User talk:JoyousOne

Scientology

Jouyous, You're going to have to cool off, buddy. Please read the editing commandments as I've indicated on Scientology's talk page. Follow them and we can all edit on a level playing field, okay? Terryeo 00:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Hello Jouyous One. I have changed or deleted a number of your edits on the Scientology article because they violate Conservapedia guidelines. Why don't we use the discussion page to go over the edits you want to make. The point on Conservapedia is to have truthful articles that are not full of oddball citations and personal pages, and that don't resort to opinion. I'm sure we can come to some agreements on what goes on this article and what does not, based on the guidelines.Grrrilla

I am having a good deal of trouble responding to your questions on the Scientology talk page because you rapidly make many postings. So, in order to respond, I'll respond here once in a while. You stated there:

I believe in redemption through Jesus Christ. If I were to tell my children, "thats what I believe, but you decide" and then they decide NOT to believe that, are they still Christians?

Rather than judge yes, no, or otherwise, I'll again quote what you quoted, that is, I will quote what the Scientology website presents, what Scientology says:

In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.

Your children have made a decision, they have decided what is true for themselves. What is not answered? You ask me if they are Christian but I can not answer that because I do not know what they have decided, exactly. It is up to the individual to decide whether they are Christian or not, not up to me to judge whether their statements add together and make them a Christian or not. Terryeo 17:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

...though it remains to be seen whether my changes to Scientology will stick. Dpbsmith 19:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

regarding your request

Please place the cited material you want put in the Scientology article here: User:conservative/scientology Conservative 20:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Americans have a extremely low opinion of Scientology. I suspect you are writing about this topic in order to dissuade people from joining Scientology. I think my external links will do this if people notice them. Want to contribute to Christian apologetics? Conservative 02:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

My edits are not toward convincing you of what is valid, true, or untrue. Your editing tells me that you have done some reading about Scientology, you have met the subject, somehow, somewhere. I don't intend that you should modify what you think, what you believe, what you would like others to think, follow, or believe. None of that is why I edit here. I edit here to put known information onto the page, in a way that can be understood. There is information. Lord knows, there is lots of information. It can be presented so it makes sense. That is what I am attempting to do. Certain vested interests stand strongly against Scientology. Drug companies are an example, and this is because Scientology has several programs that impinge on various sorts of drug company products. Scientology is not against drugs nor against medical treatment where appropriate, but has programs against the misuse of drugs. It was Scientology's CCHR that called attention certain drugs and resulted in "black box" warnings on them. There are other examples of vested interests, too, such as psychiatry. One of the results is there is quite a lot of critical information about scientology on the internet. Also, it is a new religious movement, and, not being widely understood, prompts critical responses. I hope to work with you and create good, useable articles here on Conservapedia. Terryeo 07:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

See my post here: Talk:Scientology. Conservative 08:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I warned the other Sysops/Admins and the Director of Conservapedia about Terryeo. Conservative 09:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

What you have accomplished, Joyous

You begin to edit a couple of days ago. You posted to Conservative's talk page, rather than attempt to talk with me. You find legal threat where I make no legal threat. You insist that scientology, somehow, by not "supporting" faith, acts against faith. You posted:
My only real problem is that he seems to focus on removal of information, rather than addition of information, and creates complexity rather than simplicity.

• His (IMO) bizarre focus on the photo issue is problematic
• His desire to equate the concept of "thetan" with Christian soul is problematic, given one is admittedly materialistic and one is divine.
• His bizarre rambling statements
• His constant referring back to legal issues, which should be irrelevant.
• He denies the centrality of faith as a irreconcilable difference between Christianity and Scientology, despite their own literature.
  I have tried to reply to you on each of these issues. In fact, I have stated several times that there is no belief in scientology and therefore, no "irreconcilable difference". Further, I have told you that many Christians are Scientologists and visa versa. I realize I am speaking in the face of websites that say otherwise, but the irreconcilable facts speak for themselves. I have given it a good effort, Joyous. Now, thanks in large measure to your efforts, I find myself considered to be a "contentious, problematic editor". This is what you have accomplished. If it is what you intended, then your work is nearly done. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 09:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I made some edits to the scientology article that I think you will appreciate

I made some edits to the Scientology article that I think you will appreciate. Conservative 17:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I am glad I could help at the Scientology page

I am glad I could help at the Scientology page. Conservative 19:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Please vote for me

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship Conservative 19:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest editing mammon when the brouhaha dies down

I would suggest editing mammon when the brouhaha dies down. Conservative 20:33, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Mammon

I have no idea regarding a specific person, but many users on this site are highly biblically literate. User:TK, User:DanH, User:Aschlafly, and User:David R are all quite knowledgeable in these areas. I am also inclined to block TheWay, given a frightening edit summary he left. --Hojimachong^talk 20:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

On Andy's talk page before that section was archived, you wrote:

Phil, I have read your edits extensively, and I know that you understand that evolutionary theory does not claim that one creature turns into another kind of creature. I recognize from you're writing that you are better informed than that, unless I've read poorly.--JoyousOne 15:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

On the contrary, what I recognise is that the definition of evolution used today doesn't include that, but the common understanding, and clearly still a part of what evolution is all about, is that one kind of creature turned into another. Else how do you go from a dinosaur to a bird? That is one kind of creature turning into another. Philip J. Rayment 09:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually what you said was that one creature turns into another. Evolutionary theory makes no such claim. Any individual is just that...an individual. Species, over time, change. You state it two different ways above. "Common understanding" of evolution, as you stated, is quite muddled, and many lay people believe that evolution implies that a chimp can somehow turn into a human...this is not what evolutionary theory says. Educating people above "common understanding" should be an important goal.JoyousOne 09:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I said, "...a creature to change into a different kind of creature...", so perhaps I wasn't clear that I wasn't talking about an individual creature. But having clarified, that, evolution does make those claims, as per the example I gave above of the dinosaurs turning (evolving) into birds. It is just my wording that is at issue, or the underlying point? Philip J. Rayment 10:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It was just your wording apparently. Thank you for clarifying. It is a common misconception among those who do not understand evolutionary theory (independent of whether they accept it or not) JoyousOne 14:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

thinking about cleaning up

I hope no one minds, but this page is kind of messy.JoyousOne 19:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Response

A very famous christian apologist may have a gradutuate student of his update the Christian apologetics article in the fall. Time will tell. I plan on calling him in the fall to remind him. In the meantime, you can do a Google search on Christian apologetics and fill in material yourself. Conservative 20:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)