Talk:Cherry picking

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(*/Sword of Truth - not literal*/)
(Literal sword)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)
 
Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)
  
 +
==Literal sword==
 
There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context).  Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.
 
There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context).  Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.
  
 
Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.
 
Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.
 +
 +
(The above comment was left by [[User:Stig]].)
 +
 +
: Of course it's not a literal sword. In context (see {{bible|Matthew 10:32-38}}), it's obviously a metaphor for strife and civil war. I doubt even biblical literalists think {{bible|Matthew 10:34|verse 34}} refers to an actual steel weapon like Excalibur.
 +
: As for the "sword of truth" business, I have no idea where you're getting that. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:52, 4 October 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:52, 4 October 2008

Image Attribution

The Creative Commons license for the image requires attribution (See Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0). I could not find on Flikr where the author specifies in the manner the attribution to be carried out. I don't know if attribution on the photos page is acceptable. The alternative is to remove the image. -- Micah 06:29, 22 August 2006 (MST)


The attribution already exists on the main page for the image...what appears in the article is a thumbnail with a link to that page and doesn't have to include the credit. -- Sans Deity 07:18, 22 August 2006 (MST)


I'll take that as executive policy and make future image submission only attribute on the image's main page. Thank you. -- Micah 08:47, 22 August 2006 (MST)


Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- Sans Deity 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)

Literal sword

There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context). Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.

Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.

(The above comment was left by User:Stig.)

Of course it's not a literal sword. In context (see Matthew 10:32-38 Bible-icon.png), it's obviously a metaphor for strife and civil war. I doubt even biblical literalists think verse 34 Bible-icon.png refers to an actual steel weapon like Excalibur.
As for the "sword of truth" business, I have no idea where you're getting that. --Arensb 10:52, 4 October 2008 (CDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox