Please stop. The encyclopedia is supposed to have an NPOV, and not to condem people to hell. It's not a blog. In addition, you must understand that, for Christians, the influence Mosaic law has been removed to some extent. I don't have a quote at hand, but it's there. Geekman314(contact me) 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
- Conservapedia is not a place to present Biblical data as undeniable fact, as much as I might agree with much of it. That's what personal websites are for. Geekman314(contact me) 14:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The incest article is up for deletion. Surely a fellow quoter of the Bible is as mad as I am!--Meekrok 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Your uncle is not a dependable primary source, but I'm sure he's a fine individual. If you want to back up your viewpoints, they're different enough that they deserve a real citation.--AmesG 14:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Also, neutrality does not mean stating inane, insupportable opinions.--AmesG 14:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Magellan sailed around the world. What has supposedly changed since then?? --Dave3172 14:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not the one putting wiki things up. --John 20:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT) Ah, I see what happened. I rolled back the "mulatto" thing but didn't realize it also put wikipedia things up. --John 20:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT) "Mulatto" is considered offensive. In America, at least, most people would say he's African American. A sociologist could define this in a much more complicated way, but calling him African American wouldn't offend most people. --John 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Excellent articles, CWilson! Keep up the good work!TylerD.
No problem, glad you approve. ColinR 19:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good! I've always been interested in presidents, so this should be a fun projetc. Bobtexas 16:33 PM, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you for your kind words of support.
- "Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24)
- "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." (Psaum 23:4)
- JC 07:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Not allowed to de-Biblify the Bible!
if you'll look at the Bible aarticle I done, you'll see the structure and layout that I would like to see for all the books of the Bible. Basically just telling the reader what it's all about. For Genesis, the same thing should apply, but the things that have been made controversial, such as the Creation, the Flood, etc, if we started to explain those within the article then the result would be that it would lose scope and flow. I prefer separate articles on these subjects, where a lot of detail can be devoted to just that. You'll see how Genesis will look when I'm done...give it under five hours! Karajou 19:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I looked at what you had placed in from Genesis, and I had seen something recently (I can't remember when) in which someone took each line from Genesis 1 and added some relevant material which explained the science/evidence supporting that particular verse. I think the same thing should be added here. What say you? Karajou 17:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I am so humbled!
Thanks for your note
CWilson, I thank you for the thorough note you left on my user wall. I regret that I was not able to answer, due to the fact that I was temporarily banned for disagreeing with Conservative. Such is life.
I would never insult your faith, nor would I try to argue against your own personal beliefs. I respect your choice to take all of your knowledge from the Bible, and I think it is a fine way to structure one's personal and private religion faith. You seem to accept that there are challenges that are out there to biblical literalism, challenges which you have consciously chosen to discount, ignore, or disbelieve. Again, this is a valid personal choice of yours.
I draw the line, however, with forcing the idea on others that your worldview, which you conceded is limited, is complete. While you are willing to end your own inquiry at a certain point, it is unacceptable to demand as a result that all others end their own inquiries at that point, and specifically, you cannot expect others to take as fact what you take merely on faith. Faith is personal and private; facts are not. Facts are objective. Holding your faith as objectively true demeans my own choice about where to end my inquiry, extends beyond your actual knowledge on the subject, and compromises the private nature of your faith.
I accept that you are willing to trust your "trusted friend" the Bible over scientific sources that seem to discount its literal truth. But it is your choice to do so. Shouldn't you allow others to make the same choice, though? And if you admittedly don't know the other side of the story - the scientific side - do you think you should be holding your own private faith as objective fact? You need to admit that your beliefs are based only on faith (which again, is a valid source of personal belief) and stop trying to argue for their objective factuality absent actual knowledge to that effect.
I hope I made the distinction between personal faith and objective truth plain. Again, feel free to accept your view of young earth creationism on faith. Just don't claim that it's fact unless you know objectively that it is.--AmesG 09:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- By no means do I mean to assert myself as superior to you. I'm in High School, and (though I am getting a 4.0) by no means have any degrees. It works to dissuade the extremely obvious vandal-names, not stop them outright. It's a Wiki; this is never possible. --Hojimachongtalk 22:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the compliment. Conservative 15:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Ask User Aschlafly to become an Admin. We need good admins.
<quotebox> I would say, although I am no expert, that the large majority of CONSERVATIVE Christians are YECs. We aren't counting loosey goosey "Christians" such as Unitarians and the like. And this is a Conservative Christian site, so yes, I would say that YEC is the majority and goes along with what a lot of the people believe here. I don't see any surpression of views here, though, except attempted supression of unpopular religious ideas and biblical literalism by some of the more liberal on this site. Why can't you people just let us YECs have our beliefs?--CWilson 21:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT) </quotebox> (emphasis mine)
I will recommend you to be a Sysop to the director of this site
Sincerely, Conservative 16:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
- You'll get the sysop. Relax. I saw the back & forth betwixt you and Sid. When you see something that you feel attacks you, try this trick: Re read the post OUT LOUD. You'll hear what is being said a lot better. You'll also notice what (if anything) you yourself are "adding" to the post. The written word is an imperfect medium of communication for the simple reason that our own state of mind can vastly color what is being read. Take care and when you get the sysopship use it with a light touch until you get to know what it is you're doing. Sincerely, --Crackertalk 20:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Accusation of attack
I replied to you on my talk page and will keep my replies there since I find the "My replies on your page, yours on mine" system confusing for the reader. --Sid 3050 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- (added reply) --Sid 3050 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
A tip on becoming a Sysop
I know its rather mundane work but fighting vandals is one of the primary functions (although certainly not the only reason) for Admins/Sysops right now. Perhaps this will change in the future. If you want to become an Admin I would suggest fighting vandalism. Fix vandalism and let an Admin who is Bureaucrat know about the vandal. Bureacrats can nominate people to Admin status. Here is a listing of Bureacrats: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Conservative 15:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Why do you think true biblical literalists should be Democrats? MountainDew 03:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
In response to your question, I am an independent. Thank you for your answer. MountainDew 13:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't justify the Dems
No CWilson, you are wrong. Before you were even born, God knew you. Since you studied the Bible for ten years, you should know exactly where that verse comes from. You may believe that it is good to have freedom of choice, but God is going to hold everyone accountable for their actions, and do you honestly think that as a Christian, which you claim to be, that God is going to look kindly upon you when you advocate and support the killing of unborn children?
I'm reminding you now that those unborn kids being aborted right now, GOD KNOWS THEM. And God also knows YOU SUPPORT IT. We're not talking about the Democratic Party here now, are we? We're talking about you. You're either on God's side, or you're not. You might as well read what He to the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3, about how it was a mix of one side and the other; God is just going to spit you out of His mouth the same way. You will not go to Heaven.
The choice is your's. Karajou 08:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, you're wrong
Exodus 20:5 is part of the 2nd Commandment: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
In that context, it would seam to anyone that a reading of Hosea would indicate God passing judgement on a nation that refused to follow His commandments, right down to the third and fourth generations. You are now using Hosea to back up your claim that God allows the killing of unborn children.
Ashlafly knows what's going on and he's backing me up. I'm laying down the law right now, and you're going to follow it or leave. There will be no disrespect of the Bible; there will be no twisting of the Bible to suit a personal perverted message. You will not edit any article pertaining to the Bible or the subject of abortion. This is final, and the debate is closed. Karajou 10:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- How did it go from this: Maybe I should have done Genesis the way you did Leviticus. Good job! Karajou 20:19, 18 March 2007 to the above?
- I saw no edits by CWilson on any Bible article that would warrant such a hostile and vitriolic post. Crackertalk 18:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Regarding this, I'd suggest creating a draft of the section at User:CWilson/BibleAndAbortion, and asking other editors, not just Karajou, to review it and express their opinions. Si? --Hojimachongtalk 18:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- When you're done writing it, post on users talk pages about it. Also, add a section the the talk page of the article(s) in question (probably Bible and Abortion). --Hojimachongtalk 18:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
He has no right to block you for simply editing. If he does you will be unblocked, and he will have some questions to answer. Edit whatever you want --CPAdmin1 20:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Why did CWilson get banned?
- If I'm not completely mistaken, it's because of this (read all the way through it). CWilson complained about a sysop (who actually apologized just before Andy decided to turn the tables), and Andy in turn started to dig out old edits of his. Apparently, the ban was for (1) a small revert war that happened two weeks ago and (2) the fact that Andy does not believe in CWilson's church program. --Sid 3050 07:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
CWilson, if you feel the need to complain, call people names, get yourself unblocked, randomly discuss things with people, etc., please join the Conservapedia IRC channel, #conservapedia, on freenode. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 08:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)