User talk:Ambassador

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dataclarifier (Talk | contribs) at 17:14, January 19, 2017. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links

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

cebter

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":
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)

Thank you, Ambassador. That blessing is a real uplift.
I just looked in here out of curiosity to see if you had made any response. I am delighted with your willingness - your spirit is willing but you sometimes need sleep - and, believe me, I have often been there!
When I finally finish completing my own massive project with the seventh section of Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version), I would be happy to help with suggested factual history links and editorial critiques for maintaining neutrally balanced statements of any of the points that you cover. If you are as busy as I was before I retired, it may be summer 2018, before you are able get around to it. Just don't get discouraged. I believe such an article will be a valuable contribution in Christian discernment of truth. But in the meantime, feel free to post on my talk page any query you have regarding Catholicism versus Fundamentalism as related to the purpose of your article.
If I don't immediately know the answer for you, I'll do some online queries for possible sources of reliable info facts and report back here on your own page with links for you to look at (expect several with a variety of viewpoints, sources and facts).
Re my involvement: You do your own writing, and I'll gently kibitz, without interfering, as a publishing editor might (without the aggravating irritation), or like a coach—but not like a Marine D.I.!
Look at my User:Dataclarifier page for a listing of some of my own contributions to Conservapedia, as a reliable indication of my conservative biblical Christian commitment. (My User talk:Dataclarifier page also has two posts listing more recently created articles I've submitted.)
I look forward to working with you for the success of your article. May the Lord Himself with all the court of heaven lift up his countenance upon you, bless you, and give you peace.--Dataclarifier (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Useful example/exercise in discerning defective polemic

Consider the following illustrative example:


Jesus is the Word of God.

Protestants call a book, the Bible, the Word of God.

Therefore Protestants have replaced Jesus with a book.


You and I know that this argument is a complete distortion of meaning.


Again:


The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

Protestants say the Bible is the Word of God.

Therefore Protestants believe the Bible is God.


You and I know that this argument too is a complete distortion of meaning.


Again:


The Latin suffix -latry comes from latria, "worship".

Therefore the word "bibliolatry" means "worship of the Bible".

Therefore Literalist Christians who are obviously involved in bibliolatry worship the Bible as God.

BUZZ!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!


The actual meaning of "bibliolatry" is different. See this link: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bibliolatry


So— what is being illustrated here?

The above examples of distorted false arguments are based on hostile Polemic as a form of Propaganda using the Logical fallacy of Appeal to emotion to make Protestants look as bad as possible. (I'm familiar with this, because when I was in college an atheist accused me of bibliolatry because I was a Conservative Baptist and a fundamentalist Christian, and he used similar defective logic.)

The fundamental problem with Hislop's book, apart from his defective methodology, is pointed out by Woodrow in his refutation. Alexander Hislop wanted to make Catholicism look as bad as possible, because he had been taught that it is evil, and he never questioned that assertion or the arguments that were used to support it. He thought he was telling the truth with his "proofs", but in fact he wasn't. It's a form of Confirmation bias.

Anything that makes Catholicism or Protestantism look bad or evil should immediately be questioned as to its accuracy or distortion, misrepresentation or misinterpretation. I discovered in my historical researches that a lot that I had been taught about Catholic doctrine had never been true, but I had trusted my teachers because I thought they were telling me the truth; it had never occurred to me that they too had been misinformed; and they too had not questioned the accuracy of what they had been taught in Sunday School about Catholics. It goes all the way back to the Reformers.


One more example: the Christmas tree.

A neighbor of mine when I was growing up was a Jehovah's Witness. According to their teachings, she compassionately warned me that a Christmas tree is an idol, based on Jeremiah 10:3-4 (KJV).

"For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not."

Of course, she failed to read it within the context of "3 verses before, and 3 verses after, for the context". Jeremiah is speaking of a pagan idol. She was mercifully motivated by a desire for my salvation and blessedness. But she had been given a teaching that misrepresented the intent and had been given an historical fact taken entirely out of its social and historical context misapplied to the present day Christmas tradition originally solely intended to honor God's Son Jesus Christ "when all of nature rejoiced with new life" (green). Now, in the context of 1 Samuel 16:7 "for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart," she was guilty of falsehood, but not of lying. See Specious reasoning and Deceit.

When you had a Christmas tree, were you taught that this tree represented the Norse god Yggdrasil (the World Tree)? Of course not! Were you told that it was an idol representing a pagan god? Of course not! What was the intention in your heart as you admired the beauty of the Christmas tree? Were you committing idolatry, or were you thinking of the birth of Jesus in the manger, and the angels singing to the shepherds of his birth with glory to God in the highest?

In the same way, in evaluating accusations against anyone, especially when charged with crime, both the motive in the heart of the accused, and the objective effect or result of the deed (or failure to act) must be evaluated objectively in accordance with the truth. What is meant? What is being done? What is the actual teaching?

The Nazis intended to improve the human race and utterly remove forever the root causes of poverty, insanity and disease. The means that they chose were intrinsically evil, and resulted only in ruin and death on a massive scale. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20)

There is a logical fallacy that argues that a superficial similarity proves substantial identity: because an orange billiard ball resembles an orange, because it is round and orange and has a 3" diameter, this proves that the billiard ball must be an orange (good luck trying to eat it!). After all, isn't it orange? isn't it round? isn't it the size of an orange? so how can you possibly deny that it is an orange? Sophistry. I think you see what I mean. Be diligent in rooting out the truth of any evil report. (Exodus 20:16; Proverbs 26:24-25). It might be true. It might be false. "Admonish your friend. He may not have done it. And if he did, that he may not do it again."


May God richly bless you and all whom you love. Amen. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (EST)

Does the Devil ever tell the truth?

Yes!

The Devil tells the truth when it leads to a false conclusion.
See Matthew 4:1-10; Luke 4:1-13.

--Dataclarifier (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2017 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ambassador&oldid=1301233"