User talk:Markus II

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Religion bias

Hello, I have recently seen a biased edit upon template:Religion. You have removed the RLDS and UHC13A from Christianity and have placed them in a different category. Please refrain from doing so again.--Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2015 (BST)

I don't think that was necessarily a biased edit. Neither the RLDS or UHC13A follow the beliefs of what could be called mainstream Christianity, and so aiming to distinguish them from those micronational religions which do is understandable. Nevertheless, in the interest of both accuracy and compromise, I've renamed the category to "Monotheistic" - that'll allow for future monotheistic micronational denominations to be added should they not be of a specifically Christian tradition. Austenasia (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2015 (BST)
To be honest before the thing was changed to Christianity, the whole section was originally called Monotheistic; I guess his only view of monotheism is Christianity...--Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2015 (BST)
Well, alright, if you all seem to think that is the best course of action, fine by me. However, as long as you don't object, I would like to remove the New Israeli church from being listed in the template. I feel listing the Holy & Apostolic church in the same category as heretical Mormons and Thirteen Apostles' church would be inappropriate. I, too, can compromise, and will excuse the New Israeli church from listing in the template (as long as no one opposes this) so we are differentiated from heretical religions.

And, indeed, only Judaism and Christianity are recognized as having any legitimacy in my eyes and the eyes of the New Israeli church. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2015 (BST)

It is the best course of action. That template's section regarded all forms of monotheism before your first edit upon it, not just Christianity.--Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2015 (BST)
In truth, you are somewhat correct. Putting us in the same category as those heretics won't change the nature of the Church, it is simply a mild annoyance for you to do so. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2015 (BST)

If I may comment on this additionally, though, I have revised the "Template:Religion" yet again. In this instance, it has been improved to include subcategories. For instance, Monotheism is one category, Christianity and Restorationism, as well as Nortonism, are sub-categories of that. Other than that, I believe this is the most fair compromise as it allows the majority of the Christian world who opposes Restorationism to be properly categorized, but also grants Restorationists a monotheistic category of their own. Of course, one could go on to include Trinitarian and nontrinitarian Christian churches. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2015 (BST)

Christian and Restorationism will be moved into a same category, just as different forms of Christianity. --Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2015 (BST)
Theologically, it is inaccurate to call Mormonism an Abrahamic religion. This is because Mormonism has a very unique view of God. While Christians and Jews believe God to be eternal and omnipotent, Mormons believe God has a physical form, is but one of many gods, and was born in the physical universe and gradually ascended to godhood. It is blasphemous (and frankly illogical) to put Mormonism on the same level as Christianity or Judaism. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (BST)
I'm not so sure. Even if we avoid an inclusive definition of Christianity and treat Mormonism as a different religion, it still claims to worship the God that spoke to Abraham. I wouldn't say that having a different conception of who that God is disqualifies a religion from being Abrahamic; I mean, there's a huge difference in the conception of God between Christianity (with Trinitarianism and the Incarnation) and Islam (with Tawhid), yet they're both indisputably considered Abrahamic. Austenasia (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2015 (BST)
Well, it seems as though nothing else can be done. Thank you. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2015 (BST)


The template as it is right now, in terms of format and inclusion, is fine. The New Israeli church shouldn't be removed just because it has differences with the others in the Abrahamic list; they all have differences, that's why there's a list. "Abrahamic" and "Other" are, I feel, sensible sub-categories of "Monotheistic", so let's leave it at that. Austenasia (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2015 (BST)

Alas, the template hasn't changed at all. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (BST)
Thanks, Jonathan. I have however been trying to keep it the way it was by your link, if it weren't for multiple blatant disregards.--Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to "disregard" it because the edits you have made are nonconstructive. We understand religion to be divided into more categories than Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic. If you choose a category as broad as "Abrahamic" to define everything from Mormons to Muslims, you are creating an unfair (and overtly biased) and far too broad a category for such a diverse religious category. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Your response to disregard the statement was because of your personal bias against Muslims and Mormons (specifically), and the latter of all who claim to be Abrahamic, such as the Druze, Samaritans, Baha'i, etc. According to most of the world, and of course, to Jonathan, your actions are not in good faith. The allegedly broad category of Abrahamic is to define all who claim descendance from Abraham. "Abrahamic" and "Other" are indeed sensible sub-categories of "Monotheistic", and as Jonathan stated, they are to be left as they are. Now, I'd suggest that you end your so called "special privilege movement" to branch Christians (those who of course YOU deem as Christian, and not the majority of the world's view) off in their own subcategory. If they can have their own, then might as well give every other religion their own subcategory. The way which it was before your multiple interventions wasn't exactly broad. You are assisting in the broadification of this template by adding more subcategories to the "Monotheistic" category.--Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem with making subcategories is that people won't be able to agree on which religion should go where. Mormonism, for example - is that a type of Christianity? Some would say yes, some would say no, and whichever "official" stance is taken will end up offending somebody. I think that broader categories really do work best for everyone. Austenasia (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Mormonism is a form of Christianity, however also through my own bias, I consider it a heretical form of Christianity. Now, unlike Markus, I have looked pass this bias and formed the subcategory of "Abrahamic." Its filled with all religions who proclaim their traditions stem from Abraham, the father of Isaac and Ishmael. Its easier to place "Abrahamic" instead of someone bickering over the position of their own church due to their personal annoyance of being placed in with others who they don't consider "true" or "Abrahamic". So, in defense of your statements, I say once more, "Thanks."--Deutschlandkaiser (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Cults

Hi there,

In your recent response to Alexander III's encyclical, you seem to be under the impression that he represents the "Proto-Cults". This was a Wilcslandian institution that dissolved in 2013. Although the modern-day office of Pontifex Maximus does look back to the Proto-Cults as its institution of origin, the contemporary Austenasian office is simply that of the Pontifex Maximus. His views are his own, not those of the Austenasian government or of any former institution.

Also, thank you for your response. I'm pleased to see that you addressed several aspects of the encyclical that I myself disagreed with.

All the best,

Austenasia (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (BST)

Thank you for this information! I will remember to refer to the office as Pontifex Maximus instead of the Proto-Cults. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2015 (BST)

Diplomatic Relations

Greetings Markus!

I had tried to contact you by email but you did not respond and I did not know if you were just busy or if you have acquired a new email but I thought I would just reply here.

A few weeks ago, Shaoshan granted informal diplomatic recognition to the Holy Empire. However, as I have been monitoring the situation, you have seen to abided by the grounds and terms set out and I think your independence is both just and should be recognized as legal. Therefore, while it is the policy of Shaoshan not to get involved in conflicts of others, I am prepared to offer formal diplomatic recognition to the Holy Empire and am prepared to sign a Treaty of Non-Aggression and Mutual Recognition with you and Earl Penda. However, in this treaty, I want it known that Shaoshan asks that, with respect to our armed neutrality policy, we not be asked to engage or take part in any conflict, only providing diplomatic support to you (if we see fit). In addition, with respect to each other's national sovereignty, any laws passed by our state or your state (despite our differences in opinion of said state's law) shall not interfere with the continued stability and diplomatic relations of our two states and if issues do arise, let us talk about it and come to a mutual solution. As a gesture of good will, Shaoshan asks that you draft this treaty with respect to our wishes stated.

I also wish to change my position a bit while still remaining a neutral party in the New Israeli-Wurtige conflict; I previously in the email sent stated Shaoshan would remain completely neutral. However, if Wurtige does not recognize and grant New Israel independence, I am prepared to offer New Israel diplomatic support while remaining out of any confrontation. By this I mean that we will not take up any alliance but would instead support New Isreal's right to self-determination and sovereignty.

I hope that this conflict is resolved quickly and that ties can be mended at some point. I wish you and New Israel all the best and hope that you respond to the offers presented. :)

Warm Regards, Titus Smith, President of Shaoshan (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledgements

Markus, I would like to thank you for indicate the Kingdom of Ruthenia page as a "good article". I had not seen before and, having learned, I would like to thank you. Thank you very much.

Oscar of Ruthenia (talk)

You are most welcome - dear ally! I do hope the page is made a good article. It is very well-written!


The Lord be with you &c. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2015 (BST)

Media embedding

Hello! I have added the option to embed media files (see: Confederation of Lurk). Currently, only .ogg files are embedded, so I would suggest using them instead of mp3s. Thanks, --Luxor (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That is very good of you to do, ally! Thank you very much. The anthem for the Holy Empire will surely be added in on to our own page. --☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)