Is anyone on here muslim?

[ez bake]

RE: attributing these to Wesley you're completely wrong on #1 & #3 and half-wrong on #2.

Edit: nah, you're pretty much 100% wrong on #2 as well.

That's interesting - and here I thought I wasn't going to get any actual debate in this thread before it was closed. I'm curious as to where I'm wrong (and actually willing to talk about it without citing sources from websites that are incredibly unbelievable and almost sadly hilarious).

 

[MLRyan]

I did some research on the internet guys...According to the Internet, Christianity is the only religion and everyone else can suck it. But then I went to another site and it said Islam FTW!!!1 and everyone else can suck it. Then I went to an atheist site and it said, "Hey, can't we be friends? Does anybody else want a cheeseburger?" Which internet should I follow? If I ask my questions to the internet, I always get confusing answers.

 

[ez bake]

If opne of myt students turned in a paper with a wiki source, he/she would start with a 50% and go down from there.

Because of what exactly (I'm talking specifically about Wikipedia - not any other "Wiki" site)? I've never understood why some teachers/schools have a problem with Wikipedia since the wilds of the Internet are actually pretty good at regulating things when accountability is present (i.e. if you change an article at Wikipedia, quite a bit of your info is tracked and there is an approval process that is more rigorous than many state-education textbook approval processes). Sources are listed and there are more than a few examples of incomplete or incorrect facts in "approved" written books out there commonly used as sources.

 

[skruball253]

I am still waiting on a Buddist to come knock on my door and try to convert me.

 

[RidgeHunter]

That's interesting - and here I thought I wasn't going to get any actual debate in this thread before it was closed. I'm curious as to where I'm wrong (and actually willing to talk about it without citing sources from websites that are incredibly unbelievable and almost sadly hilarious).

-Wesley (and moreso the Methodist church) have little if any focus on the rapture. Hardly mentioned in Wesley's sermons. Their focus is on the present.

-A Wesleyan's favorite thing to do is make fun of Baptists for Believer's Baptism. Methodists baptize infants.

-Prosperity Gospel is incongruous with Wesley's ramblings. Sure there's some ministers that say it ain't, but like you said a lot in this thread, a few guys saying it doesn't make it true. Glen Beck can tell you the Methodists are evil because they preach social justice.

The Methodist Social Creed is pretty much the Green Party platform with the word "God" scattered about.

We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.

 

[SoonerATC]

That's a catholic talking point that the rest of us Christians don't accept.

Not really sure how it's debatable, but suit yourself. You can trace the Apostolic succession of the popes all the way back to St. Peter, who received his authority from Christ.

 

[68mustang]

If one of my students turned in a paper with a wiki source, he/she would start with a 50% and go down from there.

I don't understand this, because you're going to get a leaning one way or another from any source on the internet unless it has to do with something absolute like math or science. And even in science there's not a lot that's absolute. I've never seen a wiki article that has been completely and blatantly wrong. And example keeping with the current topic:

If i went to a pro muslim site they are going to interpret their religious beliefs differently than an anti muslim site correct? So if I used these sources they would be credible, but Wikipedia wouldn't be?

 

[68mustang]

Not really sure how it's debatable, but suit yourself. You can trace the Apostolic succession of the popes all the way back to St. Peter, who received his authority from Christ.

But as someone pointed out already, it is Orthodox Christians and not Roman Catholic correct?

 

[caojyn]

Because of what exactly (I'm talking specifically about Wikipedia - not any other "Wiki" site)? I've never understood why some teachers/schools have a problem with Wikipedia since the wilds of the Internet are actually pretty good at regulating things when accountability is present (i.e. if you change an article at Wikipedia, quite a bit of your info is tracked and there is an approval process that is more rigorous than many state-education textbook approval processes). Sources are listed and there are more than a few examples of incomplete or incorrect facts in "approved" written books out there commonly used as sources.

I guess I should clarify, I teach undergrad students in college.
I've never heard of a school that views them as an acceptable source (doesn't mean there aren't any). I agree about most state-education textbooks being basically worthless. That's why professors are allowed to choose and approve their own textbooks. I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of good information but is basically just an encyclopedia. The purpose of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is to give good, solid background information, to inform your studies for a deeper level, and to point you in the right direction for research. I tell my students It's a great way to find sources, but a poor excuse for actually doing research. Basically, it's the lazy way out. The McDonalds of information... Quick, easy, cheap, and not very healthy.

 

[ez bake]

Not really sure how it's debatable, but suit yourself. You can trace the Apostolic succession of the popes all the way back to St. Peter, who received his authority from Christ.

It makes more sense to those who understand the protestant "Office of the Keys".

No one said it better than Luther himself:

http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php