Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical"

Latest revision as of 21:32, March 2, 2017

Essay!

At best, this is an essay, not an article, and should be moved to Essay: Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical. And even I can see that it isn't particularly well written, see, e.g., the first "sentence". --AugustO (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (EST)

The article makes sense, seeing that this is a fundamentalist website. How would one move the article to a new location? -Ambassador (talk)

• Only sysops can move articles, so you have to propose such a move - perhaps ask User:Conservative or User:Aschlafly.
• The fundamentalist voices on this website are the loudest/shrillest, so I can see how you got this impression. Given that the founder of this site Andrew Schlafly is himself a catholic, this impression seems to be false. Maybe you should rise the question "Is Conservapedia a fundamentalist website?" at Talk:Main Page, Conservapedia:Community Portal or User talk:Aschlafly
• You are right: for a fundamentalist, you reasons are compelling. But I cannot imagine that any catholic will be impressed by your reasoning - some points are very week (Thus the passage should be interpreted as follows: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [a small stone], and upon this rock [Jesus referring to himself] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” ), some just insulting and historically incorrect ("The doctrine of celibacy was created to allow priests to have homosexual and pedophilic activities.")

--AugustO (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2016 (EST)

When one does a Google search, the discription of Conservapedia under the link literally says "Wiki encyclopaedia with articles written from a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint." I support the article and I support moving it to "Essay:" as that is clearly the most appropriate action. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Agreed, it does look more like an essay. I agree with the content, and I think scripture supports it, but it probably is a good idea to mark this as an essay. I've moved it. --David B ^(TALK) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (EST)

I do too, and thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2016 (EST)

I don't agree with Google's assessment of the POV of this encyclopedia. While it emphasizes "fundamentalist" ideas such as young-earth creationism, it has never censored or been adverse toward old-earth views in general or the view of my own church, which is by no means considered fundamentalist. --Ed Poor ^Talk

That is true, and I didn't say that Conservapedia is a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia (even though it is fortunately much more friendly towards my beliefs than Wikipedia is). However, Google's assessment probably explains why any editor would think that we are an exclusively fundamentalist wiki. It is Google's fault here, not the mistaken editor. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Regarding the source The Two Babylons

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"

This article by Ralph Woodrow, a former supporter of The Two Babylons, demolishes with accurate historical research any claim to reliability or historical accuracy in the book you have depended upon as source for your article/essay. Ralph Woodrow (a non-Catholic) shows that The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop is simply unsubstantiated slander against the Catholic Church without any historical facts. --Dataclarifier (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Perhaps a page move to Essay:Unbiblical elements of the Catholic Church then? (Rather than branding the church as being utterly contrary to the Bible) --Ed Poor ^Talk

I decided to address the issue with an historically informed article instead, treating the source of the contributing author's criticism, Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (1853,1858,1916). See ''The Two Babylons''. Charging the Catholic Church with being Unbiblical is a legitimate representation of the position of all anti-Catholic churches and groups. The move you suggest is probably unnecessary, and moreover it would seriously misrepresent the original contributor's intention, since it is the whole of the Catholic Church that is the topic here, and not simply the several individual elements of its doctrine which are presented here as evidential indications or marks of the character of the whole. See my article Great Apostasy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (EST)

It does seem that The Two Babylons is, at best, unreliable. I read the article rebutting it, and it has convinced me of this. I'm sure the book must contain some degree of truth, however. It is very unlikely that everything in it is completely false. Note, for example, how the CRI article disproves the shape of the Eucharist cookie as a disk, but not that such a practice was done, or that transubstantiation was believed, or anything else about the point, for that matter. I do not know the accuracy of these. I have emailed Chick Publications, which not only sells the book, but uses it as a source for many of its claims. We'll see what they have to say. Rather than removing points based on the book entirely, I've noted in the footnotes that I cannot guarantee, and that I doubt, the accuracy of anything from the book. If anybody thinks this is still bad, they may remove the point entirely. I'm still working on adding sources to all points that require sources. --Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Your article is not entirely bad. (Don't flog yourself.) I suggest that instead of removing particular points, your own ref-note disclaimer will be enough to establish your integrity as a contributor of information regarding this fundamentalist point of view. In several of my own articles I have given both sides of a controversy accordingly as each of their proponents argue their positions (See for example Great Apostasy and Sunday School). One side is presented without deviation or misrepresentation, and then the other is presented: "however, so-and-so point of view, by such-and-such sources, strongly maintain instead that...", together with providing external links as reliable sources of their own views. Frequently, I have posted one external link representing a position I might personally reject, immediately followed by another external link representing the opposing point of view, or one providing actual facts which disprove the assertions presented by an authoritative link reliably representing another group's stand in their own words, and sometimes obtaining and including a link which reliably critiques the controverted point or stand.

What I would recommend—

In your place, with this essay/article, I would simply link certain points in the list to Conservapedia articles dealing with those particular points, as another contributor has already done for you. If there are no relevant Conservapedia articles, then simply go to online sources of Roman Catholic apologists by googling the topic: for example, neutrally research each point by entering (for example) "meaning of IHS" or "Catholic meaning of IHS"—which by the way are the first three letters of the name of our Lord Jesus, Latin IESUS, Greek Ίησούν (Mt 1:21 iota Ί, eta Η, sigma Σ), and also represent the initials of the Latin words Constantine saw or heard in his vision of the Cross covering the sun "In Hoc Signes"—"In This Sign (Conquer)". After checking the sources, you could state truthfully and factually that no Catholic child or adult has ever been taught that the three letters represent Isis, Horus, Sed/Set. From the view of Egyptian religion, since Sed/Set is evil, it would actually have been IOH, Isis, Osiris, Horus (their son).

I am personally convinced from what you have said here that you have already decided to "check your sources", which Alexander Hislop, to his discredit, failed to do. The Logical fallacy he committed, and often afflicts most beginner enthusiastic apologists (I've been one!), is called Confirmation bias. If you continue with your resolve to always do more checking, and look at all the evidence, as Josh McDowell and John Henry Cardinal Newman did, I believe you have the makings of a very credible researcher in the field of Christian apologetics in defense of the truth of the Faith in this and other forums. I count myself privileged to have been of help to some small degree.

I began where you are when I was sixteen. I am now seventy. The discoveries I made for myself out of my zeal for the Lord often overturned what I thought was the truth ("Wow! I didn't know that!"). In fact, this goes back to when I first went forward at the age of twelve to accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I silently prayed, as I walked forward, "Lord, if you show me truth, which totally overturns what I think is the truth, then help me to drop that, and cling to what You give me. Amen." I simply wanted to be "honest to God". Always remember Matthew 7:8.

Pax vobis Semper Fidelis! --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Minor revision of lead paragraph

I decided to add some modifying phrases inserted into the intro lede which cast the essay in a more neutral tone as accurately representing the teaching of traditional conservative and fundamentalist Christian believers regarding the Catholic Church as being non-biblical. In no way does this revision change the meaning of the essay. It is an assertion of what is believed, not an assertion of these beliefs as "indisputable, undistorted facts which cannot be refuted" (Catholic apologists do refute them).

However, if this modification is in fact a serious distortion of the intent of the author/contributor, then my profoundest apology and regret is due to Ambassador. Be assured of my sincerest good will and best wishes. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2017 (EST)

The web article is now labeled an essay. AugustO moved the web page to essay space.

Essays aren't required to have a neutral tone.

Protestants should have the freedom to protest at Conservapedia. And protestors rarely have a neutral tone. Conservative (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (EST)

The main reason I did the revert is I have generally been against people messing with other individuals essays.

I think my most popular essay so far has been this essay: Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline. It has 40,000 page views. I spent a decent amount of time creating it and I don't think I would have created it had I thought that people would be tinkering with my opinion piece.

Should Jesus tarry, I do think atheism will see a time when it shrinks in the USA. Globally atheism might already be shrinking in terms of its number of adherents and it is most certainly shrinking in terms of its global market share (see: Global atheism statistics). Conservative (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2017 (EST)

Conservative--Point well taken. However, to place what I did in proper context, consider these comments on Ambassador's talk page, Jan 13, regarding my suggestion to revise the essay into a more neutral presentation:

"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, ..."

The revision I made was thus an attempt to assist with Ambassador's willing intent to revise the essay into an article ("if nobody else does"). I would not otherwise have changed it in any way--"messing with other individuals essays".
The revision is still available to Ambassador in the history of the essay to review and consider (see Diff), and I will leave it to Ambassador to decide if the modification I made is useful to the purpose of the writing.
--Dataclarifier (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Addendum: See User talk:Ambassador#Revert: Essay: Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical

Dataclarifier, I think I was overly confrontational in my last post.

Second, given the authors unavailability, I don't believe the essay will be transformed into an article.

Third, until Conservapedia has a Protestant editor who is willing to tackle the disputes that Bible believing Protestants have with Catholic theology, I think the essay should just remain an essay. Except for a few disputes I had with a few Catholic evolutionists regarding evolutionism, I have not chosen to tackle the Protestant vs. Catholic topic. Instead, I have focused a significant portion of my editing related to atheism related topics. In addition, given that the owner of Conservapedia is Catholic, if I were to choose to tackle the Protestant vs. Catholic issue, it would be at another website. Conservative (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2017 (EST)

Conservative, I feel with you the same concerns. Having been myself a protestant Bible-Christian, a fundamentalist, and an amateur anti-Catholic Protestant witness and apologist in my youth, high school and college years, and then a New Age Esotericist and sorcerer, and afterward a Western Buddhist (even having experienced satori), and then being suddenly converted by a wholly unexpected personal encounter with Jesus Christ Himself, and additionally encouraged by an on-going increasing knowledge of history, much of what I have contributed to Conservapedia has dealt with both Protestant and Catholic points of view on several doctrinal and historical issues and events, always supported by reliable sources that can be accessed, checked and verified (see e.g. Biblical Canon article "view history", also Great Apostasy and ''The Two Babylons''). Being experientially sensitive to the controversies "from the inside", and a knowledge of Logical fallacies and Specious reasoning, I have quietly "tackled" them in balanced relevant statements in my contributions on the Bible and Christian doctrine giving the overview of a spectrum of opinions and facts.

Having now read your apologion above, I heartily agree with you that given the current unavailability of Ambassador the essay will not be transformed into an article and should not be, since it was sincerely put forth initially by Ambassador as a classic expression of the traditional anti-Catholic apologetical argument, a well-framed polemic, fairly complete. Since Ambassador admitted an honest desire to revise the Essay, but expressed regret that there is not opportunity at present to do so, I have personally considered the possibility myself of copying and revising the text separately of the existing Essay Page, and framing the body of the text in a more neutral form with the existing list of assertions in the Essay balanced by rebuttals drawn from external Catholic sources with links, including at the top (of the proposed article) a statement that it is based on the Essay by Ambassador, together with a parenthetical note "(See Essay:Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical)".

At present, however, I am attempting to complete the final chapters of Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) before Easter. When that project is fully completed, I can turn my attention to constructing a revision of Ambassador's Essay in the form of a neutrally toned, accurate presentation of the traditional conservative and fundamentalist Christian arguments against Catholicism.

I appreciate your honest, heartfelt sincerity, your comments, expertise and insights, and thank you for your dedication to Our Lord against Atheism. Your reasoning is informed and formidable. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2017 (EST)

OK. That sounds good. Conservative (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2017 (EST)