Talk:Unification theology: Difference between revisions
→Comments: Good job on the merge |
Steve Dufour (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:Good job on the merge. Thanks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
:Good job on the merge. Thanks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Should there be an article on this?== |
|||
The Divine Principle is copyrighted (although its text is posted on the Internet for anyone to read) so we can not just repeat the exact words here. On the other hand, if we explain church teachings in our own words that would be original research. [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:53, 17 January 2007
Comments
Still needs Christology section . . . [00:11, 5 June 2005 User:Billlund]
The article needs to say something about the Unificationist literal, historical, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. [23 May 2006 User:24.22.111.11]
I think the article needs to be renamed "Unification Theology." I'm guessing whoever named it didn't have formal theological training. Also, this should be the main article for Unification Theology (not, for example, the Unification Church, which has a section for theology and a section for church teachings, and uses the two interchangably). It needs to be filled out a lot. At present it is very unbalanced in terms of which topics it addresses. -Exucmember 03:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good job on the merge. Thanks! --Uncle Ed 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Should there be an article on this?
The Divine Principle is copyrighted (although its text is posted on the Internet for anyone to read) so we can not just repeat the exact words here. On the other hand, if we explain church teachings in our own words that would be original research. Steve Dufour 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)