Talk:Essay:Reasons the Catholic Church is Unbiblical

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)