User talk:Ambassador

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Conservapedia's Original Source Project
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

Welcome!

Hello, Ambassador, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Ambassador!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Thanks. and re: David Wood article and other articles

Thanks for creating the David Wood article and other content.

Second, please remember to put a category tag(s) at the bottom of new pages that you create. Also, endeavor to link to the new article via other articles. If you don't do these two things, very few people will read your new article.

You can read about how to create category tags at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Categories and http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Videos_on_how_to_edit_a_wiki

Since you know more about the David Wood topic, I will let you put the appropriate category tag(s) at the bottom of the article. You might wish to look up other Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and see what category tags have been created for that article.

Again, thanks for creating your new material. Conservative (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Thank you for your constructive edits. I noticed that in this edit you cited CreationWiki. I like CreationWiki (I even edit it) and it's a great wiki to use, but because it is wiki and content can change, please cite either a permanent link to a particular revision or cite a different source. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Hey, 1990'sguy. Thanks for helping me along, since I'm new to Conservapedia. You're right about citing a wiki. Sorry. I'll change that. I find it kind of ironic, too, that the Creation wiki article I cited has a Wikipedia article as a reference. Thanks! Ambassador (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2016 (EST)

No problem. Thanks for you edits! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Thanks again for you edits. I recommend that you add sources when creating articles or writing other content, as people can easily see where you got the info and thus increases our reputation for reliability. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Categories

Picking categories for some articles can be a little tricky, but I'm sure you'll get better at it. If it helps, there is a searchable category list which can help you find some good ones. Keep up the great work! --David B ^(TALK) 22:30, 15 December 2016 (EST)

Merry Christmas

Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Essay:Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical - simply repositioned chronologically

Thank you for the link to your reasoned essay against the Catholic Church. I simply moved the link within the "See also section" down from the top of the list and positioned it according to the chronological, historical sequence corresponding to the Reformation. I was raised a Fundamentalist (Conservative Baptist). You have done an outstanding job articulating the arguments of the Reformation in a perfect example of the Evangelical charge of apostasy against the Roman Catholic Church. It is also backed up by several of the listed External links. Thank you for the illustrative contribution. Semper Fi! --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2017 (EST)

By the way: Vatican Hill was never one of the Seven hills of Rome. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (EST)

I just found online the following:
Christian Research Institute. The Two Babylons, by Ralph Woodrow (equip.org) a critique and rebuttal of anti-Catholic arguments used by Alexander Hislop, the 19th century author of "The Two Babylons"
I will also put this info on the talk page of your essay.

Again, thank you for the contribution to Great Apostasy#External links --Dataclarifier (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your comments. Interesting article on the refutation of Two Babylons. I will make edits to my essay in order to ensure it is factually correct. --Ambassador (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Your evident integrity does you credit as an ambassador for Christ. Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Addendum: An excellent method of online research is to ask a general question, first pro, and then con. Then read each of the linked articles (takes time but is well worth the trouble). This will usually reveal which sources are reliable and which ones are not. Often there will be unexpected surprises.
As an example of asking the right general question online about any controverted subject look at the following linked searches for "why is Catholicism a false religion?" and "why is Catholicism a true religion":

• Why is Catholicism a false religion
• Why is Catholicism a true religion

God bless you, Ambassador. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (EST)

See my additional comments on your Talk page for the article/essay Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical
--Dataclarifier (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Eleven Million Killed

Hi! I just looked up the following link that I thought you could use in your article revision. I got it by simply asking the question:

"were 11 million people killed by the Inquisition?"

Wishing you well in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. May God richly bless you.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Research help suggestions for "Unbiblical elements"

I would encourage you to develop again your "Unbiblical Catholicism" article in the form of a new article, in a way that is not an essay but a more general presentation of accurate information historically and statistically based.

Encyclopedic article contributions (Britannica, etc.) always adopt a neutral presentation of information about a topic, and in this case it would (again) be about objections raised against Catholicism.

For example: revise the title of your original idea for an article as "Objections to Catholicism", or "Common arguments against Catholic doctrines" and then present the arguments that "non-Catholics" and "Protestants" and "Fundamentalists" use, with their interpretations of the Bible, especially their arguments using logic, and the biblical interpretations of the original Protestant Reformers, from their own writings. For balance include brief summary statements of the counter-arguments (protests) used by Catholic apologists, together with non-Catholic critiques of the Catholic apologists' arguments which evaluate if their arguments make any sense in light of the Bible. However, the counter-arguments need not be detailed. These could be simply factual observations, stating that Catholic apologists use various counter responses, and providing external links to articles voicing their points of view also based on logic and their own particular denominational interpretation of the Bible according to the traditional interpretation of the Catholic Magisterium. This approach avoids the fallacy of Confirmation bias. You are giving the reader, as to a jury, all information necessary to form an accurate and truthful opinion of the matter—arguments that are commonly used against Catholicism.

As a useful shortcut to obtaining information for your new article, to help save time, I would strongly recommend doing online searches with the following simply worded queries:

• logical fallacies of Protestantism
• logical fallacies of Catholicism
• logical fallacies of religion
• logical fallacies of heresy
• logical fallacies of magisterial authority
• logical fallacies of sola scriptura

This is about the best positive support I can offer together with a sincere assurance of my genuine interest in the possibility of your development of a new article based on your original premise: that Catholicism is Unbiblical (according to all Protestant Christian Bible scholars and theologians).

So, with that in mind, I don't expect that I can do more, and you won't need to hear from me again.

I wish you well. God Bless you. Jesus is Lord.

--Dataclarifier (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you very much, Dataclarifier, for all your aid! Your suggestion is certainly an interesting and worthy project, however, I will not undertake it right now. I am, at the present time, rather busy, and besides that, I haven't quite finished the revision of my existing essay. This article you are proposing would require a good deal of time and research, which, in short, I don't have right now. If nobody else does, I will undertake the project once I do have the time. I'm grateful for your suggestion, as well as all the advice before it.

May the Lord bless thee and keep thee,

--Ambassador (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (EST)