8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 480:
Line 480: + +
no edit summary
:I've heard of BillionBibles before, but know almost nothing about them. However, the article on Global Media Outreach seems to only briefly mention some opposition. The linked BillionBibles page criticizes Global Media Outreach for teaching the "four spiritual laws" which they believe tends towards the "Health, Wealth, and Prosperity Gospel" and leaves out any mention of God's call (and and [[predestination]], as some believe) as well as a couple other points. [https://www.billionbibles.com/four-spiritual-laws.html]. These seem like they might be valid criticisms to at least note. Our article as it was simply stated that there was some opposition to Global Media Outreach, without subjectively declaring it to be wrong, so it seems that we were already leaving it up to the reader to decide what to think. I'm also somewhat confused as to why you removed the word "some," making the page basically say that all Christians say that your organization is wrong. I've fine with some rewording or explanation, but I think it is worth beeping some mention of doctrinal disagreements. Conservapedia is read and edited by people of many different beliefs, so we generally try to present both view points and let the reader decide. It sounds like this is what you wanted, and it seems to me, that is what we are doing. Furthermore, the [[Internet_evangelism#Global_Media_Outreach|Internet_evangelism]] page (to which you deleted the link) speaks favorably of Global Media Outreach. I have reverted both of these changes, since they seem to make the problem you are speaking about worse.
:I've heard of BillionBibles before, but know almost nothing about them. However, the article on Global Media Outreach seems to only briefly mention some opposition. The linked BillionBibles page criticizes Global Media Outreach for teaching the "four spiritual laws" which they believe tends towards the "Health, Wealth, and Prosperity Gospel" and leaves out any mention of God's call (and and [[predestination]], as some believe) as well as a couple other points. [https://www.billionbibles.com/four-spiritual-laws.html]. These seem like they might be valid criticisms to at least note. Our article as it was simply stated that there was some opposition to Global Media Outreach, without subjectively declaring it to be wrong, so it seems that we were already leaving it up to the reader to decide what to think. I'm also somewhat confused as to why you removed the word "some," making the page basically say that all Christians say that your organization is wrong. I've fine with some rewording or explanation, but I think it is worth beeping some mention of doctrinal disagreements. Conservapedia is read and edited by people of many different beliefs, so we generally try to present both view points and let the reader decide. It sounds like this is what you wanted, and it seems to me, that is what we are doing. Furthermore, the [[Internet_evangelism#Global_Media_Outreach|Internet_evangelism]] page (to which you deleted the link) speaks favorably of Global Media Outreach. I have reverted both of these changes, since they seem to make the problem you are speaking about worse.
:Is there something I'm missing here? If the article is being unfair to Global Media Outreach, then I would be fine with trying to balance it out--I just don't see any specific glaring issues. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 20:04, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
:Is there something I'm missing here? If the article is being unfair to Global Media Outreach, then I would be fine with trying to balance it out--I just don't see any specific glaring issues. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 20:04, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
David, regarding your note on the 16th—you were right. There were edits on the article mentioning us that were telescoping somehow and when I tried to edit one it wouldn't let me because it affected another. I didn't understand and was out of time. So—user error; I'm afraid I'm not a regular contributor, I just try to watch out for slander on us, and this site is about the only example of it I have found on the web. Sometimes slander shows up in overt ways, sometimes subtle. Just look at Wikipedia's article on the Apostle Paul, which includes "Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, who wrote that Paul was the 'first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.' Christian anarchists Leo Tolstoy and Ammon Hennacy take a similar view." That's bad enough, because it makes the reader feel as if the page ahs an agenda; but imagine if it were the first point in the entry, as "Criticism of Global Media Outreach" is for us.