User talk:DunsScotus

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I hope you can provide a good citation for this claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --Hojimachongtalk 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. DunsScotus 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --Hojimachongtalk 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
already did DunsScotus 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Squid and such like.

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--British_cons (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

British_cons, as church father Martin Luther once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative Barry Goldwater once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--British_cons (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[1] DunsScotus 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--British_cons (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Cons, how can you embrace figures like Margaret Thatcher when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? DunsScotus 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--British_cons (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. DunsScotus 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--British_cons (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. DunsScotus 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Right. Got the smiting about right then?--British_cons (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?Palmd001 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...Palmd001 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. touchedbyabear 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. Palmd001 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT) lux, and keep it coming.Palmd001 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.Palmd001 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. DunsScotus 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.Palmd001 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Then why are you watching me, Pald001? DunsScotus 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. Myk 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.DunsScotus 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. touchedbyabear

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. Palmd001 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

touchedbyabear, such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. ColinRtalk 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right ColinR, I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.
No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. ColinRtalk 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.Palmd001 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

On the Punishment of the Damned

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. DunsScotus 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? ColinRtalk 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Colin, no less a church father as Tertulian explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.
"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" DunsScotus 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. ColinRtalk 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards sinners, but Tertulian is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the damned, so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. DunsScotus 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget the marshmallows.Palmd001 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. DunsScotus 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.Palmd001 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.DunsScotus 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Unless you blaspheme. ColinRtalk 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Damn that blasphemy clause.Palmd001 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --Crackertalk 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. DunsScotus 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Yet again, unless you blasphemed. ColinRtalk 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [2] DunsScotus 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. GentlemanSun

Dinosaurs and the flood

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the Great_Flood and Post-Diluvian_Diasporas with great interest. What do you think of this article [3] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. GentlemanSun

AmesG's liberal unbelief

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-AmesGyo! 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJV) did it for me. Airdish 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Me too...loved it though.Murray 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. DunsScotus 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-AmesGyo! 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-AmesGyo! 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. DunsScotus 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. Flippin 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. DunsScotus 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar BenjaminW 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-AmesGyo! 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. DunsScotus 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. Flippin 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! GentlemanSun

So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-AmesGyo! 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. DunsScotus 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
For being divinely inspired, they sure made a number of mistakes[4][5] [6] --Mtur 18:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Know one's seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I bet he's real too.-AmesGyo! 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ames, I'm praying for you. DunsScotus 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
As I said before you deleted it, and I for you.-AmesGyo! 18:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

lol MountainDew 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Smug alert?NickJ10 18:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I suspect more man-crushes on Duns are on the way. Murray 18:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
It is hard not to be very respectful of Duns. I don't know that man crushes are what he'd want, he is very against the homosexual agenda. GentlemanSun
The word of how the Loch Ness Monster proves YEC is pretty important. Where would we be without it? Ah. Better educated.-AmesGyo! 18:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Airdish and Me

I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Airdish 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. DunsScotus 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

But you did say that Jesus spoke English User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#evidence_for_Agent_Provocateur_status Airdish 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

That might have been poorly phrased. I believe I had been combating attempts to smear the KJV and Biblical Inerrancy in general, and my enumeration of Tmtoulouse's sins might have included an attempt to recognize this damage. However, I was not attempting to insinuate that Jesus spoke English, just that His translation (in the KJV), was Perfect and Inerrant. DunsScotus 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I just started reading this stuff, and this guy seems really smart and really Christian. I guess I don't get what you guys are talking about completely, but this Duns guy seems like the real deal, a smart, good Christian. Maybe you shouldn't take up all his time here and let him spread the Word.Saved 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)