User talk:Daniel1212

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel1212, 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, Daniel1212!


DanH 23:16, 20 February 2008 (EST)
A much belated welcome. I used your user page's link to start an article on Homosexual misinterpretations of the Bible. Join in any time! --Ed Poor Talk 21:02, 5 December 2008 (EST)
  • Would you be willing to donate the entire text of your website to this project? --Ed Poor Talk 13:49, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Contents

Mainstream Media

I reverted your additions for the simple reason you did not provide citations for the items. If you have them, please put them back, with the proper links. Thanks. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:57, 14 February 2009 (EST)

  • The title I put should not have been the Boston Globe, but "Notable Examples" but the page is really sparse and much needs more material. Which is easy to find, but i do not have the time now. The External link i placed to http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp much substantiates the bias change in other ways - which of course, is not seen by those who provide it. I think I will just delete the section, and put the material on the talk page until someone provides more examples to warrant a section on examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel1212 (talk) -- 09:58, 15 February 2009
Well, as I said, add the material back if you have something to cite, which you seem to have. Use the links and add whatever explanations you feel needed to give users confidence in the material. Thanks for responding and letting me know! --₮K/Admin/Talk 07:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the encouragement. I had just run across the article and thought I would add to it. Some people from Free Republic might help there. But I am more preoccupied on working on the substantial and referenced page on Homosexual misinterpretation which you started me one (thanks!). I left a message on your page about my need for a Leviticus 18 page to link to it, with the reftagger script embedded. Thanks again and praise be to God.

I linked to your bible interpretation and homosexuality article from the main conservapedia article.

I linked to your bible interpretation and homosexuality article from the main conservapedia homosexuality article. When I have more time, I can link to the article more prominently in the article. conservative 18:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I looked at the article and found another place to link to your article and it is in a very prominent place. conservative 18:54, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for taking an interest. Any honest critiques I can also appreciate. Pray and press. Ever revising.Daniel1212 14:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I believe I can get a lot more views to your homosexuality and biblical interpretation article plus the homosexuality article as a whole

I believe I can get a lot more views to your homosexuality and biblical interpretation article plus the homosexuality article as a whole. Please email me if you want to help cause this to happen. If you prefer just writing material that is fine to. Keep up the good work!  :) conservative 03:30, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Salvation

Open for you now, Daniel. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:07, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Glad to see you are on top of things! Thanks be to God.
Well, it appears you are not going to be getting to this now, so just let me know whenever, and I will unlock it for you. Today is Resurrection Sunday / Easter Sunday. Rejoice! --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:26, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Ready when you are. Praise be to GodDaniel1212 15:40, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

BTW, is there an easy way i could convert this page to put it on CP? http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BooksOfTheBible.html There is no such page now. Also when i placed a

  • You were cut off......opened Salvation for you again. I just copy and paste from Word into the edit box here at CP, for the longer items. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:13, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
TK. The page i was referring to was highly formatted, with tables, and cut and past would not do it. So i edited my original (OpenOffice) this AM, and uploaded it to Firefox, selected it all and and copied the "view selection source" and pasted it in. With some minor deleting here it is, but do you think it is too colorful for CP? I could not do references the normal Wiki way, and it would be very hard for someone else to edit.
Sorry I missed your post here completely! If still having trouble formatting for the wiki, I reccomend you check with Iduan. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Please be encyclopedic

Please be encyclopedic, and don't repeat absurdities simply to refute them. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Daniel, maybe this will help you:
encyclopedic : of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject: comprehensive (an encyclopedic mind an encyclopedic collection of armor). encyclopedic Function: adjective Text: also encyclopaedic covering everything or all important points <a tour guide with an encyclopedic knowledge of New York City and its people> Synonyms: compendious, complete, comprehensive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, universal Related Words: broad, catholic, extensive, far-reaching, general, overall, sweeping, vast, wide; blanket, indiscriminate, unrestricted.
  • Words that are jargon speak, "homosex" and the like are not encyclopedic. Their use conjures up near-parody, as they are politically inspired buzzwords, and likely to have little meaning and cause confusion among the majority of the population not specializing in whatever topic. Hope this gives you some help. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:12, 26 April 2009 (EDT)


Thank you very much for helping me discover any errors. However, homosex did not seem to be what Andy objected to, as his edits only changed pro-homosex to prohomosex. I do think some of my division titles were too inventive however, and will change some, as well as do a review of this article and try to change like terms.
The reason i use homosex is because it is the term of choice by the most prolific conservative writer on the issue, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, who references it's use by some advocates of homosexual behavior See explanation for Why use the word "homosex"? @ http://www.robgagnon.net (2nd up from the bottom). The problem is that "homosexuality" is not precise enough, and while homoeroticism could be used, yet the Bible most specifically prohibits actual sex. Like in the realm of heterosexual sexual relations, the Biblical prohibitions on such also forbid all unmarried erotic activity, but i was trying to be precise, and "homosex" seemed to serve that purpose, and may become more used. Thus i placed a "Terms Defined" section. Maybe know i should change it to homoeroticism.
But "absurdities" must have also related to my refutations of the prohomosexual attempts to read sex into Scripture, and not just the title. But that was part of being encyclopedic, as "covering everything... comprehensive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth,.."
Thanks for your help.Daniel1212 17:57, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Oftentimes when we are refuting the things we feel strongly about, there is a tendency to go overboard, to really hammer the point home, when more restrained language would do the job just as well, in a subtler way. When we do that (hammer, or bludgeon) the point home, those who are not practicing Christians or even Christians who might not be evangelical are put-off by our language, not only the terms which are jargon, but the dire nature of what we write. When needed, Christ used a "velvet glove" to make his points, not a bare fist, and that might be best for an encyclopedia trying to win converts, and since CP attracts people of all stripes, more people are attracted to sugar than vinegar. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:19, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate your spirit, and counsel. I am addressing the "jargon" issue as i see it. But you are also addressing something i have struggled with. As an apologist i can easily slip into an overt polemical style. But on the other hand in a case like the Bible and homosex, when the obvious is smoke screened by specious if sometimes sophisticated sophistry, then presenting it as purely neutral manner comes across as conceding that they may be a case, which gets back to absurdities. I see the CP evolution article dealing with the theory as a refuted hypothesis, while i have represented the revisionist side on homosex, while manifesting with detail that the traditional position is what is warranted, which also fits with CP. But i do see myself sometimes going too overboard for this format, in tone, and in "jargon."

So i am working on improving it, and a review of the whole article by me was overdue. Daniel1212 21:05, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

TK, just what is going on here? I did not reinsert jingoistic phrases that Andy took out, but in fact was editing more of what i perceived were of that type. If the main problematic term is Gagnon's homosex, which is still in the page in many places, then consider that Andy had left them in. I could easily replace those, if i was not now locked out of the article i wrote. I was in the process of revising the article in seeking to comply with the objections, and could see places where i did use "jargon" that sounded fitting it me but it not encyclopedic, and changed some of them until i had to quite for the night. Rather than just locking someone out who had worked much to make an article(s) which would enhance CP, there ought to be some more specific dialog as to what changes are desired and were made. ThanksDaniel1212 22:34, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
I think in the class discussion I made myself clear, Daniel. Editing is a trust, not some right, and by your pedantic demeanor, you have (temporarily, I hope) lost my trust. What you are inserting is didactic, and I am using the word to mean inclined to lecture others too much. I am not saying you are wrong in my opinion, but how can one convey knowledge, which is the point, if one is going overboard too much, as you admit above? I am not locking you out of it, and will unlock it when I feel people have stopped retreating to their respective corners, and are ready to show some geniality. Try to remember people, as opposed to computers, have feelings, emotions, and arguing with others in the wrong way, same as conveying information in articles in a way that makes people not want to read it, is counterproductive. I am not indulgent like Andy, and will not engage you in a open-ended discourse here, which is a distraction to other editors, and quite frankly, to me as well. If you have something specific to ask, use the email. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:21, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Dear TK, I receive your correction, and i was hoping someone would do some necessary editing, and i myself was not finished with the page. But if you look at the exchange, what i was asking for was more specifics as to what was "jargon" and non-encyclopedic, so that i could fix it, and you were the only one who made some attempt to help. I pray that you can edit the wording of the content to make it better, as it was perhaps the most comprehensive referenced page on that subject available to read on the web. All i was going to basically add was the issue of Jesus and John, as well as the centurions servant, in the light of traditional exegesis, as pro homosexual assertions of both are popular, as WP's page also shows. In the meantime, I will take Andy's advice. Thanks Daniel1212 08:58, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Specifics requested

What do you mean by "absurdities"? The whole article deals with what normally would be considered absurdities, but now are accepted are viable interpretations. You have deleted an entire section which deals with attempts to read homosex into passages, and which WP offers as viable, as i am sure most of today's universities would see as the same! Due to the foundational liberal revisionist grid most anything can now be considered reasonable.

Thanks for better formatting changes and any worthy corrections, but realize that it is hardly a full treatment of the issue if prohomosex contentions of approved homosex are not dealt with. BTW, Googling Homosexuality and biblical interpretation conservapedia did not show in the first 50 hits, which i used to see in similar searches, and i could only find it if i put it in quotes. However, it did have the mother page, homosexuality and the Bible. ThanksDaniel1212 09:02, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

a request

I know you had some conflict as far as the jargon you used in the homosexuality and biblical interpretation article. I do think that it would be a shame, however, for Conservapedia to lose a prolific editor who is sincere.

So I have a request, could you please expand the article on the History of homosexuality ? conservative 18:52, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

It was jargon, as well as being too polemical. But I have been posting occasionally, and am only locked out of my main work. I am quite busy now, but by God's grace i hope to improve the History of homosexuality soon. Thanks.Daniel1212 21:25, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

article request

When you are done with your History of homosexuality would you be interested in doing the following:

Create the following articles :

Expand these articles:

I will email you further about this matter. conservative 01:06, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

The latter actually does work, though it is brief. I am busy now but will try to get to some these pages by the grace of God. Some may be a bit redundant, but maybe it makes CP more viable. Yet I think i should explains that my motive in doing the Homosexuality and biblical interpretation page (and it would good if TK lets me edit it again as it needs much), was not really that i have a driving animosity toward homosexuality, though i certain consider it to be sinful, but it was because of the extremes they went to in seeking to negate the Biblical injunctions against it, as well as to enlist it for their cause which actually kinds of how AIDS works. Had they simple been advocating it i would not have put much effort into showing that Biblically it is sin, but as they realize the authority of the Bible so their efforts supererogatory. So the history of it all does not interest me that much, though it confirms that the pagans did what the Bible charges them with, and uses their examples as what to avoid.Daniel1212 23:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

  • I strongly resent your false statement, inasmuch as you have never once contacted me asking to edit the article again. Anyone can read the history there, and what it shows is the site owner, Andy Schlafly reverting your contributions, and me merely complying with his wishes....expressed in his reversion of your edits. I made many attempts to dialog with you, arrive at some accommodation of your verbosity, your inflammatory language, which is what Mr. Schlafly was concerned with. You have two choices, as I see it; You can attempt to comply with the requests of an Administrator, or not edit that article, or any others where you insert jingoism. I also expect an apology, and an end to mean-spirited snipes inserted in your posts. Such conduct is decidedly not Christian, in word and deed, Daniel. I hope that upon reconsideration, you will realize it was beneath you. I have a great appreciation for your valuable contributions, and you have previously acknowledged my compliments, so I wonder where this hostility is coming from? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
TK, I must ask, what false statement, and what hostility? What you had said on 28 April 2009 was "I am not locking you out of it, and will unlock it when I feel people have stopped retreating to their respective corners, and are ready to show some geniality." I therefore assumed that is what you would do, and that it did not require a request to get unlocked.
As for the whole issue, and the idea of hostility, that also has an element of mystery. Andy did not revert all my contributions, but as the 23 April 2009 comparison shows, he did some editing which left most of the article intact, though he deleted the sections on pro homosexual attempts to read homosex into the Bible. But for some reason the edit history says "(Reverted edits by Daniel1212 (Talk) to last version by Ed Poor)", while in reality all Ed did was start the article for me to work on it, which the history shows i did for months. But bcz it mentioned Ed Poor, and i wanted to know what i was dong wrong, i also inquired about the edits on his page, which you reproved me for. Inquiring of Andy, who is likely quite busy, had given me little info on what he wanted changed. You in turn were helpful on that, and upon reviewing the article i understood my errors more clearly. Accordingly, I then did some editing to correct them, but in response you reverted my edits, with a note "Constant re-insertion of jingoistic words and phrasing." when in fact i did not reinsert any but instead was removing such, including the term homosex, with Andy had not edited.
As for my tone, I did appreciate your being more specific on what needed to be changed, though some would have been obvious to me if had done a complete review first, but after reverting my attempts to comply it seems that your tone changed, perhaps due to the above misunderstandings. Seeing i was locked out, i began working on an edited version of the article on a personal wikia page, which i hoped would be acceptable in case i could edit the CP page again. As it is, this was the most extensive referenced treatment of homosexual apologetics, which issue they take very seriously, but in addition to the phrases at issue and digressing into an overt polemic style sometimes, it has other errors which need fixing. Thank you for corresponding. Daniel1212 10:09, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
You might want to check my user page, and the number of pages I am watching. While you have a narrow focus in this matter, it is really impossible for me to remember to check back with you. The edits were discussed on the articles talk pages, and on Andy's personal one as well, I remember. At no time did I receive feedback from you, after the decision was made, and Andy agreed with my comments...so if you want to link me to whatever you have added on some personal page, that would be great...but it isn't logical to assume that if someone makes a personal page and does editing, I will notice it.
In the future, just email me, or post a message on my page, rather than including me in when discussing something with another Admin. You might want to argue the point, and claim you don't understand, but your comment was negative, was initially negative, up to and until Andy commented that your edit were too bombastic and narrowly focused. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that isn't necessarily the POV we want to present publicly, or perhaps more precisely, not exactly the style we wish to use. If you don't understand, or wish to continue this line, please use the email. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for getting back to me on this, and i know these things are hard to track, and thus some more clarification is needed, and i will write to you in an email.Daniel1212 10:58, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Mainstream media

I am wondering if your material added to MSM might be more appropriate in Liberal media ? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:19, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Hmm, i did not know there was such a page. Yes, it would go there, but people searching for "main stream media" would not get much on its real nature, as Liberal media is not even linked to on that page. I shall effect changes, by the grace of God.Daniel1212 08:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, Daniel....I wasn't sure myself! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Yes, liberal media is now linked in MSM, and the stats added, etc., and an expose of Newsweek. Thank God.Daniel1212 12:41, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Daniel

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with homosexuality. I hope that you seek help. CindyL 10:01, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Dear Cindy,

the real obsession is on the part of homosexuals activists who make constant and inordinate efforts to misconstrue the Bible. Outside of atheism, which i also contend against, they are the foremost promoters of radical revisionism, and demand acceptance of homosexuality, which is a particular manifestation of rebellion against God, as seen in Romans 1. My response is in reaction to such, by objectively contending against it. As for the unhealthy part, it is sadly incontrovertible that pertains to the typical homosexual lifestyle. God's laws are good, and to our individual and collective benefit when obeyed, and to our hurt when we do not, as nations now in dust - and souls in Hell - testify to. Yet apparently some of the first Christians were former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:11) and there is room at the cross for those who will repent and believe - to God be the glory!

SDA infomercial

What is the reason why there apparently cannot be the history of the very relevant conflict between Evangelical faith and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and ongoing doctrinal controversy, and much needed balance (and links) in that regard. Must readers go to WP to obtain a more comprehensive view of SDA and its history? I do want to commend you however, for your first class writing on the Second Great Awakening which i came across as a result of the SDA page.Daniel1212 21:31, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Please try your hand at some other topics. CP discourages people who have a strong theological dislike of this Christian church or that one which prevents them from an objective assessment and inclines them to attack it. RJJensen 21:35, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
"Objective assessment" is precisely the problem. If that was the real issue, then why was the article not targeted before when it was basically a advertisement for the SDA? Seeking to add balance, i added countering links to its obviously pro sda links. And then i added history, of which it really had none, which referenced the diligent research of Martin and his conciliatory conclusion that the SDA was not a cult, or cultic, but a heterodox, essentially Christian denomination. Necessary distinctions were then made btwn the 2 basic divisions which are manifest today. The Further reading section could have been neutral, if had been already. It is hardly fitting or balanced to have only basically positive info of SDA, especially when it has truly problematic doctrines. Should this be done with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and should the Controversy section on the Mormons be eliminated? If anything it is too brief. At least clearly reference some opposing views, esp. the historical summation work by Samples. ThanksDaniel1212 22:06, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
Sigh. Daniel, you know I admire your abilities, and how throughly you document your additions, right? In today's world, with literally the barbarians at the gate, wanting to destroy Christianity, and the entire western world, do you really think this is the time to hone your skills on how different Christian's are from each other? Or would you be willing to concede that perhaps for the good of all, that isn't of the greatest import right now? Don't you think Jesus would prefer us concentrating on the positive, how we are all alike, how we should join together to defeat the agents of Satan? I know I am clear in my heart what He would like from us....I pray you are too. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:43, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for your observations and compliments (though i find many faults in my writings, and Richard Jensen is a much better one), and desire to resist such things as the objectively baseless moral foundation of atheism which such great men like Mao and Pol Pot operated out of, doing what seemed "reasonable" to them. In contrast, the we who claim to be Christian have the Word of God as out "Golden Compass," and which points due North. But which hates a false balance, and requires objectivity, and exposing darkness. I see that the line "Many Evangelicals in the 21th century denounce SDA as an illegitimate cult with a good link has been provided, which can get them many good resources, and the article is now a well written one, though absent of the historical conflict and change of the 1950's and beyond.

But your response here transcends the issue of my edits of the SDA page, and relates to CP as an encyclopedia, and the issue of ecumenism, and is a topic worthy i would like top respond to with some consideration. As it is true that all encyclopedias (etc.) have a certain bias, and spirit behind them, i understand that CP basically operates out of (if not exclusively) a Christian worldview in seeking to fight a manifest evil that seeks to silence and supplant most all Biblical moral and spiritual truth. And in so doing it can provide information without treating such things as specious attempts of liberal revisionism and propaganda as equally viable ideas, but objectively and informationally expose them. But i think it loses viability when its content is cursory or manifests unwarranted bias, and it loses its conservative credibility when it becomes promotional of a historically aberrant conservative view.

As relates to your appeal to ecumenism on a personal level, and what Jesus would have His own to do, while i agree that honest minded men and women of basic ideological agreement can somewhat work together against a common enemy, yet it is Biblically clear that this does not allow marginalization of serious doctrinal issues. I think it should be obvious that things such as musical instruments in church is not in view here, but matters that the Bible manifests more weight one. As regards the SDA, there is a reason why Martin engaged is such exhaustive analysis. And while this showed them (at their core) to be closer to historical, conservative orthodoxy than many thought, yet (for one) the promoting of annihilationism is no peripheral issue, and which (for one) makes a mockery of Christ's repeated warning to cut of an offending member rather than to enter unquenchable fire. (Mk. 9:43-48) Not much deterrent factor for Hitlers and Hugh Hefners are just going to be get toasted like the rest. Or justice, but differing degrees of damnation are in view for eternal punishment, (Lk. 12:46,47) and which i contend is eternal as eternal life. (Mt. 25:41,46; Rv. 14:11; 20:10)
In addition, historically it has been the SDA that has been dead set against ecumenism, considering themselves to be the one true remnant. And while Martin's work (in part) helped the Evangelical SDA arise, yet it is the Traditional SDA that has the upper hand, with the historical position on their side. As for me, i consider evangelical Christianity to be the major foundation for conservatism in America, and which should primarily decide which is aberrant and which is not (but which historical orthodoxy it itself is much deviating from).
Nor do i believe that "Jesus would prefer us concentrating on the positive, how we are all alike" and ignore the doctrinal differences regarding Truth, which got Him crucified, (Jn. 19:7) even if circumstances require some common unity. While i am sure Jesus was basically doctrinally unified with Pharisees on moral laws, (Mt. 23:2) in contrast to homosexual Caesars, yet Jesus still reproved their false doctrine, even about extra Biblical laws against washing, (Mk. 7) and His Spirit places a priority on doctrine (1Tim. 4:16) and commands contending for the faith. (Jude v. 3) While Christians would vote for a true conservative Mormon or an Orthodox Jew against a real liberal like Ted K., we cannot say we are all brethren.

Finally, my intent on the SDA was not to hone my skills on how different Christians are from each other, but to provided balance and refutation to an extremely brief and biased entry which was allowed to be that way, and which gave virtually no real historical information, but served as a infomercial for a church. It thus needed balance, and more pertinent history, and apart from some links necessitated by the one sided versions of the same, i proved informational history of a most notable conflict, and the evangelical perspective. I pray the prayer of Martin and many other concerned Christians in this regard may yet be answered. Meanwhile, Richard is a gifted and learned writer, and the SDA is far far better than it originally was, so praise God for that, and i will tell Richard i am sorry Richard got some of my overflow of grief from its original state.Daniel1212 13:41, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

An interesting mission.....

I have an article I don't quite know what to do with....

Last_Thursdayism is pretty much a useless piece of junk, as it is. Looking at the history it was originally created by vandal site members, and I suppose was intended to be a clever piece of parody. It isn't. They were going for something on the Omphalos Hypothesis, and attaching a too pop culture name to it. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, written by Philip H. Gosse, a Creationist, was his attempt to explain some technical points of Creation. His effort preceded Darwin's own, opposite hypothesis by several years, as I remember. I propose to re-name the article to "Omphalos". If you are versed in this topic, or it interests you, could you please flesh this out, and I will then move it to a more correct title? Thanks, Daniel. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:10, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for thinking of me worthy to perhaps handle it, but that is really not my area, as this high school graduate/former trucker driver deals mostly with Biblical issues, and ideological moral conflicts and history. I do know someone whom i have tried before to enlist in CP, and who i think would be an asset in this area, and maybe i can enlist his help. But the way, most everytime i look at the bible and homosexual interpretation page i see things which need correcting, both related to what was discussed in the past and flow, etc., and as i hope things are better understood now i hope to be able to edit it again soon. Thanks. Today its out to the garden, seeing as "Global Cooling" has slowed things down for now. Daniel1212 14:09, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
Indeed! My cukes are as slow as molasses this year, along with the tomatoes and peppers.... :-( Thanks for reminding me of that article, which I will now go unlock. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:26, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks!! Just got back and we are making progress (as are the weeds). 2nd cloudiest and 4th coldest June on record here. So much for GW here. But the real GW that people need to fear is that which the Bible predicts, (Rv. 16:5) and which Al Gore cannot stop.Daniel1212 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Neat weather map - U.S. climate at a glance: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/regional.html And the CAPTCHA was 10 spinach!Daniel1212 17:08, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Quran versus the Bible

Would you have any objection to breaking out your excellent contribution to its own page? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:32, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

No, and praise God for any warranted compliment. I see you are on the ball also and work late! But i do not know if i would add much more to what i have placed on the Quran page. Maybe because its 90 degrees (answered prayer) and i am also often fatigued.Daniel1212 22:47, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Daniel, Ovid said: "Take a rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop." And we read in Exodus: 33:14 where The Lord says: "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." Always remember a bountiful crop is desirable in the eyes of The Lord, so take care to always rest yourself; the coming battle will not be for the fatigued. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:13, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
Thanks. I am not sure what is wrong, but for some years time i have been realizing increasing inordinate fatigue, especially mentally, and much reduced attention span. So i need to learn to exchange my weakness for God's strength better, as well as continue to pray. And in so doing i plan to do the suggested article.Daniel1212 09:42, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
But what i want to even more is a page on moral decline, in particular, that of America, which i have been cataloging for many years now: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html New stats relative to this: http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/25-young-adults-and-liberals-struggle-with-morality Even the Democratic DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN warned of "Defining Deviancy Down" If you think that would be a viable page, what could i title it? Western moral decline might be apt, as it could include the U.K. Daniel1212 10:21, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Such a cataloging would be encyclopedic, approaching book size, and has, with Wil and Ariel Durant, I believe, a dozen volumes or so. Although not even really touching on the actual moral quagmire of man. I wouldn't lump the U.K. in the the U.S. Different dynamic there, and totally different religious forces at work there. How about a series, linked to the main country articles, for the U.S. and U.K., and other western countries? That way the treatment can be more concise and relevant to the country. Remember, too long, too long on detail, people don't read it all.....such is the reality of online encyclopedia's. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, moral decline as a main subject, with different nations as subsets sounds reasonable. And i acknowledge my occasional tendency to prolixity. Esp. with ideological subjects in which much fallacious flack has been launched against Bible truth. God was thorough in dealing with the Canaanites, but His word conveys an abundance of truth with an economy of words. May we do likewise by His Spirit.Daniel1212 20:57, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

BTW, does CP have an article on the Christian heritage of America?Daniel1212 21:59, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Making a real contribution

I like this Teddy Roosevelt quote. [1] Should we add it to our guidelines? --Ed Poor Talk 12:32, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Maybe even just, The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.
Oddly enough, i came across similar quote while searching on Islamic issues. When i see something useful i try to add it to a CP page.
Here are other ones i added to the Theodore Roosevelt page:
A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.
...any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life.
The only man who makes no mistakes is the man who never does anything.
A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.

To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.

Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. (and some make T.R. liberal)
It is better to be faithful than famous.
A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.
More here: http://www.answers.com/topic/quote-4?author=Roosevelt,%20Theodore&s2=Theodore%20RooseveltDaniel1212 17:43, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Quotes

One thing I've found out about quotes... most are fakes. RJJensen suggested I use Google Books as a source for quotes. Most quotes published are accurate, though not 100%, as I found with Thomas Jefferson. --Jpatt 17:49, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I do use Google books a lot, but none of them have been loading the past couple of days or so. However the majority of these quotes are accredited to The Works of Theodore Roosevelt - National Edition, H-BAR Enterprises, and are from the www.theodoreroosevelt.org/ site, which also has the church quotes, so they are not exactly fly by night. Britannica Online Encyclopedia had "if we educate a man's mind but not his heart..."Daniel1212 21:58, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Password

Hi, saw your post to Andy's talk page about the temp password request. You posted the password itself -- you'd better log in and choose a permanent password if you haven't already, or else someone else can use the temporary one to take over your account. Perhaps you've already done this -- just a heads-up in case not! Several others got this email too and TK says to ignore it if it keeps happening. Cheers, --MarkGall 14:41, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

I misread "set" as "sent" to... and being alerted by you, I signed out and signed in using the posted pword, and then changed it back to the original and it works as before. Sorry for my error, and thank for the quick action. Daniel1212 14:55, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Beliefs - Scientology

Please edit the information and I will add it for you! --Joaquín Martínez 08:33, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 07:59, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks. It does not go too much into doctrine, as how it operates says more about what it effective believes than the spiritual ethos of Hubbard's science fiction, which, consistent with his stated motive (according to two sources) serves as a means to an end, that of Scientology's gain of possessions and power. The religious doctrine of Scientology is sufficiently outlandish that little should need to be said on it, and the Further Reading section has links which pertain to that. Any benefit from that program is due to the use of Biblical principals, primarily that of being able to talk at debt to someone and get some counsel, and gain a perfect condition, but in Scientology that comes at ever increasing prices, (I think Christian counselors who charge 80-100 bucks an hours for their "ministry" are also wrong), and the clear condition. Once hooked, the Scientology client begins an ever increasing series of "auditing" sessions and courses in order to achieve a "clear" state, which is not moral heart purity and Christ-likeness, but a psychological goal, and which "carrot" Scientology continually keeps just out of reach of the client in order to get more money, and that which it purchases. Seeing as that is the goal of Scientology, it is not wonder the Hubbard directed his workers to go after celebrities. And given the suppression (or lack) of conscience which is typically required of those employed by Hollywood, and the focus upon personal attainment in Scientology, as well as the minimal requirements for humility, contrition and moral repentance, it is no wonder they are attracted to Scientology, and the lifestyle it supports.

It is manifestly evident that, in heart as well as in doctrine, Scientology is antithetical to Christ. Relatively few former Scientologists seem to come to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus, but here is quite a testimony, praise be to God. http://www.christianindex.org/1468.article Daniel1212 19:44, 30 October 2009 (EDT)

Interesting, for your use

[2] --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:14, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks, but outside of his testimony, I do not think his article or case is substantial enough. Will keep an eye out though for more on the cooling of Global warming. Which we could use now! God's Global Warming (2Pet. 3) is the "warming" that the world needs to fear.

BTW, see the new quotes by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. "History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed in to political and economic decline."Daniel1212 20:38, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Apology

Daniel,

It was brought to my attention that you were blocked a short time ago, which I promptly reversed. The sanction was invalid on its face and contrary to established policy. I sincerely hope that this did not interfere with your work and does not cause you irreparable harm. Please accept my apologies, both as a senior Administrator and on the behalf of Conservapedia for this deeply distressing action.

Shalom,

Geoff PlourdeComplain! 02:15, 10 January 2010 (EST)
--ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:17, 10 January 2010 (EST)

Yes, I must apologize for that block. I read an edit of yours with a word mix-up I interpreted to be parody, but upon a further review of your edits, it becomes clear to anybody that you are a valuable contributor and that your edits are in good faith.
Please forgive me for my hasty actions! JacobB 13:15, 10 January 2010 (EST)
Anyone can make a mistake, Daniel. Don't hold a grudge; I too have done hasty actions and had to repent. --Ed Poor Talk 16:09, 10 January 2010 (EST)

No grudge at all, i did not even know i was blocked till i thought about adding these quotes by Wernher von Braun:

When he and his rocket team surrendered to the Americans (choosing them over the Russians) in 1945:

"We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured."

However, i can only ind 2 sources for the quote, and they conflict. [3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#cite_note-60

Likewise, regarding Adolf Hitler:

"I began to see the shape of the man - his brilliance, the tremendous force of personality. It gripped you somehow. But also you could see his flaw — he was wholly without scruples, a godless man who thought himself the only god, the only authority he needed."

Only WP has a source for the above, and i do not want to copy from them.

More on him and his later Christian faith here, which otherwise is left out of the WP article. http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3770/313/ http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4vonbraun.htm http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Wernher_von_Braun.html

BTW, do you why this page is constantly loading?It never fully loads and keeps at it.Daniel1212 21:51, 10 January 2010 (EST)

No idea at all, other than the server is sometimes slow due to the vandal site members. Try hitting the stop button if its loading too often. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:03, 10 January 2010 (EST)
What Firefox did was refresh the page enough so that your new post and editing was available, but it kept trying to load more of the page. Refreshing it again (F5) did the same thing. I signed in on IE8 (much less preferred) and it does not do it, nor does FF do it once now that i am signed out. I'll switch back to FF now and see if it fixes it.Daniel1212 14:06, 11 January 2010 (EST)
I did not have to log in again on FF as i thought i would after logging in on IE, and but when i post anew it does the perpetual load again. Must be Global Warming, or former Pres. George Bush's fault. I'll work on it more.Daniel1212 14:12, 11 January 2010 (EST)
Cleared cache and cookies, logged in again, and that fixed it. Thank God. Daniel1212 14:15, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Article you posted with list of Haitian leaders--racist much?

Daniel, did you read the last line of the article before the list of Haiti's rulers? "Of course, we need not look as far as Haiti to understand the link between race and civilization, and what it means for America. Haiti is nothing more than Camden or East St. Louis writ large, and without the surrounding white society to support it. Africans remake Africa wherever they may go." I hardly think CP should want to link to such an article. AlexWD 00:05, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Wow, I just read that organization's "Reader's Guide" page. Nasty stuff indeed. AlexWD 00:08, 18 January 2010 (EST)
No i did not! Refs to this will be removed pronto. Thank God you caught that.I am not racists, but it was late when i saw some information posted on FreeRepublic that i thought would be helpful to a very present subject of interest, but i should have vetted the original source better before referencing it, though i usually reluctant to even ref. the liberal BBC. Good night/morning.Daniel1212 00:46, 18 January 2010 (EST)
No problem Daniel, thanks for cleaning it up, and to AlexWD for noticing it. While most of the information was good, their editorial POV certainly wasn't Christian! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:44, 18 January 2010 (EST)
Thank God, it was to my horror when i realized what i linked to. God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and i don't care what color a man's skin, but religion and ideology are the real issues. “America, America, God shed His grace on thee” is so true. The foundation of a country, and its leaders, is so critical, and Divine providence was so manifest in ours. Also critical is how the succeeding generations are raised as well.
As far as what is good is concerned, we here have much entered into other man's Godly and God-inspired labors and wisdom, and some seek to preserve such. The heritage of Haitians is decidedly and tragically different. While i have never been able to document by reliable sources the "that the nation of Haiti was dedicated to Satan 200 years ago", the former "gem of the Caribbean" has evidenced the devil's influence, who comes to steal, kill and destroy. But idolatry is the mother of all sins, and as judgment happens, America is not immune, even according as Jesus said. (Lk. 13:3)

Along ideological lines, here is a recent work you may find interesting: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.htmlDaniel1212 08:54, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Ref tagger

Your concerns are best addressed by posting to the Webmaster's page, Daniel. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:32, 25 January 2010 (EST)

You mean the owners? A long time ago you had recommended Iduan in relation to this, though the issue was not clear, and so I looked him up. But you sure are on top of things (fast)! BTW, how do i get "moral decline" to redirect to Moral degeneration? Daniel1212 21:49, 25 January 2010 (EST)

Good article work

That's an enormous amount of material you just put together. Well done! DouglasA 19:00, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Praise God for whatever is good. Went over my requested 500 words (though much smaller than Homosexuality and_biblical interpretation, but more could be said in refuting the determinative argument that is popular today. I did not look at the other CP info on Causes... but i can add some from there. Pray and press. Daniel1212 19:59, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Impressive additions to the article!

Good job!--JamesWilson 18:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

That was quick! But it was a rush job, and i hope to add more, but thank God if it helps provide a fuller view of Andrew's character, and his contrast to Christ.Daniel1212 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Please do continue! I am a member of the Featured Article committee and may propose your article for featuring. Actually, an article I have done significant work on has been proposed by another editor. I hope you do continuing your work on this article! We could also try and get an image or two.--JamesWilson 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

It needs a history section, etc., but in the next two days i need to get to something else. As for you Elvis, i cannot glory in him overall, but the outcome of his life is sad. He had a heart for God, but serving two masters kills us..Daniel1212 18:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
No problem! Take your time, and work on the article when you please. Yes, the outcome of Elvis' life was sad, but he just had a few problems. I believe though, that he is with the Lord now, but no one knows for sure. Good job on your article so far and keep going when you get the time.--JamesWilson 19:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I added some more, but my main interest was dealing with the aspect of the supposed evangelical, fundamental Christian link, based upon some shared values, which all different groups have to some degree, but Brievik was opposed to fundamental Christianity, and the "Christian culture" he wanted would be opposed to it, while Brievik himself is fundamentally contrary to Christ and N.T. Christianity. Daniel1212 19:59, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Good! As you can see, I now have nominated your article for featuring!--JamesWilson 20:03, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I would not consider it so, as it is limited. See Moral decline sometime. Daniel1212 15:56, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Very good. Maybe I will consider it for nomination sometime.--JamesWilson 11:46, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

NY Times article

Man, the "most prestigious paper in America" is nothing more than a big joke. Interesting find.--JamesWilson 11:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Congratulations

Your account has been granted blocking privileges!--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Whatever that means, but I used to play football. Daniel1212 07:58, 18 November 2011 (EST)

I added your material to the Conservapedia homosexuality article

Daniel1212, I added your material from The Atlantic article to the Conservapedia homosexuality article. Conservative 17:32, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Personal tools