Welcome. Thanks for stumbling across my user page! Feel encouraged to leave your comments and suggestions on my talk page. Keep in mind, my editing goal is never to offend or inject overly-biased views (but let’s admit, we all have some bias). At the end of the day, I hope whatever I submitted was received academically in a coherent manner. I may not have agreed with your article of interest, but every intelligent counter-point fosters a more accurate Wikipedia.
I enjoy discussing matters of faith and religion. Moreover, I'm comfortable with hard, straight forward questions if you're comfortable with an equally weighted response. In general, I'm not prone to approach discussions like a philosopher and entertain limitless debates. In other words, I classify myself as a genuine "black and white" thinker. When it comes to the Christian faith, I'm convinced there's no "grey areas" on key issues. Sure, we can have differences - but the fundamental, take-it or leave-it issues should always be crystal clear. In effect, anyone who lives in the grey area of Christianity probably has a rather poor (dare I say selfish) interpretation of the faith. I openly admit I'm not an expert on everything and I'm overly cautious of anyone who claims to be! At the end of the day, I'll try to produce dialog that’s received as sincere, thoughtful and courteous. I would expect the same from any other Wikipedian.
Editors who use Wikipedia as a soapbox for proselytizing. This is usually seen in overtly bias religious articles written only by individuals partial to the topic.
Editors who write negatively bias articles about a faith group apart from their own. I've found several submissions about Protestant Christianity that were written by self-identified Mormons. Really? That's what we consider unbias?
Editors who can source Scripture with an understanding of the original language (usually Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek). This makes for more profound understanding beyond the "Westernized" application.
Editors who know their strengths and weaknesses. There's nothing more laughable than an editor who knows very little (at best) about the article topic. Sticking to your strong points is not only sincere but encouraged.
Some things cannot be explained through our limited understanding or point of view. At one time in history, people knew the Earth was flat. Although entirely incorrect, a flat earth seemed highly “logical” to the itellect of the day. But did the Earth ever become flat to accommodate our flawed religious or scientific beliefs? Of course not. So if Creation dosen't mold into our image, why should God the Creator?
Ever been a passenger onboard an airplane? Most people can’t tell you exactly how an airplane fly’s. Sure they might have a vague idea, but no definite understanding. Does that preclude millions of travelers from taking a trip every year? By no means – it’s called faith. You don’t need to know all the specifics. You just need to trust the Pilot.
Gravity works. Go ahead, challenge the theory and see for yourself. You can fight the reality, read books on how to levitate and listen to inspiring, soul-warming speeches on “flying without wings”. But at the end of the day, your belief (no matter how grand) doesn’t have the authority to trump reality. You can either live by your flawed understanding and end your life with a resounding thud, or you can adhere to the revealed law and survive.
