User talk:BroWCarey

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, BroWCarey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

On our recent "talk"

BroWCarey, our recent discussion seemed to spiral into territory it better not would have, if you feel offended I do apologize for that. I harbor no ill intent towards you or any of the groups you affiliate yourself with. Now as I am a seeker of | the truth, I am interested for my own quest's sake in checking the academic value of the translation error claims you made, if you have a reference to put here. P.S. what is your opinion on the wording with regards to correct translation of Romans 1:27? I assume that our interpretations of it are probably as different as night and day so no obvious point in discussing the interpretation, just the wording. Tikru8 (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tikru8, you will find that it's not easy to offend me; I've heard it all before! (Ps. 119:165) I'm glad you asked for a reference, because I made a discovery: I was under the impression that the reference I was going to offer you was already listed on the Christianity and Homosexuality page. I was quite surprised to find that it's not there. I was sure I had added it long ago! Anyway, here is a link to a site that deals with the issue: Hope Remains In regard to Romans 1:26-27, most English translations do a fairly good job of translating it. I have no complaints about the translations I have seen. The problem with these verses has more to do with Romans 1:7. Contemporary Christians tend to forget that Romans is not a book, but a letter written by Paul to the church at Rome. As such, it would naturally address situations that were extant then. Therefore, in reading this letter, it is essential that we understand the historical context. Otherwise, it is quite likely we would miss the intended meaning. This happens with 1 Cor. 11 in some denominations. They fail to consider the historical context, and assume that Paul intended for all Christian men to wear their hair short, and that Christian women should never cut theirs. But Paul gave those instructions only to the Corinthian church, and only to address a custom (referenced, but not described, in verse 16) peculiar to the Corinthian church. We have to study history to learn what that custom was. In their worship of Diana, Corinthians would grow their hair long, then cut it off and offer it as a burnt sacrifice. After their conversion, Christian Corinthians tried to adapt this custom to their new faith, and offer burnt hair sacrifices to God. Paul taught them the ancient Jewish hair custom, mostly to keep them out of trouble, and then, lest any still wish to cling to it, pointed out that none of the other churches had the custom of hair burning.

The failure to consider historical context is what is happening with Romans 1 as well. People read the 26th and 27th verses, and ignorant of the customs and beliefs of 1st century Rome, try to apply the verses to a very different situation in the present. What was going on in Rome was actual a custom they adapted from the Greek Empire. The Greek creation myth talked about the first human being split in half, one male, one female. They believed that, as a result of this split, each person was still half male, half female. They came to believe that the only way to be completely whole was to be sexually intimate with both sexes. In today's terminology, we would call them bisexual. But they had very specific rules on how it operated: A man could have as many wives as he could support, and was not supposed to be intimate with any other woman. (A flourishing prostitution trade shows that this rule wasn't always followed.) But an adult man was also expected to attach himself to a teenage boy, to whom he would be teacher, mentor and lover. This continued until the boy reached adulthood, at which time the physical part of the relationship was to be discontinued, and each would pursue new relationships of that type. On the other side of things, a woman was allowed only one husband, and was not allowed to be sexually intimate with any other man. She was, however, allowed, and expected, to be sexually intimate with other women.

Although Rome conquered Greece, they tended to view the Greeks the way some today view the French: If the French do it, it's high class, it's culture, etc. Their language is more cultured and beautiful, etc. As a result, the Romans adopted much of Greek culture, and Greek became the lingua franca of the whole Roman Empire, rather than Latin. The Romans had the same religion as the Greeks, although with Latin names for the gods and goddesses. As a result, they shared the same creation myth, and in turn, adopted the Greek custom of sexuality. This was considered the norm in Roman society at the time when Paul wrote to the church. You will note that the overall theme of Romans chapter one is the people's attempt to turn the creation into the creator, their willful ignorance of the true God. That's why the 26th and 27th verses are included here: their sexual custom grew directly out of their religion. They lived as bisexuals to "become whole."

Paul recognized this as an error. In order to comply with this custom, the overwhelming majority of Romans had to ignore their own nature and engage in acts that were against their nature. They did so because of societal pressure and expectation, and their religious sense of obligation. Paul addressed his comments to the majority, who would be heterosexual by nature, and spoke of them engaging in homosexual behavior. We know he was speaking to heterosexuals because of certain words: the men were "leaving" the natural use of the woman. The women "exchanged" the natural use. A man who is homosexual has never had a natural use of a woman, and therefore cannot leave it. A woman cannot exchange something she does not have. In these verses, when Paul spoke of nature, he was not making reference to creation. After all, homosexuality (affection, pair-bonding, sexual activity, raising orphaned children together) occurs naturally in nearly every species that reproduces by sexual means. What Paul was speaking of was the people's OWN nature. Today, we would call this their sexual orientation. These verses aren't about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, but about people who attempt to change their sexual orientation, their own nature. Now, some would find it difficult to believe that heterosexuals in the first century would live as bisexuals to meet societal demands. To those, I say 'Look around you: all around the world, there are homosexual people who are trying to live as heterosexuals for the same reason.' It's against their nature, it's uncomfortable, it feels like a mistake, but in many places, failure to do so will result in ostracization, if not death. (Gay and Lesbian people are routinely being beaten to death, often by their own families, in Kampala, urged on by a Christian preacher who was encouraged in his hatred of gay people by an American preacher who visited Kampala.) OK, this is now almost novel-length... and it was unnecessary: all of the above is on the Hope Remains site!BroWCarey (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D I just asked for the translation, dear brother, not brain gymnastics. Even though your long series of arguments do not pass my Occam's razor, I must give you credit for being the first to present at least one intelligent pro-gay argument that I see that doesn't belong to the "but we live in the 21st century" or "Bible was just a fairytale written by camel herders with long beards" - categories. BTW if your translation claims are really as good as you claim they are, where are the links to the relevant peer-reviewed scientific papers? One disturbing thing: If I guess correctly that "hope remains" is written by people from your organization, don't you think it is morally dubious that you put it out as a source without mentioning your own connection to it? Now while I do not dismiss your source automatically just because of the bias, I do find it dubious to give the impression that it is independent of the topic-relevant Wikipedia editors? Tikru8 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brain gymnastics? Please... Anyway, Hope Remains is not operated by APCI, which is the denomination I belong to. APCI uses it as a resource, as do many other organizations/individuals, and Hope Remains has a link to APCI on the resource page, as well as links to other organizations. As for "peer-reviewed scientific papers," perhaps there are none. I offered Hope Remains, and my own research confirms what they have published. Other researchers, depending on their level of familiarity with Hebrew/Greek and the extent to which they have researched, will agree with some or all of what is at Hope Remains. These include people like Daniel Helminiak, Sylvia Pennington, John Boswell, Tom Horner, etc. My own work has been acknowledged in various publications, including "Unrepentant, Self-Affirming, Practicing" by Gary David Comstock, which is a study of LGB individuals in organized religion. I have refrained from using any of my own published material as sources. For backing for my use of Hebrew/Greek grammar, vocabulary, etc., most standard works will do. In particular, I find Dobson's work on NT Greek grammar helpful, as well as Bolozky's book showing full conjugations for over 500 Hebrew verbs. I use mostly Ben-Yehuda's Hebrew dictionary, but I am not partial to any particular Greek dictionary. I do use Strong's, but with caution, due to the numerous errors there. (Ubiquitous errors in pronunciation, errors concerning the existence of certain prepositions in certain verses, and occasionally, dubious definitions. And unlike many who use Strong's, I am aware that it only lists root forms of words, not the actual forms used in any particular verse.)BroWCarey (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

("Brain gymnastics" was meant to be in a humorical, not insulting sense, referring to the fact that I posed a simple question and got an essay in return ;) Tikru8 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know... I took no offense. By "please" I meant "this was nothing. I could go on for hours!" Whenever I teach or preach, I am notorious for being long-winded!BroWCarey (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot to discuss about translations and historical context and so on (and I could go on, stop me), but I just wanted to respond to the implicit claim that "these verses don't apply anymore" is merely a 21st-century innovation - check out Acts 10, which Christians generally cite as an instance of Jesus waiving the Jewish dietary restrictions (also called abominations in Lev.) but which, read in context, is shown to use a metaphor of food to refer to people considered impure, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooooooooo! Please ppl, don't make me go crazy by making this into proselytizing!!! I am well informed on the topic (and actually, now even more so) If you read the Acts carefully, you'll notice that the sexual morality is not changed from the ones the Jews had despite almost every other Old Testament rule being overthrown. Now as I know that you have your "rainbow" LBGT- goggles on when you read scripture, I know there's not much I can say to change your mind so that's why I refrain from preaching to you even though I fear your have fallen into self-deception. I would appreciate if you would return the favor so we can stop cluttering each others talk pages with a discussion that can go on until the rapture and direct that energy e.g. into re-writing the other summary section in our debated article to meet Wikipedia standards as the current one does not reflect the main article. (I hope none of you will be "left below" if that should happen in our lifetime ;) You both have a theory about God & "rainbow people" (as they are called in my vernacular language) that you think is stronger than mine. I have the opposite view and I think my POV is stronger. Now what is interesting IMO is whether you have "empirically" validated your theory or not through e.g. direct religious experiences or prophesies (and no, I'm not talking about "gut feeling" or "it just feels right" kind of stuff here)? I have heard several testimonies of direct religious experiences from other x-tians that I know that are congruent with my "theory", thus providing some "empirical" validity to my POV. Tikru8 (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tikru8: You may be surprised to learn that I used to share your point of view. At that time, having only access to English translations, primarily KJV, and not yet being able to read Hebrew, and not having access to any Greek text, I believed as my church taught. After I learned Hebrew, and obtained copies of the Masoretic text and at least one ms. of the NT, I began to read them. I fully expected them to line up precisely with the KJV in every area. After all, I had been taught that the KJV was completely accurate. I learned that wasn't the case at all. The KJV was altered in translation in many areas, sometimes even for political reasons. For example, despite our having two men named James in the NT, NOBODY in the Bible actually bore that name. The two we call James were in fact named Jacob. Is James related to Jacob? No, James is the anglicized form of the Gaelic Seamas, and is not at all related to Jacob. The translators of the KJV changed the two NT Jacobs to James to flatter King James I. I found that the translators of the KJV had rejected all the ancient Greek mss. available in their day, in favor of the Textus Receptus, a flawed ms. that was only about 100 years old at the time. This ms. contained a verse that was an acknowledged fraud, having first appeared in late mss. of the Vulgate. Johannine Comma In fact, it was essential that the KJV agree doctrinally with the C of E, which didn't differ significantly in doctrine from the RCC, or the King likely would have rejected the translation. So subtle changes were made to reflect Anglican doctrine more clearly. The discrepancies in the area of homosexuality were a surprise as well. I did not expect to see any. So I began to study other sources for more information, including the Mishnah, for an ancient Jewish perspective on things. (Neither the Mishnah nor the Hebrew OT ever attempt to link Sodom and Gomorrah to homosexuality, nor will you ever find the word sodomite in the Hebrew or Greek text of the Bible. I found that the first religious text to link those cities with homosexuality was the Quran (AD 600). During the Moorish occupation of western Europe, the notion found its way into Christian thinking. And a couple of hundred years later, the translators of the KJV attempted to insert that concept into the Bible. They were fairly subtle: They didn't tamper with Gen. 19, but they did insert the word sodomite in the OT twice, and changed Jude 7 to say strange flesh, where the Greek says other flesh (with flesh being the same word used for meat for consumption; cannibalism is recorded in the history of that area prior to the promise to Abraham, and this may well have been a reference to it).

Newer translations, particularly from the mid-20th century on, have deliberately compounded the errors of the KJV, choosing to paraphrase Gen. 19, rather than translate it, so that it lined up with common belief (and by extension, the Quranic account), and even inserting the word sodomite in the NT. All of this is easily proven with any Hebrew and Greek text and a couple of dictionaries, even Strong's. You state that sexual morality is not changed from that of the Jews. I agree. But above I have shown you an example of how Muslim notions of sexuality were adopted by Christians and inserted into their translations of Jewish scripture. Did you ever notice that ultra-Orthodox Jews (about the only Jews who oppose homosexuality these days) generally don't mention Sodom? They are fully aware that neither the Tanakh nor the Mishnah suggest a connection with Sodom. In fact, the most common Orthodox argument I have heard is based on the commandment "Be fruitful and multiply," which they take as applicable to all. (In my view, it isn't applicable: God only gave that commandment twice, and both times, the world was empty and He was speaking to a tiny number of people: Adam, Eve, Noah and family.) Just some food for thought. BroWCarey (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BroWCarey: One word: Listen. (or actually; read). I asked you not to proselytize so I'll omit mentioning my critique to your essay because you'll get all excited and just keep writing more stuff that is besides the scope of the discussion. Again, I asked a simple question and got an essay, but this time with no answer to the question. Have you validated your theory with "empirical" evidence? And how about you put that energy of yours to improving the other summary section in our debated article? Tikru8 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tikru8: All right, the answer to your question is yes, absolutely, many times over. Happy?BroWCarey (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "happiness" doesn't depend on your answer being yes or no, only that you stop cluttering. Now may I inquire a little what is the nature of your "empirical" evidence? My most compelling one is related to what we as an inside joke call ghost-busting . Tikru8 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is my talk page, so please don't tell me what to do on it! As for my empirical evidence, I admit I am reluctant to share it with you. (I have shared it with many people, but not with anyone who would be likely to dismiss it out of hand or ridicule it.) There are a number of anecdotes I could share in this vein. I'll narrow it down to two or three. When I first began to share my research, I was attending a church had been around for about 20 years, but the founding pastor had retired, being well over 70 years old. The new pastor was much younger, and had at one time been a friend of mine. He rejected the research I had done without even looking at it or considering it. There is a biblical principal about losing what you have when you refuse to accept more. (Luke 8) Here Jesus told them to take heed to how they heard. The principle here is that truth is offered. If it is accepted, more is offered. If it is not, the truths already possessed will be lost. This can readily be seen in the parade of denominations. Each started as someone received a revelation of truth from the Bible. But when another was offered, it was rejected. As a result, few, if any, denominations still teach exactly what their founders did. The pastor in question, as I said, rejected my research. Within a year, that church had fallen away from almost every doctrine they used to believe, trading biblical truths for traditions of men. Before long, they were fast friends with the same churches that used to ridicule us for our adherence to biblical teachings.

Here's another: In 1981, I moved to Omaha, Nebraska, a city I had never been to. It was my intention to found a Pentecostal church where LGBT people were fully welcomed. Being very new to ministry, and not having a clue of where to start, I decided the best move would be to let the LGBT community know I was there, and why. So I called their information service and told the man who answered who I was and why I was there. For a moment, he was silent. Then he said, "I don't know what to say... this is an answer to prayer. There is a group of us here who attend the local (liberal denomination to remain unnamed), and we have been praying for a Pentecostal church." So God already had a congregation in place. All they needed was someone to help them start. And the man who answered the phone became their first pastor.

One more: This took place probably about 8 years ago, here in the Detroit area. We were holding a church conference, and people from our churches around the US were gathering together for worship services, teaching sessions and fellowship. There was a heterosexual couple who attended one of the mainstream Pentecostal churches in the area, and we invited them to come to the conference, because their nephew was one of our ministers. They were very reluctant to attend. But their nephew persisted, and finally, almost in defiance, they came. As the wife said, "I'm going to go there and tell them they are wrong, that what they are doing is not of God." And so they came to one of the worship services. It wasn't fifteen minutes into service, when this lady walked to the front of the room. At first, her nephew and those of us who knew who she was were nervous, afraid she was going to disrupt the worship. But then we saw the tears in her eyes. She stood there and wept, and the room became quiet, as the musicians stopped playing and people turned there attention to her. She told us that she had come there to tell us we were wrong, that it wasn't of God. "But I was wrong," she said, "I don't understand how or why, but I know the Holy Ghost. I know God is here, and that He is blessing this." Before long, her husband had offered to relieve the organist, and he played for much of the rest of the service. He has since gone to be with the Lord, a few years ago. As for the dear sister, she still attends her mainstream church. But if the subject comes up, she doesn't hesitate to tell them what she learned. And I can't tell you how many times similar things have happened.BroWCarey (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow got the impression that you think I would ridicule you or just blanket-reject your saying, now why would I do that as long as your arguments are based on logos, not emotion or ethos? Although the question of x-tianity and sexual minorities is not actual for me (and we disagree on the approval-by-God-thing), we share one common trait: Dislike of sticking to tradition just for tradition's sake. I teach salsa at my congregation, which is cool and a great way of reaching out to people who otherwise would never even set their foot in a church building. But then I was told that many congregations would not have approved of that as "dancing is sinful" or something like that. Now I ask: on which scriptural grounds? Your anecdotes are interesting, but IMO only no.3 is relevant in this context. What were you talking about when she busted in through the door? I know that the Holy Ghost is present among all x-tians who believe, even heretical ones, ones who have fallen for Satan's lies or the ones with much "darkness" in their lives (including self-deceit). God doesn't want to leave anybody "out" so automatic exclusion of certain type of "sinners" is IMO bad. I once went to a so-called "rainbow mass" on an anthropological fact-finding mission and was filled with a divine compassion for the LBGT people there (until the reverend started on his fire & brimstone filled flame-preaching against "penis theologians" who are "only interested in what other ppl do between the sheets"). Just because the Holy Ghost is among the "rainbow people" too does not automatically mean that non-celibate LBGT persons should be ordained as ministers or blessed in holy matrimony. Now I cannot share my "empirical evidence" here more in detail as it is simply "too freaky" for the ppl here who hold a purely naturalistic worldview. Tikru8 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She did not bust in through the door. She and her husband arrived before service began, and they sat near the back of the room. Nothing was being talked about; the worship service was underway. Not sure if you have attended a Pentecostal church, but there isn't a lot of talking to people during it. It's a lot of loud worship and music and singing with the various things described in Psalm 150. Here's a link to a short video from a church conference I attended in Indianapolis. True Love Apostolic Church Chorale It's the General Conference of one of the other LGBT-Affirming Pentecostal denominations. Although this takes place just after the majority of the worship service, but before the preaching of the word, the congregation is still in full worship mode. Pentecostals employ all the forms of worship seen in scripture, which can include dancing, shouting, singing, clapping, raising hands, a variety of instruments, etc. Also to be seen are jumping and occasionally someone running the aisles. When the power of God fills the room, it's just impossible to sit still!

I have never encountered the expression "rainbow people" here. And it certainly isn't how we view ourselves. The people in our churches are diverse, certainly, with gay, straight, transgendered, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, old and young, but we view ourselves first and foremost as Christians. Pentecostals don't believe in a "Sunday morning religion," where an hour or two in church one day a week is all that is expected. I've seen some of Pentecostal church services go all night. And in the early 20th century, a Pentecostal church service in Los Angeles lasted seven years, day and night. (Obviously, people didn't stay in one room for seven years; they came and went. But at any time of the day or night during that seven year period, there were people at the church, there was worship, there was preaching, there was teaching.) Most Pentecostal churches try to have two services a week, and some have three or more. And unlike most churches that have more than one service, the people don't attend only one service, but attend all of them. Pentecostals live their faith. When there isn't a church service going on, you can find us at choir rehearsal, Bible study, youth group, holding street meetings to share the Gospel, or just praying in a quiet corner of the church building. Our faith permeates every aspect of our lives, and we try to ensure that our conversation and behavior are appropriate at all times, knowing that the eyes of the world are upon us. (Like all Christians, we are not 100% successful, but we try.)

Pentecostals are spirit-filled people. We aren't afraid to engage in spiritual battles. (Sadly, a good portion of American evangelical Christians, including Pentecostals and Baptists, tend to fight the wrong battle, using physical weapons like picket signs and voting booths, boycotts, and even spreading lies about those they consider evil.) But in our group, we try to remember that we aren't battling against people. Our battle is spiritual, against spirits of wickedness in high places, demons, and we wage this battle with prayer, fasting and the name of Jesus.

I have witnessed, and even experienced, the various "deliverance" ministries which purport to "free" homosexuals from their "sinful state." Not just the programs and their attempts to cast out "demons of homosexuality," but I have also dealt with the aftermath, the part the ministries won't tell you about. Those who are "delivered" almost always believe they have been changed. And it's what they always wanted, having believed that they can't be saved or be right with God otherwise. For some, this belief that they have changed lasts a week, for others, maybe longer. In truth, I've never seen it last more than two weeks. But the deception of a change can continue much longer. Not wanting to disappoint, not wanting to be rejected, not wanting to be deemed a failure, most will pretend that they are now heterosexual. Some have carried on that lie for years, have married someone of the opposite sex, had children, only to have an emotional/spiritual breakdown, when the reach a point where they can no longer live the lie. I remember one man in particular, a Pentecostal minister who wanted nothing more than to be heterosexual and preach the gospel. He went through an ex-gay ministry, was interviewed on television, claiming to be heterosexual, and later had to confess that nothing had really changed. He was still only attracted to men. So he went to another ministry, and repeated the whole process, including the television interview, and then went so far as to get married. Although he and his wife remained friends, their marriage was doomed from the start. He had no attraction to her, or any other woman. Finally, he came to me, and I was making good progress at helping him accept himself as he was. He grew spiritually stronger, and was more determined than ever to preach the Gospel. And then another Pentecostal church in that city encountered him. They fed him the old message of self-condemnation, and he once again began trying to become what he wasn't. He died a few months later. He died angry at himself, angry at God, and surrounded by people who didn't really love him and couldn't accept him as he was. Now multiply that story by thousands, because that's how these stories usually end.

About 25 years ago, a book was published,telling the story of a Pentecostal minister with the Assembly of God who was working with an organization called Teen Challenge. Specifically, this minister was working in San Francisco, trying to "deliver" gay and lesbian people so they could become straight. But this only resulted in frustration, because none of the "deliverances" lasted more than a couple of weeks, maybe a month. And then, the people who had supposedly changed admitted that they hadn't really changed. They had believed, and really wanted to change, so they deluded themselves for a period. After months of frustration and no success, the minister prayed this prayer: "Lord, from now on, I am not going to try to change anything about anyone. I will preach the Gospel. You change what you want to change, and I'll watch." From that moment, a church was born. The Gospel was preached, people came to the Lord by the dozens. Some were delivered from drug addictions and alcoholism. Some gave up lives of crime. In six month's time, there was a core congregation of about 60 people, every one on fire for God. These were people whose entire way of acting and talking had changed. God had cleaned up their addictions, their profanity, their promiscuity, lying, theft, whatever, and had turned them into loving, respectable Christians. But everyone one of them was still gay. This absolutely baffled the pastor; it made no sense. How could all those things change, without any human intervention, but God had never touched their sexuality? The book was called "But Lord, They're Gay!" And it told the story of how this heterosexual Pentecostal minister, over the age of 60, came to pastor a predominantly gay church, and saw God's obvious blessing. The study and research began, and the pastor began to see that what the church had traditionally taught wasn't what the Bible originally said. Another book followed, "Good News for Modern Gays." One additional book was about the "ex-gay" ministries: A thorough study, not just of the methods, but of the long-term results. The title of that book was "Ex-Gays: There Are None."

I know this is very long. I apologize for that. I still want to share my own story, my testimony with you. But rather than write another encyclopedia here, I planned to give you a link to a site where you could download a copy of it. But Wikipedia just informed me that the file-sharing service I use is blacklisted here. I will find another way!BroWCarey (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My "empirical evidence" tells a bit different story, but like I said, this is not a place I feel comfortable sharing such data. But do note that I am not involved in SOCE, any spiritual I encounters that I have related to the topic are purely due to random sampling encounters. Tikru8 (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I'd figure out how to do this. I can give you the link to my testimony if I disguise it so it doesn't look like a link. So here goes:

http://wwwDOT4sharedDOTcom/office/6lnVyyy1/My_testimonyDOThtml Just copy it over, and replace each DOT with a period. If I am not mistaken, you won't have to download it; you should be able to read the file online.BroWCarey (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Your courage and tenacity are inspiring. Eschoir (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you!BroWCarey (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words BroWCarey! I am aware that some of the edits might be reversed in the days ahead, but remain optimistic that in the interim, some believers who are seeking Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind and strength may be edified by the scriptures I used. Too often, the apostles' doctrine (that we are to continue in steadfastly) are being derailed by those who don't even want to open His Word. It is sad. Still, we press forward in His service, knowing that this life is temporary :) Right now, I write and edit blogs, and am working on developing an undergraduate curriculum for a Bible School in Canada. After my father went home to be with Jesus, I took over writing his blogs at holyspiritministriescanada.blogspot.ca Take a look if you have a chance and let me know what you think. Many blessings in Jesus' precious name, and again, thank you for the kind comments! JanMcKendrick (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BroWCarey. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BroWCarey. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Are you on social media? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on Facebook. BroWCarey (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 5 minute survey

Hi! I'm a researcher from the University of Minnesota conducting a study on LGBT user contributions to Wikipedia. Would you be willing to answer a short five minute survey? If so, I would appreciate if you could drop me an email at leung085@umn.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BroWCarey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I appreciate your edits, my brother! ((HUGZ))

JGabbard (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#a problem

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#a problem. GABgab 00:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BroWCarey. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BroWCarey. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:BroWCarey"