User talk:RickD

From Conservapedia

--Ben _Talk 10:55, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Alrighty. thanks. --RickD 10:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Contents 1 Copied From template 2 Biblical Inerrancy comments 3 Congratulations 4 Fundamentalism 5 Language 6 Christmas Campaign 7 SMON 8 Talk:Robert L. Gibbs 9 "Libtards"

Copied From template

It's good to see that you found the {{Copied from}} template, but you need to include your username here and (because it's different) at Wikipedia: {{Copied from|user=~~~|site user=Firefly322}}. Happy editing! Philip J. Rayment 05:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

• Thanks! --RickD 09:08, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Biblical Inerrancy comments

Actually, Rick, I don't recall reading any edits of yours in this context, and my comment wasn't directed to you at all. What I was trying to do was reconcile the part of the article stating that people who selectively disregard parts of the Bible are liberal cafeteria Christians with the Adulteress Story essay by aschlafly. Personally, I have issues with many of the things written in the Bible, like God ordering men to kill women and children in the Old Testament, killing all humans and animals by drowning, etc. I respect people who don't have those issues, though, and never make light of matters of faith - that was my only point. --DinsdaleP 10:21, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Great. Still I don't think your addition to Biblical Inerrancy adds anything. It just makes the article harder to understand. It's just fluff. Also your comments about the Old Testament seem really creepy and I suspect they are liberal blasphemy. --RickD 15:14, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I'd have preferred if you would have discussed your concerns with my edits on the Talk page before reverting them out of hand. The first part of the article asserts that people who selectively dismiss parts of the Bible are cafeteria Christians. However, CP has an essay by aschlafly of all people that questions whether the adulteress story is a revisionist edit to the 'authentic' Bible that should be disregarded. To leave this conflict unaddressed is to imply that aschlafly is a cafeteria Christian, which I strongly doubt. If you disagree with my edit then I suggest improving it rather than removing it. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 15:38, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and my personal points about the Bible aren't "liberal blasphemy" - why is there such a need to regard things one disagrees with as "liberal-x" behavior, anyway?. I was raised a Roman Catholic and was quite devout in my teens, but there are aspects of the Bible I find hard to understand and accept, that's all. Instead of mocking or dismissing the beliefs of others I just ask questions in an attempt to refine my own understanding, and that's why I stree "respect" so much. --DinsdaleP 15:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I think the word "respect" is often abused to mean something unChristian and street gang-like. Also when someone reads an article on CP, it's comforting to know that it's written or heavily edited by fellow conservatives who are interested in the topic itself. I don't want to get into a liberal argument with you on this topic. So let me say that there is obviously a valid conservative point to your argument regarding translations and copying errors over the centuries. Still, the doctrine of innerrancy was never about believing every word of some random Bible translation and its allowance for errors in translation is no big deal. --RickD 15:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

• Possibly because this is a conservative encyclopedia? The Bible, Dinsdale, is about faith. Accepting on faith what one cannot prove. Atheists blindly accept all science, discard matters of faith, demanding "proof". As conservatives and Christians, and editing an encyclopedia that has as one of its main reasons for being to counter the rampant and blatant secular-progressive agenda of Wikipedia, we cannot understand why those who don't hold our views keep coming here to argue, be derisive and constantly question our intelligence and/or motives. That does not include you, the latter half, as you have indeed remained a civil person. Good response, RickD! --₮K^/Talk! 15:59, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks TK. You hit the nail right on its head when you bring up faith. To conservative Christians, the Bible simply represents words to live by. That it's fundamental purpose and it should be that even for those professors and graduate students who use it for language analysis, anthropology, or archeology. Often these religious studies folks loose sight of faith and assume that life is all about knowledge. I believe that the Faith/Knowledge divide is a classic Christian philosophical problem that goes back to Augustine who I believe had several solutions. --RickD 16:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

• Yes. "De fide rerum quæ non videntur." I would commend DinsdaleP to read, then reflect upon this. --₮K^/Talk! 16:33, 22 December 2008 (EST)

You both raise good points. For me the fundamental issue wasn't about faith versus science, but inspiration versus literalism where faith is concerned. If we have to take the Bible inspirationally versus literally, then you have religion defined by the interpretation of man. If you take it literally then you have to come to terms with what set of words you choose to take literally.

RickD, my questions about faith weren't creepy in nature, just fundamental. For example, if God is omniscient and knows the past, present and future, then everything that has and will come to pass is happening with God knowing it will happen this way. So if God created angels, he also created Satan, and while the latter had free will, God, knowing the future, also knew the consequences of this creation and permitted its outcome. So when humans sin and spend eternity in a lake of fire and torment of Hell for actions done in a short mortal life, it's happening because God explicitly allowed this line of existence to occur with perfect foreknowledge of what free will plus the temptation of Satan would produce. We're not supposed to understand why this is is, but being asked to accept this without questioning it, frankly, is something I can't do. Others manage to find some peace and comfort by rationalizing God's choice, and I never make fun of others' faith. All I want from them is to engage in a respectful discussion about it now and then, and see if I can gain new insights from the exchange that will help me to figure life out.

i read your link, TK, and I'll give it some thought. Thanks.--DinsdaleP 16:36, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Congratulations

I see you are now among the denizens of the night zone, Rick! --₮K^/Talk! 00:48, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you to Mr. Schlafly. I'm not very good expressing my thanks. Almost always say or do something akward on such occasions. Thanks for noticing, TK! --RickD 11:47, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Fundamentalism

Thanks for your fascinating work on fundamentalism. I've learned insights from it.--aschlafly 20:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

You're welcome. And thanks for the CP! I've learned many, many insights from CP—and continue to do so. --RickD 21:05, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Language

Please be careful with the name-calling. --KotomiT^{ohayougozaimasu} 09:49, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, like this crack. I need you to review Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks and tell me what you think of it before you make any more comments on article talk pages. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:48, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I think it is a source of goodness. I don't think asking if someone is of a certain political disposition is a crack, especially when there is evidence to support it. --RickD 14:53, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Christmas Campaign

Thank you for participating in the Christmas Campaign. Here is the Campaign medal. God bless, Geoff Plourde^Complain! 02:03, 10 January 2009 (EST)

SMON

I'm not too sure why you undid my edits. Here's what I'm trying to improve:

• For a decade and a half the Japanese public and its medical doctors were lead to believe it to be an infectious disease by overzealous virus hunters. Caused by overzealous virus hunters maybe? As it currently stands it is a somewhat ambiguous statement. I think you may be hinting at an autoimmune disorder. If so, just state that they thought it was an AI disorder if you can find a cite for it. I cannot.
• Eventually, it was realized that doctors were accidentally causing the disease each time them prescribed the medication clioquinol. First off, there's a typo that I tried to fix that you undid. Second, it didn't happen everytime they prescribed the medication. I would recommend changing it to "Eventually, the cause of the disease was found to be administration of the drug clioquinol." The meaning stays the same, and it's more concise. Throw the word "doctor" in there if you're really bent on blaming someone.

I'm not trying to sabotage this article, I'm merely attempting to insert factual information, as well as make it more concise.

Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 11:44, 12 January 2009 (EST)

• Scientists like Duesberg believe the influence, motives, and ideas of the SMON's reseachers parallels those working on the HIV/AIDS model. Deusberg believes an autoimmune disorder as a cause for AIDS has fatal flaws. It's unlikely that he would have picked SMON as an example if it had been thought to be caused by an auto-immune disorder. Also I'm not intent on blaming someone and I'm throwing doctor in anywhere. I am simply trying to make the situation clear and without textbook-like obfuscation. --RickD 15:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Why are you bringing Deusberg into this? When did I ever mention AIDS? I'm just trying to help you out with an article, I didn't mean to throw anything behind this. What of my proposed changes? Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 15:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

So far I don't find explaining myself to you very helpful. I don't think your changes are improvements. And I do think there is something behind this" and that you are intent on some form of sabotage. --RickD 15:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I have no malicious intent, Rick. I'm sorry if I've led you to believe that I have. I don't want to edit war with you, I merely wish to have the material reflect the given information. The last edit I made was meant to be a compromise. It doesn't reflect exactly what I'd like it to say, but I'd like to meet you halfway with this. Let me know what you think. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 16:28, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Robert L. Gibbs

I invite you to cooperate and actually add content, meaningful content, about Gibbs, rather than leave the mis-spelled, horrid little tract you have. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 14:38, 3 March 2009 (EST)

"Libtards"

Mr. Schlafly and several admins have already stated in the past the "Urban Dictionary" is smutty, and not appropriate. I invite you to add substantial content, and not pander to certain phrases and topics you think will curry favor, be received favorably. I hope you understand where I am coming from. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 16:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)