Revision as of 05:16, March 23, 2007

Divorce

Please stop. The encyclopedia is supposed to have an NPOV, and not to condem people to hell. It's not a blog. In addition, you must understand that, for Christians, the influence Mosaic law has been removed to some extent. I don't have a quote at hand, but it's there. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not a place to present Biblical data as undeniable fact, as much as I might agree with much of it. That's what personal websites are for. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 14:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

You may put in as much Biblical data as you wish, but please retain an NPOV, and don't present it as the only valid perspective, even if you believe it is. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 14:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Your newest version was somewhat better. Thank you. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 15:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the point is not to have a liberal bias, not to have a conservative bias. The two are different concepts. It's an understandable mistake, though, especially for the casual peruser of the encyclopedia :). Geekman314^{(contact me)} 15:12, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for correcting my grammatical error. I don't know what my deal is today… Geekman314^{(contact me)} 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Incest

The incest article is up for deletion. Surely a fellow quoter of the Bible is as mad as I am!--Meekrok 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Earth

Your uncle is not a dependable primary source, but I'm sure he's a fine individual. If you want to back up your viewpoints, they're different enough that they deserve a real citation.--AmesG 14:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, neutrality does not mean stating inane, insupportable opinions.--AmesG 14:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Magellan sailed around the world. What has supposedly changed since then?? --Dave3172 14:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Good article!

I'm still in shock that the group exists, but good article on the Flat Earth Society.--AmesG 15:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the one putting wiki things up. --John 20:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT) Ah, I see what happened. I rolled back the "mulatto" thing but didn't realize it also put wikipedia things up. --John 20:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT) "Mulatto" is considered offensive. In America, at least, most people would say he's African American. A sociologist could define this in a much more complicated way, but calling him African American wouldn't offend most people. --John 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent articles, CWilson! Keep up the good work!TylerD.

No problem, glad you approve. ColinR 19:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

President Articles

Sounds good! I've always been interested in presidents, so this should be a fun projetc. Bobtexas 16:33 PM, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words of support.

"Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24)

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." (Psaum 23:4)

JC 07:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Not allowed to de-Biblify the Bible!

if you'll look at the Bible aarticle I done, you'll see the structure and layout that I would like to see for all the books of the Bible. Basically just telling the reader what it's all about. For Genesis, the same thing should apply, but the things that have been made controversial, such as the Creation, the Flood, etc, if we started to explain those within the article then the result would be that it would lose scope and flow. I prefer separate articles on these subjects, where a lot of detail can be devoted to just that. You'll see how Genesis will look when I'm done...give it under five hours! Karajou 19:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creation stuff

I looked at what you had placed in from Genesis, and I had seen something recently (I can't remember when) in which someone took each line from Genesis 1 and added some relevant material which explained the science/evidence supporting that particular verse. I think the same thing should be added here. What say you? Karajou 17:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I am so humbled!

Maybe I should have done Genesis the way you did Leviticus. Good job! Karajou 20:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your note

CWilson, I thank you for the thorough note you left on my user wall. I regret that I was not able to answer, due to the fact that I was temporarily banned for disagreeing with Conservative. Such is life.

I would never insult your faith, nor would I try to argue against your own personal beliefs. I respect your choice to take all of your knowledge from the Bible, and I think it is a fine way to structure one's personal and private religion faith. You seem to accept that there are challenges that are out there to biblical literalism, challenges which you have consciously chosen to discount, ignore, or disbelieve. Again, this is a valid personal choice of yours.

I draw the line, however, with forcing the idea on others that your worldview, which you conceded is limited, is complete. While you are willing to end your own inquiry at a certain point, it is unacceptable to demand as a result that all others end their own inquiries at that point, and specifically, you cannot expect others to take as fact what you take merely on faith. Faith is personal and private; facts are not. Facts are objective. Holding your faith as objectively true demeans my own choice about where to end my inquiry, extends beyond your actual knowledge on the subject, and compromises the private nature of your faith.

I accept that you are willing to trust your "trusted friend" the Bible over scientific sources that seem to discount its literal truth. But it is your choice to do so. Shouldn't you allow others to make the same choice, though? And if you admittedly don't know the other side of the story - the scientific side - do you think you should be holding your own private faith as objective fact? You need to admit that your beliefs are based only on faith (which again, is a valid source of personal belief) and stop trying to argue for their objective factuality absent actual knowledge to that effect.

I hope I made the distinction between personal faith and objective truth plain. Again, feel free to accept your view of young earth creationism on faith. Just don't claim that it's fact unless you know objectively that it is.--AmesG 09:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Bad Idea

Sockpuppets meant to harrass (User:John Ashcroft and User:Foggot1) don't really help your case. It is meant to discourage, not "stop" outright. --Hojimachong^talk 22:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

By no means do I mean to assert myself as superior to you. I'm in High School, and (though I am getting a 4.0) by no means have any degrees. It works to dissuade the extremely obvious vandal-names, not stop them outright. It's a Wiki; this is never possible. --Hojimachong^talk 22:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. Conservative 15:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ask User Aschlafly to become an Admin. We need good admins.

Ask User:Aschlafly to become an Admin. We need good admins. I think you would make a good one. Conservative 15:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Debate

<quotebox> I would say, although I am no expert, that the large majority of CONSERVATIVE Christians are YECs. We aren't counting loosey goosey "Christians" such as Unitarians and the like. And this is a Conservative Christian site, so yes, I would say that YEC is the majority and goes along with what a lot of the people believe here. I don't see any surpression of views here, though, except attempted supression of unpopular religious ideas and biblical literalism by some of the more liberal on this site. Why can't you people just let us YECs have our beliefs?--CWilson 21:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT) </quotebox> (emphasis mine)

We're having a disucssion here and I'd be interested in your input. [1] Myk 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)