on how many discussions you forsee for yourself. Users who delete talk page content should know it is preserved in history. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see here for more.Ath271 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our work[edit]

Please see the other talk page. — Cpiral Cpiral 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved /Cpiral to /Proposals for now. So we've got

User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Critiques (loose, opinion, research)
User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Proposals (tight, solid, concise, lucid)

— Cpiral Cpiral 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]