User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Aschlafly's talk page. Please place complaints about other users or other trolling content at Conservapedia:User complaints. If Andy is interested in hearing your complaint, he will respond there. Thank you.


July 7, 2023

Interesting, Jill Lepore on the great Mrs. P. Schlafly [2] (FiringLine, Jul 7, 2023).Telling (talk) 17:53, July 9, 2023 (EDT)

Thanks for the link!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:55, July 9, 2023 (EDT)

NP. Quote from Lepore: ..I think Schlafly’s just fascinating. She really has been ignored by historians for two reasons. One, academic historians, who tend to be liberal, have really been bad at offering a history of the rise of the modern conservative movement, this just tremendously important political insurgency, you know, since the 1950s, of which, you know, Buckley’s Firing Line was an important element. And then conservative historians just haven’t really paid attention to Schlafly because she was a woman.Telling (talk)

That's a very interesting quote. Thank you. Perhaps there could be a new entry that devoted to this issue.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:28, July 9, 2023 (EDT)
Tnanks Andy. Your opinion on this please?Telling (talk)
It's superb! Very well done. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 02:23, July 10, 2023 (EDT)


Hi Andy, can you please tell Karajou that I'm deeply sorry for my iniquities against him two years ago during the massive intra-Conservapedia dispute and that I would be interested in talking to him again? Thanks. —LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 15:22, July 11, 2023 (EDT)

Don't fall for it Andy. It's just another one of these conspiracies to sow division in Conservapedia and attack active editors. RobSGive Peace a chance 16:04, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
RobSmith, you insisted over and over again 2–3 years ago that if Karajou was defrocked, you would be able to fix Conservapedia. Your promise at this point can be clearly seen as a broken one. All you've done is turn the site into a laughingstock. —LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 16:33, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
How many blocks and vandal attacks have we had in the past 8-9 months? There used to be a half dozen daily.
I never said Kara should be defrocked; I said he needed to be reined in and counselled on the proper role and duties of an Admin. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:00, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
"i nEvEr" Oh really? How many more instances of liberal denial will you propagate before I pull out a list of receipts proving the liar you are? "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44) —LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 18:25, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
Misuing and misquoting scripture is "taking the Lord's name in vain". I never claimed to be descended from Abraham. RobSGive Peace a chance 20:43, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
Does an individual have to incorrectly claim to have Abraham as their father to qualify as a child of Satan? The basic concept is applied, both overtly and covertly, throughout the Bible. The Apostle Paul told Elymas the Sorcerer: "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10) —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 21:21, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
Now you're trolling Andy's talk page. This discussion should be moved elsewhere. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:05, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
You're one to talk on the issue of trolling! —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 22:14, July 11, 2023 (EDT)
What goes around comes around. Do unto others. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:21, July 11, 2023 (EDT)

The importance of diversification and resiliency. The tale of the followers of a tired and dying ideology whose web traffic is dying

Andy, since March of 2023 the website Internet Infidels lost 50% of its traffic.

Western atheism had too many eggs in the Richard Dawkins and secular leftism basket. Dawkins is far less popular (See: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence). And now that Joe Biden is very unpopular and Europe is moving to the political right, that further hurt the atheistic cause and this is only going to get worse due to right-wing populism growing. On top of this, the mainstream media has lost a lot of trust and they used to promote atheism more in the past (See: Atheism and public relations). Also, people with professor values promoted atheism and many colleges are closing.

I predict that the next economic recession is going to REALLY hurt the atheistic cause due to the superior fundraising/resources of Christendom (See: Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising).

Conservapedia needs to expand its content because its atheism traffic could taper off over time due to less and less people having interest in atheism. Look at how much traffic to atheist websites is falling: Internet atheism and Internet atheism web traffic volume.

Christendom is going to go from victory to victory (See: Future of Christianity). Deus Vult!!! Conservative (talk) 09:27, July 20, 2023 (EDT)

You need more editors to do that, and it's not done by chasing away editors. RobSGive Peace a Chance!
I do have one regret about LT. When I wrote about LT "If he wants to be nasty and contentious (see his initial post on this page), then good riddance. Conservative (talk) 15:30, July 13, 2023 (EDT)", that was too harsh. LT is young and is more hot-headed. I know he hates right-wing populism. And to be fair, among other things, right-wing populists are not very good at balancing budgets when countries have a big amount of sovereign debt. Conservative (talk) 10:29, July 20, 2023 (EDT)
In addition, when I titled my essay On behalf of all Christians who are politically right-leaning, I hereby declare victory! Olé! Olé! Olé!, I could have just used merely one "Olé!". Maybe using three olés was too provocative. :) Conservative (talk) 10:35, July 20, 2023 (EDT)
It's not what you think or believe., it's how you interact with others that matters. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:23, July 20, 2023 (EDT)

Andy can fix the login problem. But editor retention is important so template pollution through uncivilly covering up people's civil content via a template needs to end. Conservative (talk) 10:41, July 20, 2023 (EDT)

Make up your mind if you want editor retention or not. You're sending mixed signals. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:42, July 20, 2023 (EDT)

Robert Louis Stevenson

I am a fan of Robert Louis Stevenson too. When I was a young man I loved the book Treasure Island and the short story The Tell-Tale Heart.

I usually read nonfiction, but I think the next non-fiction works that I read will be Pilgrim's Progress, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Conservative (talk) 20:40, July 22, 2023 (EDT)

The Tell-Tale Heart was by Edgar Allan Poe. I encourage reading the free, available online Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It is remarkably conservative and brilliantly written.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:54, July 22, 2023 (EDT)
Thanks. I just found a free PDF copy of the book at: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Free PDF copy. Conservative (talk) 22:59, July 22, 2023 (EDT)
There are many Christian and conservative phrases in it. I guess that's why it is rarely part of high school reading today!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:43, July 22, 2023 (EDT)
The first sentence of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Free PDF copy: "Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of a rugged countenance that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse; backward in sentiment; lean, long, dusty, dreary and yet somehow lovable."
"Rugged countenance"? That sounds like "toxic masculinity". :) Conservative (talk) 23:52, July 22, 2023 (EDT)
That is a great example of manliness in literature. I've added it to several entries. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:01, July 23, 2023 (EDT)Conservapedia:Copyrights


I have been meaning to ask you this for a long time, But what happen to the 'Create Account' button, my friend is trying to create himself a new account but their is no way to do so because the option is missing, What happened?

I've been focusing on content. Legitimate new users can email me at to obtain a new account. A reference or some verification of good faith is preferred. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:32, July 23, 2023 (EDT)


Hebrews 1:8 called. Said "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

I've got missed calls from a bunch of Psalms and others as well, but I figured we should probably cut straight to the Son as man Himself. ConwayIII (talk) 20:16, July 31, 2023 (EDT)

You make a great point, and I'll consider this carefully. Will respond later tonight after studying this in depth. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:39, July 31, 2023 (EDT)
The New Living Translation breaks from the pressure to use "kingdom" and instead translates this verse as:
But to the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice. See Biblehub
The KJV rendition that you quote above strains to use "kingdom" in overly a repetitive way. Rather, the statement would be far stronger if it emphasized that righteousness is the standard in God's paradise, as in "a scepter of righteousness is the standard of thy paradise."--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:30, July 31, 2023 (EDT)
Andy, thrones and sceptres are the things of kings and kingdoms. ConwayII has you in a Bible exegesis full-nelson and I don't see you getting out of it. Conservative (talk) 00:23, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Appreciate the humor and the challenge! But ancient Greece had no "thrones and sceptres," and neither did ancient Greek. Like "kingdom", those terms are also figments of the monarchical England. Thus checkmate. Ha ha hal. A still better rendition:
Thy presence, O God, is infinite: a commitment to righteousness is the standard of thy paradise.
--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:20, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Respectfully, no. Hebrews 1:8 is a deliberate riff on Psalm 45:6: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Cf. Psalm 103:19 (The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.), Psalm 145:1 (I will extol thee, my God, O king; and I will bless thy name for ever and ever.) and the repeated and reinforcing use of majesty in verses 5 and 12.
The trials and tribulations of various earthly kings and kingdoms is a major thread running right through the OT, and Hebrew's contemporary audience would have had zero difficulty thinking of God in those monarchical terms. You might not like it, but that's not really relevant, is it?
As a final note, I urge you to go back to the Greek myths and any reliable history of the actual ancient Greece. You'll find plenty of kings. ConwayIII (talk) 06:17, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Like King Agamemnon, for instance. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:45, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Ancient Greek did not even have a word for "king", which is mostly an Anglophile obsession. All the "king" and "kingdom" language in the English translations of the New Testament is a dilution by the Brits.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:15, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Oedipus Rex, usually translated Oedipus the King. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:29, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
And from Rex we get a whole family of words, like reign, royal, Reich, etc. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:30, August 1, 2023 (EDT)

(Outdent) OK. Let's do this in French, German and Spanish, and then look at the Vulgate Latin and the Septuagint Greek. Psalm 145:1:

  • Je t'exalterai, ô mon Dieu, mon roi! Et je bénirai ton nom à toujours et à perpétuité.
  • Ich will dich erheben, mein Gott, du König, und deinen Namen loben immer und ewiglich.
  • Te exaltaré mi Dios, oh Rey, y bendeciré tu nombre eternamente y para siempre.
  • Exaltabo te, Deus meus rex ; et benedicam nomini tuo in sæculum, et in sæculum sæculi.
  • Ὑψώσω σε, ὁ θεός μου ὁ βασιλεύς μου, καὶ εὐλογήσω τὸ ὄνομά σου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος·

Herodotus used the same language 100+ years before the Septuagint was compiled. A very sensible chap called Demaratus asks Xerxes (a king of kings!) if he's really in the mood for some plain speaking and repeatedly addresses him with the honorific Βασιλεῦ. See end of 101 and beginning of 102: English Greek

ConwayIII (talk) 14:48, August 1, 2023 (EDT)

This is terrific information, but your French/German/Spanish translations above are of a verse in Psalms, not the Epistle to the Hebrews. Psalms was not originally written in Greek, and the Old Testament does refer to kings. The ancient Greek does not, as it had different types of government. The less biased Wiktionary explains that the primary meaning of βασιλεύς is "chief, master" and its notes describes it as an authority who could, as in a foreign ruler, coincidentally be a king there (but not in Greece). [3]--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:56, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
A king or kingdom denotes an heredity bloodline for the "continuity of government", a Republic has no such doctrine. This is why the Roman Catholic Church adopted celibacy, so that no heredity bloodline would have a claim on the Papacy. In Islam, Shia Islam traces its origins to the family of Mohammad, whereas Sunni Islam traces its origins to the Prophet and his Companions. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:32, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
What's Wiktionary got to do with this? I've just pointed to you to Herodotus (an ancient Greek historian writing c. 430 BC) using Βασιλεῦ in reference to Xerxes, the Persian king (c. 518 – 465 BC) famed for his invasion of Greece. This is a primary linguistic source and obviously relevant re. translating βασιλείας as "kingdom" in Hebrews 1:8.
The ancient Greeks had these words (and others) for "king" and "kingdom" and your claims to the contrary are simply untrue.
I'd prefer it if you'd have the grace to concede this narrow point so we can get back to the meat of the discussion. Thanks, ConwayIII (talk) 19:20, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Conway, your scholarship is excellent and I'm learning from it. Seriously, I mean it. You're right that the verse in Hebrews is a paraphrase, almost a direct quote, in Greek of the verse in Psalms.
But languages do sometimes lack words for certain terms. It seems natural that Herodotus used the Greek word for authority to refer to Xerxes. He was indeed an authority, a ruler. That doesn't prove that the Greek term meant "king". And jumping from there to translate the corresponding Greek term as "kingdom" is a bridge too far, it seems to me. I don't intend to be disagreeable about this, and most English translations side with you. I attribute that the immense British, pro-monarchical influence over the English translations. I admit that any version today which departed from that tradition is not going to sell very many copies! But with "kingdom" today connoting Mickey Mouse and other silliness, overreliance on that term may be causing folks to drive away from the benefits they could obtain from an undiluted translation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:00, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
It's an interesting discussion, but I'm going to thumbnail the issue here:
God initially told Moses when he delivered the law that Israel was not to be like other people, and God was to be both their God and king. But God prophesized through Moses that one day the people would rebel and demand a king. When they entered the land, they had Judges, and not a king. Later in Samuel's day the people rebelled and wanted a king, and God told Samuel to grant them their wish. Samuel anointed Saul, and later David. This succession of kings continued until the Babylonian captivity, when the kingdom was destroyed. But the prophecy of a messiah was that he would restore the kingdom. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke attest to the fact that Jesus was heir to the promises made to David.
The Pharisees told Pilot that Jesus was a fraud and he was challenging Ceasar for the title of King of the Jews (they feared reprisals against the people if the Romans interpreted people calling Jesus 'king' as rebellion against Roman occupation, as well as their own loss of power among the people).
IOWs, the prophecies of a messiah were, and are, interpreted as also meaning 'king'. Now remember, God advised against wanting or having a king, but gave them what they wanted anyway. It wasn't the first time. There are many instances in the bible where God offers people a choice, advises on what God says is the right choice, people reject what God says and he grants them what they wanted anyway. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:14, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
For example: You may eat of the trees of the garden, except for the tree in the midst of the garden..., etc. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 09:29, August 5, 2023 (EDT)
"At once I was in the spirit, and there in heaven stood a throne, with one seated on the throne!" (Revelation 4:2 NRSV)

"They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” {Revelation 17:14 ESV)

At Conservapedia, we have no king but Jesus! Conservative (talk) 12:21, August 2, 2023 (EDT)

One more note: When Jesus asked, What think ye Christ, whose son is he, David's or God's? And they responded, 'David's'. And Jesus said 'Why then does David in spirit call him Lord? - Jesus is making a direct reference to Psalm 45, which then again is cited in Hebrews chapter 1. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:05, August 2, 2023 (EDT)

@Andy: That's certainly gracious (thanks), but it's definitely not conceding the point. Let's try this instead:

  1. OT authors properly referred to earthly kings and kingdoms when writing in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.
  2. The authors of Psalms 45, 103 & 145 used precise monarchical imagery re. God, again when writing in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.
  3. The author of Hebrews chose to replicate that imagery, most notably and precisely at 1:8.
  4. Therefore, if the author of Psalm 45 intended to say "kingdom" in verse 6, then the author of Hebrews intended to say "kingdom" at 1:8 whether or not you agree βασιλείας adequately captures that concept.
  5. Given your beliefs re. the author of Hebrews, there can be no question re. error in His word choice.
  6. In short, He chose βασιλείας as the most accurate Greek rendition of "kingdom" available to Him.

I think you'd like to say that, if He was writing Hebrews today, He would likely choose a different word, such as "paradise", and perhaps even abandon the monarchical imagery entirely, for the reasons you've outlined.

That's a very different argument to the one you've made so far, and one that many (most?) people would find very presumptuous.

It does, however, have the distinct advantage of accurately capturing your sincere beliefs without foundering linguistically or logically. Essentially, it's a WWJD? exercise re. the decline of monarchy and the development of the English language. ConwayIII (talk) 15:57, August 2, 2023 (EDT)

Conway, your argument is brilliant and I'm learning from it. Ten years ago I would have been more argumentative in disagreement than today. You are certainly at least mostly right here, and I had never thought of this before. Well done.
I'm not totally convinced as to "kingdom", however, even assuming you're right about "king". The trick here is switching from Hebrew to Greek to English, and also recognizing that the word choice by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which I'm convinced was Jesus, was constrained by words his audience (not Greek linguists) could understand. "Kingdom", it still seems to me, is a British invention that certainly conferred immense benefits on the world, but has lost its effectiveness in language.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:08, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
Thanks. That's very kind. It strikes me that "kingdom" is simply a function of "king". We can call it a "realm" or something else entirely, but the concept itself (that which is the king's to rule) doesn't change.
As for the Hebrew:
  • Root word: king (melek) מֶלֶךְ
  • Genesis 39:20: of the king (earthly) הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ
  • Psalm 45:6: of Your kingdom (divine) מַלְכוּתֶֽךָ
  • Psalm 103:19: and His kingdom (divine) מַלְכוּתֶֽךָ
  • Psalm 145:1: King (divine title) הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ
  • 1 Kings 1:32: King (earthly title) הַמֶּ֣לֶךְ
  • Judges 15:9: the kings (earthly) מַלְכֵ֣י
  • Daniel 11:9: to the kingdom (earthly) בְּמַלְכוּת֙
I don't pretend to understand the grammar or the diacritics or how to pronounce any of it, but there's enough orthographic similarity to reasonably infer consistent use of the root, as with king / kingdom in English. At a minimum, all the above contain מֶלֶ with varying diacritics.
ConwayIII (talk) 22:24, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
Conway, your analysis is excellent. You're probably right about the use of "king" in the Old Testament. And to the extent a book in the New Testament quotes the Old, it is what it is, as you point out.
But I think "kingdom" might really be a sufficiently different concept now, at least post-Disney where its "magical kingdom" really has nothing to do with any "king". I'd like to ponder this further. "Kingdom" is such a basic concept, even recited daily by up to a hundred million people in The Lord's Prayer, that some additional care in analysis of this is appropriate. Thanks again for providing your highly informative perspective and examples.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
P.S. When I say "post-Disney" above, I'm not referring to the current political dispute between Disney and Ron DeSantis (and others). All I mean by that is how "kingdom" has become a fairy tale concept, at least in the U.S., in part due to Disney, and I don't fault them for that.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:53, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
"The trick here is switching from Hebrew to Greek to English". To get to English, you have to go through German, first. Gr. Rex -> Ger. König -> Eng. King. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 02:08, August 5, 2023 (EDT)
Now German uses "Reich" for kingdom, which is derived from Gr. Rex. In English, the closest surviving word we have to "Reich" is "rich", denoting something of a commonwealth. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 02:13, August 5, 2023 (EDT)

real things in fiction

I asked Rob but I figured I'd also ask what your opinion on covering real things in fiction here. I added something to the George Washington article as an example. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 13:18, August 1, 2023 (EDT)

I like it! Please do more. We're at the intersection of culture, knowledge and politics, and cultural or fictional references to historical figures is a big part of that. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:23, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
What do you mean by "intersection of culture"? This wiki's? Patriotic Gamer (talk) 13:27, August 1, 2023 (EDT)
Right I mean that Conservapedia is at the intersection of culture, knowledge and politics.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:13, August 1, 2023 (EDT)

Is Bushfan template allowed on my userpage?

I added a lot of userboxes to my userpage, and among them was one of "this user supports GWB." Assuming it's a holdover from this wiki's earlier days, as I know that he is loathed by MAGA, I just wanted to ask if you're okay that I decided to add to my user page & that it's not intended to be an insult to Trump supporters.

Userbox refers to how he was my childhood president, there's photo of him with Chick-Fil-A founder, he gave Fred Rogers a presidential award, friends with Michael W. Smith, was openly supportive and empowered Christian music at the time. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 11:52, August 2, 2023 (EDT)

If you want to be identified with the Republican establishment, the Uniparty, the corrupt Biden DOJ, Russiagate scammers, the military industrial complex, globalists, warmongers and supporters of Ukrainian Nazis, sure, go ahead. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:40, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
A shame that others will automatically assume association from a quick glance, but you do have a point there. The crazy thing is that I found a user box for people who support Obama here, so I take it's the risk of one exercising their right to say what or who they support, but to keep in mind of how the average person here will view them or challenge them. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 17:32, August 2, 2023 (EDT)
Splits have emerged in both parties since the Clinton and Bush eras which are not readily apparent to people on either side of the line, in addition to recognition of a uniparty that is hostile to voters of both parties. The Dems have become the party of war, Wall Street, and the military industrial complex, and the GOP has become the party of workers and the common man. Both party's establishments seek to isolate populist sentiments among their voters. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 01:24, August 3, 2023 (EDT)

Game data allowed?

Is word-for-word text from video games (e.g. quotes said by a character) and other sources (like official bios of another character) allowed on this website? those don't have a license attached to them, but I'd assume the closest to them are the respective copyright holders, who add the bios or the quotes themselves Patriotic Gamer (talk) 09:32, August 5, 2023 (EDT)

I would assume in most cases it would be okay, provided the language is cleaned up to meet our family friendly guidelines. We may have to see a few examples to see what you have in mind and if any objections arise. Thanks. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 16:59, August 7, 2023 (EDT)

Length of the early church services

Below is the information I promised you about the length of the early church services:

Here is the info on buycotting that I mentioned to you

You can buy products from conservative companies at: Public Square

This is probably going to be one of the best ways to buycott and it's growing fast. Conservative (talk) 15:31, August 13, 2023 (EDT)

Conservapedia and the origins of global creationism

In 2012, the University at Toronto reported: “We have seen in the last two decades a rapid spread of creationism beyond the United States and beyond Christianity to other religions to the present time where it is a global phenomenon,” said Numbers in a talk entitled Creationism Goes Global. “But the big story in the last 20 years is the booming enterprise of creationism in the Islamic world.”[4]

Conservapedia was launched in 2004 and for awhile it ranked #4 at Google for the term "evolution". Also, historically most of the very vocal evolutionists have been atheists/agnostics and Conservapedia's atheism articles have received a lot of page views.

The website noted in 2015: "Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists and hurl out statements in favour of creationism...".[5]

Conservapedia helped the phenomena of global creationism as far as its initial rapid breakout period in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s.

And once the proverbial genie of global creationism was out of the bottle, it has been impossible for evolutionists to get him back in the bottle. Conservative (talk) 11:12, August 16, 2023 (EDT)

He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips. - King Solomon, Proverbs 20:19. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:20, August 16, 2023 (EDT)
Another interpretation based on Proverbs 11:13 could be read to say: He that goeth about as a talebearer is faithless: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips.
A review of User:Conservative's postings in this talk shows that when he's not going about as a talebearer, he acting as a flatterer. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:11, August 17, 2023 (EDT)

Improving the pro-life category

I spent some time yesterday and this morning cleaning up the pro-life articles.

I know you are one of the Conservapedia who is active in the pro-life movement so I thought I would tell you one of the things that are remaining to do. I have engaged in pro-life political advocacy in the past and I would do it myself, but I am working on two off-wiki projects right now so I cannot attend to it expeditiously.

In terms of suggestions here is a list of 5 priorities:

1) The article Beginning of human life has footnotes that are completely messed up.

2) Come up with more pro-life topics to create articles on (People, places, things and concepts) and drum up interest among current editors.

3) Expand the natalism article and create/expand articles related to this concept.

4) Create an Anti-natalism article and create/expand articles related to this concept.

5) Expand the article Legal cases about abortion that I just created. (Question: Know any Harvard Law School graduates who are Conservapedians?). :)

User:NishantXavier is the most fervent Catholic at Conservapedia who likes politics. Maybe he would be interested in helping with items #1 and #2.

Conservapedia does face stiff competition from, but maybe it can compete in the online encyclopedia niche. I know it is possible to compete in the online encyclopedia niche on a topic given that I did this in the atheism category.

Some good news. Search engine traffic to the website of Encyclopedia Britannica is way down. So strike while the iron is hot. :) Conservative (talk) 08:04, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Thanks for your terrific suggestions. This an important issue that could benefit from far more here and elsewhere. Liberals are getting away with too much distortion on this topic.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:16, August 24, 2023 (EDT)
Natalism has little to do with the moral principles of the pro-life movement. Pro-lifers emphasize the intrinsic dignity of human life that begins upon conception, while natalists are merely obsessed with birthrate statistics. Is it any wonder that natalism was a hallmark of socialist regimes, namely Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Socialist Republic of Romania? —LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 22:20, September 4, 2023 (EDT)
Would this article, Russia's fertility rate, be an example of natalism? It apparently was created to justify ethnic cleansing of Russians and US taxpayer support of Nazism. Perhaps it should be moved to Essay space. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 22:27, September 4, 2023 (EDT)
It's definitely a polemic against whatever the author considers an antithesis to natalism. I strongly disagree with that article's tone and implied points. —LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 22:31, September 4, 2023 (EDT)
Perhaps we need a Category:Natalism? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 22:36, September 4, 2023 (EDT)
I don't really have much of an input on organizing this categorical topic, to be honest. I simply object to Conservative's narrative of "natalism = pro-life"/"pro-life = natalism." He thinks I'm not conservative enough because I don't support natalist policies, and somehow in all his history research on atheism and communism, he didn't learn that Stalin was a natalist... or he didn't care about that fact. —LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 22:48, September 4, 2023 (EDT)

I never said you were not conservative enough due to your thoughts on natalism. If memory serves and it may not, in our discussion on the matter, I merely indicated that tax cuts for having children is good public policy and I gave one or more reasons why I believe this. Conservative (talk) 06:31, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Why don't you go all the way. Holders of the Mutterkreuz had access to Hitler. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 06:41, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, to reiterate my point above, the socialist regimes of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Socialist Republic of Romania all implemented natalist policies. Is Conservative going to designate those regimes as "pro-life" because of their government-instituted natalism? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:00, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Conservative, while I can't recall your exact words, my memorable impression is that you did essentially imply I wasn't sufficiently conservative because over the issue of natalism, along with saying that I'm not more conservative than Andy (I'm fairly certain I am, in all honest personal opinion). I think you first brought up government natalist policies as a "conservative" position, and when I politely differed, the substance of your reaction appeared to be rooted in the notion that "natalism = right-wing national-conservative." (I know you almost certainly didn't use the exact term "national-conservative," though my emphasis here is on the generic political concept, BTW) —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:04, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
See also: Essay: Does ignorance, stubbornness, and stupidity define conservativism?. We have a wellspring of knowledge and experience to draw on from here. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:14, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
The answer, like too many, splits into a dichotomy. Principally speaking, no, since conservatism is grounded on emphasizing critical thinking and basic logic. But in reality, too many "conservatives" end up as idiots. It's been a common theme I noticed since my teenage years: standard conservatives are usually slightly less articulate than many liberal activists. (I'm not saying this to bash the right, I'm saying this because it's an objective thing I've noticed from personal experience) —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:19, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
" too many "conservatives" end up as idiots". You're right. Too many conservatives think being conservative means just remaining stubborn and ignorant to the changes in the world going on around them. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:25, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, they keep telling themselves, "if only we elect a new Republican-controlled Congress, the United States will be restored to glorious utopia..." And so, they allow their children to become brainwashed by public schools, the media, and cultural propaganda into believing that sodomy and child sacrifice in the name of "women's rights" are exemplifications of basic human dignity, and then demand congressional Republicans to do the job they themselves failed. What a pathetic joke this state of the country is. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:29, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Cease ye from man, whose breathe is in his nostril - Isaiah (that's the response I always give).
(ec) be prepared to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
That's the meaning of conservativism, and that's the meaning of "My flesh is meat indeed".
We are to eat up the Word til it becomes the fiber of your very being. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:35, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
"oh no, the internet turned my child into a porn addict!" No kidding, and who let your kid do that in the first place by not teaching better moral values or at least installing a filter? This is where conservatives and liberals drastically differ: when parents fail, liberals blame the parents and expect the states to do something about the problem. Conservatives instead blame the state for not taking the moral responsibilities of parents, and demand the state to singlehandedly fix the problem. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:33, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
We're not supposed to put our hope and trust in man, who can and will deceive us. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:35, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, at the end of the day, the "conservative movement," at least here in the U.S., has been an utter failure. My theory as it relates to the thesis/antithesis deception game is that this was intended on purpose from the beginning. The final NWO will be a "far-right" theocracy because it enforces religious worship through civil legislation. Let's work backwards here: how can a far-right theocracy be established in normal circumstances? It cannot. You first need to push the country as far to the left as possible, as ridiculously insane far as can be, until people are so fed up with the moral degeneracy of the neo-Marxist left that they will accept any guise of solution, even a "far-right" movement, which serves as "antithesis." However, in order for that level of mass left-wing degeneracy to occur, the conservative movement must not be allowed to succeed, because then society is normal and healthy rather than polluted with the excesses of neo-Marxist cultural sewers. See how it's fitting together now? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:41, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
The Mutterkreuz may possibly be helpful in understanding the difference between law and grace. Wikipedia says this, "In the Federal Republic of Germany, the Mutterkreuz is one of the anti-constitutional means of propaganda." Oh, so under constitutional law of the Federal Republic of Germany, Nazi awards for service to the nation are banned or prohibit.
Note, it doesn't say "unconstitutional", it says "anti-constitutional", meaning the governing regime views it as a threat. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:22, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Page Move

Dear User:Aschlafly, I hope you are doing well! I would be grateful if you (or any talk page stalkers with administrative privileges) could kindly move Robbie Mannheim to Ronald Edwin Hunkeler. Thank you for your help! With regards, AnupamTalk 18:49, September 4, 2023 (EDT)

Moved as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:51, September 4, 2023 (EDT)
Thanks! I hope you enjoyed the holiday! Kind regards, AnupamTalk 19:30, September 4, 2023 (EDT)
You too, Anupam! Much appreciated. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:23, September 4, 2023 (EDT)

Recently created a New Forum

Hi Andy. Thanks for creating Conservapedia and letting me and others enjoy this site all these many years. Recently, I too started some online sites, first a main website, Reasons to be Christian, and then a Parallel Forum, Reasons to be Christian Forum (url below). I understand of course you may be busy, Andy, but please join if you can. Thanks for considering it. God Bless. It is meant to be a site for Apologetics, Evangelism, Online Fellowship, Prayer, furthering Christian Unity, mobilizing against Persecution of Christians and of course taking forward the Great Commission. I am just getting started, of course, but those are my long-term aims. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 16:46, September 5, 2023 (EDT)

Please delete this page

Andy, please delete this page: Essay: David vs. two atheist Goliaths temp. Conservative (talk) 13:14, September 6, 2023 (EDT)

Deleted as requested. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:48, September 6, 2023 (EDT)

Proposal: "Enemies of the United States" template

Jake Sullivan [1] to Hillary Clinton: Al Qaeda is on our side.

This template would be used to identify who our enemies are on the international stage. A subcategory would also identify notable former enemies such as the Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the USSR. Please let me know what you think.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:43, September 7, 2023 (EDT)

I'd oppose this. We're not a bunch of warmongers and there'd only be editing warring over inclusions. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:50, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
Identifying countries such as Saudi Arabia and Ukraine as enemies of the United States for their involvement in international terrorism that has affected Americans on their own soil is not warmongering. Although you do have a point regarding edit warring.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:56, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
You see my point right there, "pre-Maidan Ukraine" or "post-Maidan Ukraine"? and who's to say if the Biden or Obama regimes are the good guys or the bad guys? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:59, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
I can see potential valid objections to the creation of such a template, though it's nonetheless an interesting idea. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 16:39, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
We're just going to have endless silly conflicts of people wanting to add Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin to it. We should recognize that at this moment in history we are in the midst of a colossal transition. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 16:45, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
In 2001, al-Qaeda was an enemy; by 2012 Jake the Snake Sullivan made them an ally. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 16:46, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
Objectively speaking, Putin is an enemy of the United States. This of course doesn't automatically mean "United States good, Putin bad," and needs to be understood in proper context. Since the U.S. government is a a corrupt system that speaks like a dragon (Rev. 13:11), it likely will eventually transpire, in the near future, that opposing it is the morally right position to take. This, of course, veers into historicist eschatology which is a whole separate topic I won't elaborate into right here. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 16:53, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
Objectively speaking, Putin has never said any such thing. He has said Western global elites are attempting to destroy the Russian Federation. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:06, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
(ec) You can make a stronger case for Barack Obama attempting to destroy the United States of America, its society, culture and political system. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:08, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
My point, perhaps not articulated well above, is that Putin as an enemy of the U.S. simply means that he's a nemesis of the U.S. government's agenda. The fact that he ends up an opponent of the U.S., in of itself, doesn't determine whether his pursuits are justified. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 19:35, September 7, 2023 (EDT)
That's how the US propaganda apparatus sells it. It doesn't mean there is any factual basis to it. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 19:38, September 7, 2023 (EDT)

Thanks for your addition to the "Chess and increasing mental performance" article

Thanks for your interesting addition to the Chess and increasing mental performance article as far as playing chess reducing one's chances of getting dementia. I didn't read the full PubMed article I cited so I appreciate you bringing that out in the article. The USA has the 8th highest rate of Alzheimer's disease. I am taking active measures through diet, exercise, mental habits, etc. to avoid getting dementia. Some people I know recently developed dementia and so I want to dodge this bullet given the seriousness of this illness. I want to work as long as possible in intellectually demanding work so I want to stay on top of my game.

Sometime later this year I would like to play another game of chess with you. Conservative (talk) 10:18, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

In the end, people appreciate honest criticism far more than flattery.

—Proverbs 28:23 (NLT)

RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:29, September 16, 2023 (EDT)
RobS, you can stop your petty bitterness. Nobody is interested in it.
People like to do things with others because people are social beings. I am going to be doing some things with other Conservapedians too.
That is all I have to say. Feel free to engage in last wordism. Conservative (talk) 14:54, September 16, 2023 (EDT)
What am I bitter about? Do you think nobody can see your constant use of flattery to suck up? You obviously don't handle honest criticism well, and is why you keep your talk page locked and spam discussion pages. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 14:58, September 16, 2023 (EDT)
You are just angry that Andy pretty much completely ignores your reams of petty whining on his talk page. And when you see him reply to me, you go bezerk.
Four Conservapedians have advised me to totally ignore you. I am taking their advice. Conservative (talk) 15:03, September 16, 2023 (EDT)
So a guy adds 1 edit to an article and you take the opportunity to thank him on his user page and add some narcissistic stuff about your childhood or dietary habits, career ambitions etc. Did you know narcissistic personality disorder is a symptom of Dark Triad personality traits? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:38, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

Paxton impeachment

Congrats. You have a Win for Conservapedia proven right. Do you want to add it or should I? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 14:42, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

Yes, please do! Here is our entry proven right: Paxton Impeachment. I'll update our Main Page Right.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:04, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

I was looking for wording for Conservapedia proven right, and found this: "Conservapedia foresaw the Paxton impeachment show trial would degenerating into a sham", [6] but you probably remember better what you've posted. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:11, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

Got it started. [7] RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:34, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

Please delete these attack "articles"

Hi Andy, these following pages, among others, are unencyclopedic personal attacks on non-notable people.

The third Conservapedia commandment is the following: "Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language." (from Conservapedia:Commandments)

Those articles are in violation of the "clean, concise, and without gossip" part. They were created in a spree of an attack campaign to actively provoke random internet users personally. While in times past the context may have been slightly understandable, RationalWiki seldom attacks Conservapedia nowadays; to the same extent they have moved on from castigating and subverting us, it is only fair for us to remove the attack pages against them and bury the hatchet for good. —LT Rev. 22:13 Sunday, 21:54, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

Something needs to be done with those articles. We just seem to have a problem getting a discussion going about it. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 09:51, September 17, 2023 (EDT)
LT, Have hung the Deletion tag on the articles? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:55, September 23, 2023 (EDT)

New debate page!

Debate: Is the Mosaic law still binding Here, I use subtle parallelism between the Epistle to the Hebrews and Paul's main Epistles to explain why the moral element of the Mosaic law is binding on Christians. Perhaps you'd be interested in offering your own thoughts on the matter? —LT Rev. 22:13 Monday, 09:08, September 18, 2023 (EDT)

Request on behalf of another person. Update: Please ignore this request

Andy, I am canceling this request. The person does not want to read classic conservative books and articles.

Correct, my only main reading list is the Holy Scriptures.

Andy, could you please share with me a list of books that you would recommend for someone who wants to know more about conservativism.

Below is the reading list, I came up with so far.


1. Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

2. The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD, a historian (The article is on big government and how it is losing power and/or effectiveness).


1. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) by Edmund Burke, Complete text of the book online

2. Russell Kirk's book: The Conservative Mind from Burke to Santayana (1953), put Burke in the mainstream of American conservatism. Copy of book: online edition

3. Wealth, Poverty, and Politics by Thomas Sowell; Video: Wealth, Poverty, and Politics by Thomas Sowell

4. Equality: The Impossible Quest by the historian Martin van Creveld

5. A Choice Not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly

Thanks in advance.

By the way, if Conservapedians come up with a list of articles and books, a recommended reading page could be created called Classic conservative books and articles or Conservapedia: Recommended conservative books and articles reading list or some other name for the page. Conservative (talk) 09:03, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

I'd recommend the classic, Essay: 7 reasons the godless British have become the most pathetic sissies in the world for a survey of conservative values. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 09:37, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
Fantastic idea. I just restored the essay at: 7 reasons the godless British have become the most pathetic sissies in the world
I always thought the essay should not have been deleted, but I errantly chose not to stand my ground on principle. Conservative (talk) 10:19, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
"I errantly chose not to backdown". Keep going. I need more material for Essay: Does ignorance, stubbornness, and stupidity define conservativism?. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:29, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
I have learned that you should never back down to non-conservatives because they never can be placated. In other words, appeasement is not a valid strategy. So never back down.
And given how much Andy is against the homosexual agenda, I am sure that he will never allow the essay to be deleted in order to placate a non-conservative.
And the timing is perfect. Now only Andy can delete web pages with more than 25 edits. Conservative (talk) 10:40, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
Interestig theory; the problem is you need the powers of discernment to recognize who or what is conservative. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:45, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

After allowing the essay to be deleted, I subsequently read a classic best-selling book on assertiveness. It is a classic book on that topic. Never back down!

At the same time, wisely choosing your battles is wise too. "Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical." - Sun Tzu.

In retrospect, it was not a matter of appeasement. I just thought at the time that the battle was not worth it at the time. But now it is much harder to people to delete essays/articles. In addition, Andy has given a higher priority to conservatives fighting the homosexual agenda so I have an ally who places a higher priority on Conservapedia keeping such essays. Conservative (talk) 11:06, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

Oh, wait. The essay has been preserved. I merely retitled the essay. The essay is at: Essay: 7 reasons the godless British have become the most pathetic pantywaists in the world. So I will ask Andy to delete the essay because it is a duplicative essay. Conservative (talk) 11:11, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
See, I don't understand this. You spent hundreds of hours reporting on decrepit UK infrastructure and potholes. Now that we have two reports in the past few days,
about 1,000 British concrete school structures crumbling and being a life hazard to school children, you ignore the evidence.
You might actually have something to add to Conservapedia proven right. 17:43, September 18, 2023 (EDT)
In the current state of this world, no one truly needs all those books by Phyllis Schlafly, Russell Kirk, or whoever. All we need is the Bible to warn of what is to come so we are ready for the perilous times. What does it matter how "conservative" you are by pointless "right-wing populist" standards if you end up on the wrong side of Judgment?
By the way, Phyllis Schlafly supported Moderate Republican Nixon over right-wing populist Reagan in 1968. Also, her effort to tie the Goldwater wing of the GOP to the Taft wing is an ahistorical, hasty generalization—Taft led the isolationist Old Right, while Goldwater Republicanism was an outgrowth of the Eisenhower-affiliated New Right. Rothbard breaks it down perfectly.LT Rev. 22:13 Tuesday, 11:28, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
We do not have a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:31, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
"We go to Paradise, but they won't have time to repent."
RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:34, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

If Jesus wrote Hebrews, how would you explain this?

"Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you." (Hebrews 13:23) This doesn't sound like it would make sense under the theory that the Epistle to the Hebrews was Jesus's sermon on the road to Emmaus. Timothy is mentioned nowhere in the Gospels and his name only first shows up in Acts chapter 16.

Also, in the King James Bible, the last verse of Hebrews contains the additional: "(Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy.)" While I earlier believed your assertion that Jesus could've wrote Hebrews, I'm now mostly convinced of Pauline authorship. What are your thoughts on this, Andy? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 21:46, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

The original Epistle to the Hebrews ends with 13:21, where there is a final "Amen". The subsequent verses are later additions, perhaps to support the incorrect attribution to Paul. Linguistic analysis is very scientific today and almost no expert today clings to the view that Paul wrote this letter.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:34, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
Evidence? As far as I'm concerned with manuscripts, the Gnostic-corrupted Codex Vaticanus simply ends Hebrews after verse 9:13 (probably because the subsequent passages contradict pagan Roman and Alexandrian doctrines), and if other early manuscripts ended in verse 13:21, how come 13:22–25 are in modern translations, especially in comparison to the excluding of countless other "disputed verses"? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 23:33, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
Modern translations add notes about disputed verses when they are not in the oldest extant versions, but there are additional ways to identify disputed versions. This is a flaw in modern versions in not using all the logical means available today for spotting the vandalism to the Bible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:13, September 21, 2023 (EDT)
Hmm... interesting analysis. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 12:25, September 21, 2023 (EDT)
Also, on a side note, did you notice my post slightly above about the Mosaic law? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 23:34, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
I'll take a look!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:13, September 21, 2023 (EDT)
Awesome; after a long time of me not fully understanding the New Covenant and "the law," more recently I came to these new conclusions while prayerfully reading Hebrews one morning. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 12:25, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Mission accomplished!

Take a look at THIS and THIS and THIS.

I became an editor of Conservapedia with the goal of assisting Christendom to help cause the atheist movement to die (See: Decline of the atheist movement).

Mission accomplished!

On behalf of all Christians on the internet, I hereby declare victory! Olé! Olé! Olé!

Have you read Conservapedia's Future of Christianity article?

And take a look at these articles: Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists and Internet outreach and the Matthew effect: Atheist websites vs. religious websites and Large list of atheist websites that have lost web traffic - with supporting data and Internet atheism has a small audience and an insignificant influence on the world

Christendom will be going from one glorious victory to another glorious victory on the information superhighway! Deus vult! Conservative (talk) 10:13, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Make up your mind, Christendom or demonology. Seems to me you're more an expert on the later. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:38, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Only now you're looking into faith /works?
"I think I may have to understand the Greek better, do more Bible exegesis, etc." bla bla bla.
if you read James, you would have read, If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him, but maybe you don't believe what God says, and would rather keep trolling us with this incessant nonsense. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:46, September 20, 2023 (EDT).
[EC] One think that irked me is that Conservative has more than once told me I need to study according to man-made "Bible exegesis" in order to understand the word better. Wow, because the Holy Spirit is just too incompetent, eh? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:49, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Oh c'mon, I told you repeatedly: the "atheist movement" at this point means nothing because it only represents a tiny fraction of atheists, many of whom fell away from Christianity because of insufficiently faithful parents. If you're trying to smash atheism, it hasn't worked in terms of influencing the younger generations. Women in the past were more devoutly Christian than men were (I think Phyllis Schlafly wrote about this on Eagle Forum I read years ago about how older generations of women were more socially conservative? Hopefully my memory isn't failing me.); women nowadays are more inclined towards neo-Marxist cultural insanity like the notion that they have the right to sacrifice their unborn children to Moloch. Hardly among my peers in my teenage years have I ever found girls who are pro-life, a position more often men take because they have better capability to grasp basic logic and not let third-rate, emotionally driven propaganda get in the way of.
If atheism was defeated, its fruits would likewise diminish. Since, you know, atheism is clearly linked to things like homosexuality (see: Atheism and homosexuality), violence (see: Atheism and violence), and mass murder (see: Atheism and Mass Murder), the fact that homosexuality, general violence/crime, and mass murder rapidly increase in society nowadays probably is a sign that your declared "victory" is bogus. I'm really sorry to say all this, Conservative, and please don't take this personally; it's the plain simple truth you need to face sooner than later. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:12, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
According to Google trends, there has been a large decrease in Google searches in the world for the following terms: atheist, atheism, agnostic and agnosticism.

Atheist defeat after atheist defeat after atheist defeat! That's ok. Atheists are used to losing! Conservative (talk) 10:32, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Did you read anything I said? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:34, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
My graph was a Google Trends graph for the world. The United States population is equivalent to 4.23% of the total world population. Furthermore, post 2050 or sooner, a trend of desecularization is expected to occur in the United States (See: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics). Conservative (talk) 10:42, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
In the name of Richard Dawkins's long-lost machismo, will you please pay attention to my larger emphasis? —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:44, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

One more time (as I told User:Conservative on the phone in 2007):

Preaching anti-atheism is not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It does nothing to bring souls to salvation. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:52, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

There is no connection, whatsoever, between defeating atheism or internet atheism and furthering Christianity or the Gospel of Jesus Christ. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:56, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Exactly. At the end of the day, the Antichrist will be anti-atheism as well because atheism also denies Lucifer/Satan as "supreme lightbearing god of the universe" or whatever. "Anti-atheist" does not automatically equal pro-God. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 10:58, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Of course. Satanists are theists who believe in a supreme divine spiritual being. They're just confused who that being is. User:Conservative never makes that distinction. He preaches believing in a divine spiritual being is the end of all your problems. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:10, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Exactly. Anti-atheism is like "anti-Communism"; just because you oppose one form of what's bad does not automatically make you good. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 11:12, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

LT, I addressed your arguments concerning anti-atheism content at: Talk:Internet atheism. Conservative (talk) 11:36, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Alright, I responded. Hopefully my reply will clarify matters. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 11:40, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
For the benefit of others (Not the person who is fond of using huge print instead of cogent arguments).
Atheism and its retention rate in individuals
Next, internet evangelism works. Study Reveals Internet Evangelism Is Effective, Christian Post
Given the low retention rate of atheists historically, anti-atheism content and internet evangelism is likely going to have an effect. Irenaeus spent time arguing against Gnosticism. So Christians engaging in Christian apologetics relative to criticizing another worldview is nothing new. Conservative (talk) 12:06, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Good answer. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:13, September 20, 2023 (EDT)
Then why don't you focus on fighting neo-Gnosticism in modern society? It's all around us; you just need to realize it. —LT Rev. 22:13 Wednesday, 16:51, September 20, 2023 (EDT)

Denial of Pauline authorship of Hebrews is linked to modern translations, it appears

In the KJV, the term "Christ Jesus," almost entirely Pauline-associated, is used once in Hebrews. However, modern translations in verse 3:1 omit the "Christ" part. Coincidence? —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 01:33, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Fascinating! The KJV translation did not have access to the oldest texts, which had not yet been discovered. I wonder if the Christ in "Christ Jesus" was, like the ending added later after "Amen", a subsequent addition to Hebrews 3:1.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:10, September 21, 2023 (EDT)
Andy, the supposed "oldest texts," codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are merely the oldest manuscripts out of what remains today. The actual oldest manuscripts are long gone, and the real question is whether codices B and ℵ derive, to its core, from the oldest documents or not. Although copies of manuscripts compiled after the 4th century are indeed "younger" than those two in a literal sense, they are copied from manuscripts that trace to apostolic times long predating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
For example, the Johannine Comma, excluded in most manuscripts and especially Vaticanus, was in the Vaudois (early Waldensian) Bible in 157 A.D., and that was translated from manuscripts given by Antiochian missionaries in the 120s A.D.—Antioch was the hometown of one of John the Apostle's disciples, Ignatius. In addition, as I've mentioned before, Mark 16:19, while gone from Vaticanus, was plainly quoted by Irenaeus in Against Heresies.
Vaticanus omits the entirety of the Pastoral Epistles. Why? Because in the early church era, the Pastorals posed a problem to occultist infiltration of the church, evident in the subversive Gnostic influencer Marcion also omitting them from his own compilation of "canon." Do you think it's a coincidence that the same modern-day liberal deniers who claim the Pastorals were forgeries gloat upon its absence from Codex Vaticanus and Marcion's compilation? I hope you'll see the larger picture here. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 12:21, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Another argument against Jesus writing the Book of Hebrews

Conservapedia does have a page titled Conservapedia:Principles of evaluating historical claims and evidence.

It does quote the historian David Hackett Fischer who wrote: "Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." But even so, if God Himself wrote Hebrews through Jesus, one would expect the book to have much excitement and fanfare surrounding it.

But here is a stronger principle. There is the principle of letting others sing your praises. I just don't see God personally writing a book where He praises Himself. For example, the book of Hebrews starts out: "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs." Conservative (talk) 12:27, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Waaa! Boo Hoo!

Moved to : Conservapedia:User_complaints#User:Conservative redux

Reminder: Conservapedia Guidelines say Doxing is Inappropriate Behavior

"Engaging in doxxing. Doxxing is the criminal practice of releasing private or sensitive information about someone online for the purposes of harassment, intimidation and/or malicious intent."

Lets make sure we never release personal or private information about others online. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:20, September 22, 2023 (EDT)

"for the purposes of harassment, intimidation and/or malicious intent", where did that occur? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 19:24, September 22, 2023 (EDT)
Absolutely agreed, NishantXavier. Leaking emails is a ☭liberal☭ trait. —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 19:33, September 22, 2023 (EDT)

Agreed, LT. I got doxed too on an Atheist forum: Nothing major, I preached the Gospel to the 1000s there (, gave various Apologetic Evidences for God and Christianity, then got doxed about my One Peter Five and other stuff, with malicious intent, then got banned from that Atheist Forum for complaining. Lol, but anyway, I did my duty to the Lord there, so I'm happy. But yeah, I would just say in general, we should never mention personal or private information about others here. Still at work, and will sign off shortly, haven't read all the details here yet. I signed the CP pledge recently and intend to abide by it. I hope we all do. Whatever the past, let's make sure, in future, we never share anything personal or private about others. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:41, September 22, 2023 (EDT)

"let's make sure, in future, we never share anything personal or private about others" ... just like we would not want others to do to us.

Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Mat 7:12). God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 19:44, September 22, 2023 (EDT)

ok. Nobody wants to answer my question. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 19:50, September 22, 2023 (EDT)
The internal squabbling needs to end. It would be very easy for a more peaceful and courteous atmosphere to begin. I will do my part in this.
As far as Team CP, it is a good concept. Hopefully, we will start fully implementing it as quickly as possible and we won't move backwards. Conservative (talk) 05:41, September 23, 2023 (EDT)
I know it's a good concept. You are the one who refuses to take the pledge to abide by CP Guidelines and treat you fellow editors with deference and respect.
And don't think by adding your name now will change things. It will be a mockery of the whole concept. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 21:11, September 23, 2023 (EDT)

Waaa! Boo Hoo! Part 2

Andy, User:Conservative is invading my User space and violating the Castle Rule. You have previously ruled several times this a taboo. Please tell him to cease and desist. Thank you. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:46, September 23, 2023 (EDT)

Please delete this

Please delete this page: LGM.

Thanks. Conservative (talk) 17:27, September 23, 2023 (EDT)

Let's work together and help ensure Conservapedia cross 1 Billion Page Views - perhaps by Christmas/December 2024

Let's work together as CP editors to the Common Cause of boosting Conservapedia's page views to a Billion if possible by end of next year. Keeping personal/private non-Conservapedia stuff of the Wiki and focusing on contributing articles on our areas of interest/strength would be the best way to do this imo. If another user told you something private in an email, it really doesn't belong on Conservapedia. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 17:47, September 23, 2023 (EDT)

I've lost three whole days of work this week because of trolling; I was trying to use the lull in the Ukraine war to begin the Niger & Armenia fronts, and cover the India-Canada dispute. Readers need background information in articles as these stories gain prominence and get distorted in MSM. But an editor who refuses to take the Cooperative Editing pledge won't let me get anything done. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:51, September 23, 2023 (EDT)

The attacks by a Conservapedia Admin on a current Admin needs to stop completely and if he persists there need to be consequences

Moved to: Conservapedia:User complaints

Delete request

Can you please delete this file: User:Conservative/XYZ. Thank you. Conservative (talk) 19:36, September 24, 2023 (EDT)

By the way, the Apostle Paul taught: "Do not be deceived:‘Bad company ruins good morals.’" (1 Corinthians 15:33). Sometimes it is good to "excommunicate" someone out of your life. Conservative (talk) 19:56, September 24, 2023 (EDT)
Take a look at it first. It's his brilliant magnum opus Essay:Cutting off a gangrenous limb in your life can be quite freeing and enable you to do much more.
He's been out trolling other editors to help cut off a gangrenous limb in his life. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 19:43, September 24, 2023 (EDT)

Why modern Bible translations, and almost certainly codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, cannot be trusted

Some time ago, I figured out the puzzle to Revelation 19:20, which states, "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." (KJV)

Note that the King James Bible says "a lake of fire" and not "the lake of fire" as modern translations use. (see comparison here) Since Revelation 20:10, talking of Satan's final demise and punishment, uses the term "the lake of fire," modern translations essentially are saying that the same lake of fire that the beast and false prophet are thrown into before the Millennium in Rev. 19:20 is the same lake of fire in verse 20:10.

Contrary to popular belief, the final lake of fire for the wicked will not be in another separate realm. The wicked are resurrected on the Earth, and fire rains down out of Heaven and devours them (Rev. 20:9), which means the final lake of fire at the end of time forms on the surface of the Earth. However, consider the problem with modern translations rendering verse 19:20 as "the lake of fire": by using the word "the" for lake of fire in both verses, this implies that the same lake of fire at Jesus's second return stays around for a thousand years, and Satan, along the wicked, get thrown there afterwards following Final Judgment. But if this is the case, then how can the lake of fire be on the Earth? Whether you believe that the Millennium is in Heaven under historicism (which holds that the Earth is desolate during the Millennium, not perpetually burning; I hold to this school of eschatological thought, just so you know) or that the Millennium is on Earth under standard theology, it makes no sense either way and results in a contradiction.

This is why the King James Bible is the only reliable version between Revelation verses 19:20 and 20:10: it distinguishes between two different lakes of fire, one that's generically referred to as "a lake of fire" which the beast and false prophet get thrown into before the Millennium, and a final lake of fire ("the lake of fire") that forms after the Millennium, following Final Judgment, when Satan and the wicked are destroyed once and for all.

Also, in the King James Bible for verse 20:10, there is no "they" added. It simply says, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The insertion of the word "they" in there, added by modern translations (even the NKJV, which distorts both verses and is not consistently faithful to the KJV), implies that the beast and false prophet have been burning for a thousand years during the Millennium and are still burning. On a side note, the KJV puts "are" in italics, indicating it's not in the original manuscripts. The Tyndale Bible, which almost completely concurs the KJV with most of what I emphasized on those two verses, accurately renders "were" instead of "are in 20:10.

Hopefully you find this information interesting, Andy. —LT Rev. 22:13 Monday, 21:08, September 24, 2023 (EDT)

Request for unprotection of Stephen

Would you please be able to unprotect Stephen? It seems to have been protected back in 2010 for no apparent reason. There are a few edits I would like to make to that page (for instance, saying he was the second Christian martyr, because the article rightly points out that the first was Our Lord Jesus). MayGodBless (talk) 20:37, September 25, 2023 (EDT)

Done. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 20:39, September 25, 2023 (EDT)

An indication that Evangelist Mark was Jewish

Hi Andy, upon extra reconsideration and analysis, I think the usage of the term "Herodians" in the Gospel of Mark actually proves that its author was a Jew. Simply put, using Occam's razor, it makes sense that the derogatory reference towards one specific sect of Judaism that plunged into apostasy (since "the Herodians" were Hellenistic Jews) exemplifies a manifestation of intra-Jewish tension where Mark indirectly asserts his own Jewish background and personal adherence to Jewry by excoriating the "traitor" faction(s), IOWs establishing Christianity as the true sect of Judaism and not the other factions (Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, etc.). Any cultural renegade within just about any ethnic background can affirm this inherent sentiment, me included.

If Mark was a Roman Gentile, why would he go to lengths to single out one particular Jewish sect to castigate, if he supposedly, based off your hypothesis, didn't care as much about Jewish culture compared to, say, Matthew? If Mark was a Gentile and cared about Judaism and Jewry less than other New Testament authors did, this occurrence would be harder to explain. —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 21:04, September 28, 2023 (EDT)

I don't see anything religious about the term "Herodians", which plainly appears to be a blunt, pejorative reference to those who followed or even respected Herod. The term seems comparable to the "Clintonista", which is explained here.
But thanks for your interesting point about Herodians!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:03, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, no problem; while it's possible that the thought process of an early gentile Roman Christian could likewise creatively conjure up such a clever pejorative, my argument more or less rests on an implied premise that the circumstantial application is better explained as the outgrowth of a devout Jewish-Christian perspective. This is my general impression on the expressed "Jewishness" of the New Testament authors:
  • Matthew places a strong emphasis on the Jewish origins of Jesus and His teachings from the very first verse; while verse 27:25 serves as a harsh rebuke of the Judean crowd roused up into inciting the crucifixion, his Gospel account broadly encapsulates the Jewish foundation of the Christian faith
  • Mark's Jewishness (which, of course, assumes that he was a Jew after all, which I'm about 90% certain though not absolutely sure, seeing your arguments to the contrary) is exemplified differently, more bluntly "reclaiming Judaism from the Judeans" by denouncing the ultra-Hellenized "Herodians"; if one trusts the KJV as reliable and believes that verse 15:28 belongs, then a case for him being a Jew is much easier to substantiate
  • Luke, while likely not a Jew, notably emphasizes the disciples' adherence to keeping the Sabbath (Luke 23:56)
  • John likewise establishes that Christianity is the true outgrowth of Judaism and not the other Judean sects; what is commonly translated as "the Jews" almost certainly means "the Judeans" in his Gospel account, which is filled with mentions of Jewish feasts and described by some Jews as "the most Jewish out of the four"; and since the early church tradition that the same Apostle John wrote the Johannine Gospel and the Book of Revelation, that indicates that he was indeed a devout Jew
  • Paul almost certainly understood Judaism better than any of his contemporaries, and his Epistles are written with clear indications that he considers himself a devout Jew (2 Corinthians 11:22, Philippians 3:4–5) when addressing to gentile audiences, emphasizing faith in Christ Jesus as the true completion of "Jewishness" (Romans 2:28–29)
  • both Peter and Jude in their Epistles echo the essence of traditional Jewish apocalyptic literature
  • James in his Epistle describes the church as the "twelve tribes of Israel" (James 1:1)
LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 13:42, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
Personally, I think this encapsulates my emphasis well:
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

—Mark 10:29–30

Converts to Christianity, who, say, grew up in Eastern cultures (myself, for example), often end up differing in outlook on life and moral values greatly because they see biblical principles as morally superior to the backwards dogmas they grew up instilled upon by their parents. In essence, those who understand "both worlds" have a complex perspective that presumably most out there who've held the same cultural mindset throughout their life would find difficult to grasp. And in those Eastern cultures, similar to Judaism 2,000 years ago, there are caste-like hierarchical norms set in place which discriminate in some way, for example in East Asian culture often on the basis of age. And I suppose it would be fair to say that some converts from those ethnocultural backgrounds to Christianity, from a new standpoint of biblical values, see (and validly so) their newly shaped mindset as much more compassionate towards the "lower" grades of their ethnocultural group than their older generational counterparts of "tradition adherents" to be. Especially when it comes to women's rights, notably, it is Christianity that liberates women from the condescending attitudes present in the most backwards elements of atheistic, godless East Asian cultures I for one, have grown up experiencing and can largely attest to. —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 13:59, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
The names Mark, Luke, and John are not Jewish names, and they appear nowhere in the Old Testament. Their writings in the New Testament are not Jewish as Matthew's is.
Christianity is good for women but so are some other religions in their own ways. Atheism is terrible towards women, in contrast. Christianity is particularly good in rejecting mistreatment of the less fortunate in society.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:02, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, biblical Jewish-Christian values emphasize uplifting women in a way that respects traditional femininity which is under attack by modern-day "feminism." Women who are virtuous and refrain from the vulgarity of degenerate neo-Marxist culture seem to be unfortunately in decline nowadays.
"Mark" is not a Semitic name, though "John" is, however. The other "John" in the New Testament, John the Baptist, was a Jew born to devout Jews. Likewise, John the Apostle clearly was a Galilean Jew like Peter, since the sons of Zebedee were fishing partners of Simon and Andrew. (Luke 5:10) (and while "John" may not be entirely rooted in Jewish linguistics, the name is known in their dialect as "Yochanan"; Messianic Jewish Bibles, for example, use the deanglicized, Hebrew-transliterated "Yochanan" instead of "John") And the only speculation of Luke possibly being Jewish comes from the preface to a book suggesting Lukan authorship of Hebrews; I'm skeptical of either points concerning Luke, who most likely was a Gentile.
And I suppose the question of whether Mark was Jewish boils down to whether Evangelist Mark was the same individual as John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles. I believe the early church record solidly states that they were the same person; if you disagree, Andy, what evidence can you point to that disproves an authorship assertion concurred by the majority of the ECFs? —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 15:14, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
John's Gospel account is "not Jewish as Matthew's is"? I strongly differ on this. If you take into consideration all the Jewish feasts John records, his Gospel can be designated more Jewish than Matthew's, and his emphasis on personal connections within the early Jewish sect which Christianity sprang from is noteworthy. (John 4:45) And to add on to the fact that John was a fishing partner of Peter and Andrew—remember that Peter had to receive a vision (Acts 10:9–16) to understand that Jews should not discriminate against gentiles, and even then was stuck in his old ways until Paul's rebuke. (Galatians 2:11–14) With this in mind, it would be illogical to assume that the sons of Zebedee were gentiles, as then Peter would've considered them "unclean" and highly unlikely to fish alongside them in their youthful years. —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 15:28, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
Also, if I'm correct in my speculation here, I presume one major reason you personally refuse to accept Johannine authorship of Revelation is because the book belongs to the category of Jewish apocalyptic literature, while you consider the Apostle John to have been a gentile and thus couldn't have understood such nuanced depths of Old Testament Scripture? —LT Rev. 22:13 Saturday, 22:03, September 29, 2023 (EDT)
I respectfully disagree. "John" is not a Jewish name, and is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament. The Book of Revelation may not have been written by John the Apostle, and rarely quotes the Old Testament anyway. Some find similarities between the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, but those are debatable. I think the Gospel of John has almost no quotations of the Old Testament.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:50, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
Okay, I see where you're coming from. However, I'd strongly contend that there are countless allusions in Revelation to bits and pieces of the Old Testament, even if not whole verses; the underlying importance is thematic connections. For example:
  • the seven trumpets of Joshua 6 appear to be a typology for the seven trumpets of Revelation: the blowing of all seven trumpets is a declaration of impending executive judgment upon the wicked; in Joshua, it was pronounced against one particular group of unrepentant gentiles, where Rahab the harlot and her family were brought out into safety when everyone else was slain; at Christ's Second Return, the redeemed will be raptured into safety as the remaining wicked are slain with the sword proceeding out of the Lamb's mouth (Rev. 19:21)
  • the description of "eagles' wings" in Exodus 19:4 serves as a typology for Revelation 12:14: the same "eagles' wings" that saved literal Israel in Old Testament times later saves spiritual Israel in the New Testament era
LT Rev. 22:13 Saturday, 01:12, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
And to sort of reemphasize and expand upon an earlier point, the fact alone that Mark and John quotes the Old Testament less doesn't automatically indicate they were non-Jews, because the "Jewishness" of their Gospels is simply expressed in a different, how should I put it, format. The complexities of early Jewish-Christian outlooks clearly transcended beyond the depths of just about any modern-day thought, and the outgrowth of those ancient intra-Jewish disputes shouldn't be interpreted in a one-dimensional fashion as standard modern dogmas go. —LT Rev. 22:13 Saturday, 12:25, September 30, 2023 (EDT)

Sun Tzu and Douglas Mac Arthur

I have a history of contributing to the Sun Tzu related articles and I have made them better and they have about 20,000 and 6,000 page views respectively. Also, I am a fan of Douglas MacArthur.

I am going to contribute to those articles.

And I never said I would not contribute to history articles for a period of time. I like history. And so do many of our readers.

For example, here are the page view counts of a few of my history articles:

So I don't see why I shouldn't create or update my history articles. It makes no sense because one of the big things people go to encyclopedias for is history articles. Conservative (talk) 23:58, September 29, 2023 (EDT)

History, yes. Fake history, no. For example, that George Soros did not fund many of his sources in his Geopolitical Essays, or that Vladimir Putin was spewing Russian propaganda when Putin said the SMO was to denazify Ukraine.
Look at our Geopolitics article: it has not been edited since 2013 and I have never edited it; it reads:
Geopolitics is an noun meaning:[1]
  1. the study or the application of the influence of political and economic geography on the politics, national power, foreign policy, etc., of a state.
  2. the combination of geographic and political factors influencing or delineating a country or region.
  3. a national policy based on the interrelation of politics and geography.
  4. a Nazi doctrine that a combination of political, geographic, historical, racial, and economic factors substantiated Germany's right to expand its borders and control various strategic land masses and natural resources."
Recently I was accused of personal attacks for merely citing the flaws in User:Conservative's_essays#Geopolitics series which draw heavily on inferences from #4 in the above list. He has been warned dozens of times over the past year and a half about that specific problem, and has either reverted or deleted the warnings, complained to Andy, and gone on whispering/gossip campaigns against me. His research on those subjects is sloppy and faulty, and in my opinion, is not motivated by a desire to educate conservative students. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 02:29, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
NATO & EU expansion into Ukraine is the same program of Lebensraum and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. He has demonstrated no qualification to write on this subject. Rather, he has used Conservapedia Essay space to attack his own personal "enemies", as he puts it. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 02:44, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
There is nothing I put in the Sun Tzu articles or Douglas MacArthur article that is not historical. I have nothing further to say about this matter. Conservative (talk) 07:18, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
It is your Geopolitical Essays. They are nothing but neo-Nazi crap. I have nothing further to say about this matter. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 10:43, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
Add this to your Geopolitical series: Exporting Hate - American White Supremacists and Far Right Militants Fighting For the Kiev Regime in Ukraine. 11:46, September 30, 2023 (EDT)


Andy, he's trolling again on subjects he knows nothing about. [10][11]

RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:12, September 30, 2023 (EDT)

Yep, he's trolling again. He's using deletion to hide his glaring errors rather than engaging in discussion. I've wasted one full hour this morning already with this nonsense. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:32, September 30, 2023 (EDT)

The Military history article was bland with no pictures in it. I put some pictures in the article.
I tried to create a few navy articles, but cooperative editing with RobSmith appeared to be impossible so I moved on. Conservative (talk) 11:35, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
Why did you delete the talk page here: Talk:World naval powers? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:37, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
Because there is no point in having a talk page with no World naval powers article. I tried to do cooperative editing with you, but it didn't work out. So I moved on. But feel free to create your own World naval powers article without me. Conservative (talk) 11:43, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
Now you're being redundant, which is trolling. Deleting the talk page without answering good faith questions was incivil conduct. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 11:48, September 30, 2023 (EDT)

Question about the founders of the modern conservative movement

I saw you contributing to the Phyllis Schlafly article. It says she was one of the founders of the modern conservative movement.

Who were the other key founders of the modern conservative movement in your estimation? Conservative (talk) 00:13, September 30, 2023 (EDT)

I'd refer to the movement conservative entry for a list of others. The first, Edmund Burke, is not quite modern.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:43, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
I loved the CNN show Crossfire which was a debate show that Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak were on. Buchanan was especially good on the show. Conservative (talk) 00:55, September 30, 2023 (EDT)
I would like to see you or someone else create a Modern conservative movement article. I would suggest that the article not be an orphan article by having the article be linked to from our conservative article, some of the founders of the modern conservative movement and our New Deal article (In part, the modern conservative movement was a reaction to the New Deal). Conservative (talk) 07:06, September 30, 2023 (EDT)

The Evangelist Mark and the Sabbath

Hi again, Andy, and happy Sabbath. Speaking of the topic, I of course remember that you've stated, at least twice, that Mark was more or less "bluntly critical" of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27. So, if he was a non-Jew and critic of Sabbath observance, that more or less would imply he promulgated Sunday observance in the Christian church.

However, the testimonial evidence of the early church indicates otherwise. The Coptic Orthodox Church venerates him (identified as John Mark) as their founder; rejection of the seventh-day Sabbath in the Coptic Church was reportedly at a "late date." Of course, if they had to reject the Sabbath much later, that means they kept it until then. The two earliest centers of Christianity to plunge into first-day worship were Rome and Alexandria; a 5th-century historian put it this way:

For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.

—Socrates Scholasticus

Just as an FYI, all the "earliest and most reliable manuscripts" are linked to those same cities: Rome and Alexandria... anyways: regarding St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church, let's connect the dots: since we know that they trace apostolic lineage to St. John Mark the Evangelist and kept the seventh-day Bible Sabbath faithfully for several centuries until eventual pagan, Constantine-influenced subversion into first-day observance at a relative "late date," that means they were taught by none other than the Evangelist Mark to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. I know you may disagree with this analysis, but hopefully it's interesting to you nonetheless. —LT Rev. 22:13 Saturday, 12:09, September 30, 2023 (EDT)