Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:DeanS

2008-08-23T03:52:34Z

JosephG: /* Wikinews Project */ new section

Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:What do you mean by "protect better" Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks, Bro! ==

I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, "sigh".--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Welcome==

Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]

:Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Christian solidarity==

Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks and a request or two. ==

Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase "seducing a child" - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pre-screening of News stories==

Just curious - why the "No article prescreening" policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.

:I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.

::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - "Unitarian/Universalist" is probably closer than "Agnostic", but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself.

::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the "feel" of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors.

::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Dinsdale, You said, "I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen". What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&diff=prev&oldid=502069 "... I'd be glad to participate in article screening..."]

:::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.

:::I find very little of the "respectful disagreement" from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.

:::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was "I'd be glad to participate in article screening but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project." Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Didn't mean to step on toes==
I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his "line in the sand" in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can "let the majority vote" (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I guess I don't understand what "liberal bias" is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Wikinews==
DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502572&oldid=502384 corrected].

:The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502578&oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank you!==
For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.

:Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful <nowiki>[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]</nowiki> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&diff=prev&oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You for the Unblock==

I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews Project ==

Mr. DeanS,

Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.

--[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Wikiproject:News

2008-08-19T05:04:48Z

JosephG:

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==Members==
''If you are a liberal, or are offended by the news articles on the Main Page, do NOT sign up.'' We are not going to put liberal items on the Main Page, so your suggestions will be ignored and you will be removed from this project. To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

Since Conservapedia administrators have edit rights to the "In the news" section of the Main Page, Admins are automatically members of Wikiproject:News and do not need to sign up.

* [[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 10:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:AgnethaF|AgnethaF]] 14:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 10:52, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:QWest|QWest]] 22:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
* --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 01:04, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

==Subprojects==

===In the news===
This subsection is for suggestions for the "In the news" section of the Main Page. The news section is '''not''' trying to be unbiased. News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views.

[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. Make your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]].

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Wikiproject:News

2008-08-19T02:44:41Z

JosephG: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==Members==
''If you are a liberal, or are offended by the news articles on the Main Page, do NOT sign up.'' We are not going to put liberal items on the Main Page, so your suggestions will be ignored and you will be removed from this project. To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

Since Conservapedia administrators have edit rights to the "In the news" section of the Main Page, Admins are automatically members of Wikiproject:News and do not need to sign up.

* [[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 10:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:AgnethaF|AgnethaF]] 14:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 10:52, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:QWest|QWest]] 22:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 22:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

==Subprojects==

===In the news===
This subsection is for suggestions for the "In the news" section of the Main Page. The news section is '''not''' trying to be unbiased. News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views.

[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. Make your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]].

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Talk:Geranium

2008-08-18T19:16:25Z

JosephG:

GeraNium?

What exactly does "tropics to the ocean" mean? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 06:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

How can the mistakes or vandalism like this remain on this tiny article for so long? Over 380 visits - including Aschlafly himself! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:12, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Mr. AlanE,

It can happen quite easily. My friend got banned the other day for a page that I made with his username a couple months back. Made some racist comments in it, and the sysop who deleted it was indignant that someone could actually expect an article like that to last. Well it did. Heh. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 15:16, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Lizard

2008-08-18T18:19:08Z

JosephG: New page: Lizards were created by God on the sixth day of the Creation.

Lizards were created by God on the sixth day of the Creation.

Quotient

2008-08-18T18:13:10Z

JosephG: New page: In mathematics, a quotient is the result of the process of division.

In mathematics, a quotient is the result of the process of division.

Seven Deadly Sins

2008-06-22T03:23:14Z

JosephG:

The '''Seven Deadly Sins''' are:

*[[Pride (sin)|Pride]] (or Vainglory)

*[[Envy (sin)|Envy]]

*[[Gluttony]]

*[[Lust]]

*[[Wrath|Anger]]

*[[Greed|Avarice]] (or Covetousness)

*[[Sloth (sin)|Sloth]] (or Acedia)

Each sin had a different punishment allotted to it in [[Hell]].

== External link ==

[http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/history.html A brief history of sin]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-06-22T03:21:54Z

JosephG:

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Ars disputandi

2008-06-21T22:17:16Z

JosephG:

'''Ars Disputandi''' is an [[online]] journal of theological [[philosophy]].<ref>http://www.arsdisputandi.org/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:philosophy]]

Ars disputandi

2008-06-21T22:16:47Z

JosephG:

[[Link title]]'''Ars Disputandi''' is an [[online]] journal of theological [[philosophy]].<ref>http://www.arsdisputandi.org/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:philosophy]]

User talk:Ultimahero

2008-06-21T21:01:36Z

JosephG: /* Catholics */

==Debate==
Please quit wasting time doing debate and related edits and instead do quality edits to articles -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

It is okay to debate but more than 90% of your edits should not be talk see [[90/10 rule]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:30, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Roman Catholic Church==
Why do you believe that Catholics are only pretending to be Christians? I am a Catholic and I certainly consider myself a Christian. I understand that you may interpret the Bible differently from myself, but I consider that belief to be offensive and manifestly untrue.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:37, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Never said that. Never said that Catholics "pretend" to be Christian. That implies that they knowingly lie about their faith, which I don't believe they do. I bet most Roman Catholics really do believe they are Christians, and I wouldn't doubt that some of them actually are. But that would be despite the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it. What I said is that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. Their official church theology is un-Biblical. (Prayer to Mary, Baptism necessary for salvation, being infused with grace so that you can work out your own salvation, etc.) As far as you go, I don’t claim to know whether your saved or not. You would have to explain what your thoughts are on how to be saved for me to be able to offer an opinion. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:18, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I am slightly confused about your distinction between someone who believes he is a Christian and someone who actually is. I maintain that Christianity is about an individual's personal beliefs and personal spirituality, not the degree to which he or she is able to absorb the decrees of others regarding Biblical interpretation. I believe that the Bible must be understood in its proper historical, cultural, and literary contexts before it can be understood in terms of its spiritual implications. When faced with the inevitable fact that the Bible is a compilation of a number of different perspectives and that it contains certain internal contradictions, I believe that we must look beyond minutiae and focus on the bigger picture. One of the most salient ideas in the Bible is that of God's ultimate goodness, infinite love, and utterly unknowable nature. Such an omnibenevolent God would never condemn those who have chosen an "incorrect" path in life. A God that punishes and smites the souls of his own children is one that I cannot bring myself to believe in, and one that I believe is a superposition of Man's own primal instincts onto the realm of the spiritual and the unknown. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

The distinction between a person who thinks that he is saved (or is a Christian) and a person who actually is saved is Jesus. The truly saved person has Christ, the unsaved person doesn’t. There are lots of “spiritual” people. That doesn’t mean that they are saved. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. would all claim to have a spiritual aspect in their life. Unfortunately, that won’t save them. According to the Bible, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by Him. (John 14:6.) So, from a Christian standpoint and a Christian understanding of God, then anyone who doesn’t accept Christ is going to go to Hell.

The Bible is many different works; 66 books to be exact. But they are all inspired by God and contain no contradictions. Actually, I suppose I should claim this to be more accurate: The original manuscripts were perfect with no errors. As time went on and they were translated, a few copyist errors did creep in, but they were minimal at worst and did not effect the essential doctrines of the text. (Most copyist errors were grammatical, spelling errors, etc.) In fact, the Bible is 99.5% accurate in relation to the original.

I agree that God won’t punish his children. But the Bible says that His children are those who are saved. In fact, the Bible says that the sinful man’s father is the devil (John 8:44) and that the saved are God’s children through adoption (Romans 8:15).

Let me ask you something, though. You consider yourself a Christian, correct? Then how are you saved? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe that I am saved because of the ultimate goodness of God, as manifested in the sacrifice of Christ. I disagree with the notion that spiritual people are not saved. As I said earlier, an omnibenevolent God would not play games with those who were brought up from birth into a certain faith, even if that faith is not a specific sect of Christianity. Some would argue that other religions evolved from a sinful turning from God, and that these people are therefore living in sin. But if this is how they have lived all their lives, how would they know that their lifestyle is to be considered sinful? You might contend that this is the case because these people have not accepted the teaching of the Bible. But aside from faith, which is a value that was instilled in you at some point in your life, how do you know that the Bible is superior to any other religious text? Yes, the Bible maintains its own accuracy, but so does the Qu'ran. You believe that a Muslim will not be saved, but a Muslim would likely believe the same of you, because his faith tells him otherwise. Who is right? I believe that I can anticipate the answer.

You are right in saying that copyist errors do not affect the doctrines of the Bible. I was not referring to such phenomena; I was speaking of the fact that different parts of the Bible place emphasis on different ideas. A call to abstain from eating shellfish in Leviticus is not heeded by many Christian sects. The principle of "an eye for an eye" is seen by many to have been superseded by the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. To follow every part of the Bible literally would be quite difficult.

This is not the point. You may be able to illustrate your claims with specific Bible verses, but I am not contesting your knowledge of the Bible's text. I am contesting your claim that there is one way to read the Bible. Christianity is fundamentally about love and a person's own conception of and relationship to God. This is something that comes from within, not from what another may tell you. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 20:04, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It good that you say the sacrifice of Christ. That’s true. But, do you have to work for it or earn it in any way? Or is entirely dependent upon Jesus? Do you have to believe in Christ to be saved? Can you clearly lay it out for me?

A generic “spiritual” person is not saved, at least not according to the Bible. I guess you could argue that the Bible is not superior to other religious texts (which is something I would dispute) but, if that’s the case, then why are you a Christian? I mean, if one isn’t superior to another, then what does it matter?

Why is the Bible better than the Quran? Well, Muslims believe that the Quran is the perfect word of God and if any word of it is false, then the whole thing is false. (That’s the standard they hold.) But look at the contradictions in the Quran. “Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Qur'an 86:5-7). That is not accurate because the sperm is not located between the backbone ad ribs. It’s anatomically inaccurate, is therefore false, which means that all of Islam if wrong according to the very standards that Muslims hold. (One might argue that Christianity faces the same problems, but I would point out that we Christians don’t hold the Bible to that same standard.)

I already explained the whole shellfish point on the other page about that you mentioned it on. But, I’ll go ahead and re-make it just to be safe:

The law is split into three sections, civil, moral, and priestly. The priestly laws are no longer in effect because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: In the Old Testament, animal sacrifice was necessary for sins, but in the New Testament, Christ died once for all sins.) The civil laws (eating shellfish, that sort of thing) have to be understood in the context of a theocracy. Obviously, we don’t live in a theocracy now, so they aren’t applicable. The moral laws are based on the character and nature of God. Ex: Lying is wrong because God can’t lie. And because God doesn’t change, the moral laws never do either. They are still in effect. Also, we see that the civil and priestly laws aren’t reestablished in the New Testament, but the moral laws are.

Some Christians might ignore Christ’s teachings in His sermon on the mount, but that doesn’t really mean anything. Just because individuals put them at a low importance doesn’t necessarily make them unimportant. The worth of a Christian doctrine is established from the Bible, not any modern day teacher.

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the Scriptures. But, some things are clear. When Jesus says “I am the way the truth and the life, and no man come to the Father but by Me,” then I think that’s pretty clear. Some parts of the Bible may be on the ambiguous side, but not when it comes to salvation. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I am a Christian because I believe that following Jesus' call to love humanity and do good by everyone, including my enemies, is the right way for me to live. I believe that salvation is union with God, the nature and mechanics of which no living person is able to know. I believe that damnation is the opposite; separation from God. You ask whether the sacrifice of Christ is enough, whether I need to work for my eternal happiness. In the sense that some believe that we are judged by our individual deeds, no, I do not believe that we need works for salvation. But in the sense that we can simply believe that we are among an elite group of elect and not work to truly become united with the spirit of love that is God, yes, I do believe that we need to put forth individual spiritual effort. This is why spiritual people are saved; the sacrifice of Christ was for all humanity. When Christ says that no man may come to the Father but through him, he is referring to the fact that his act of sacrifice is the ultimate embodiment of the love that every person must have for every other person. The Christian author C.S. Lewis wrote in one of his allegorical Narnia books that those who live in the name of Tash (a symbol for Satan) but live righteously truly live in the name of Aslan (a symbol for Christ). Some may implictly reject Christ in name, while unaware that they are living in a way that Christ would want them to live (minus such details as whether or not we pray to Mary), and in fact are accepting His message.

As for the Qu'ran, it would seem that if it were that simple to negate its validity, then no Muslim would still follow its teachings. Of course it is evident that sperm does not originate between the ribs and the backbones, but we are looking at this in a highly literal way. Perhaps the intent was more poetic. What is actually located between the ribs and the backbone? The heart. What if the intent was to show that Man is created from a drop of a substance far more precious than semen - love. What if it intended to show that a human life is born out of the essence of its father, out of his very heart? What beautiful poetry!
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:00, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

You say that spiritual people will be saved, regardless of whether they believe in Christ or not. You seem to be presenting Universalism, which states that all people will be saved. This is absolutely un-Biblical. People are going to go to Hell. That’s why Jesus said in Matthew 7:13,14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” The path to destruction is wide and many people will find it! A lot of people are going to go to Hell, according to Scripture. This is what was meant when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man come to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6) The people who will be saved are those who trust in Jesus and what He has done. Anyone outside that camp, no matter how spiritual, will enter the broad path to destruction.

We are saved because of what Jesus did on the cross. He died for sins, and we have to put our faith in Him. That’s why Ephesians 2:8,9 says that we are saved by “grace through faith”, and why Romans 5:1 says that we are justified by faith. Faith is only as good as what you put it in. If you put your faith in anything other than Jesus, then your lost. Only those who trust Christ will be saved. That is the clear teaching of Scripture.

I don’t know what context C.S. Lewis was speaking in, but even if he did say that and mean it that way, so what? He doesn’t get to determine how people are saved. The Scriptures do. They tell us how we can be saved. Read God’s word.

And the Muslim quote is in a context of sperm, not a poetical allusion to the heart. But, even if it’s not, there are still plenty of problems with Islam. And Muslims who don’t trust Christ will go to Hell.

I know it’s not pleasant, but that’s the truth. That’s why we are told to go and spread the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) to all people. So that they can hear it and have an opportunity to be saved. You have to put your faith in Christ, or your lost. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your views. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 15:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not my view, it's the view from the Bible. You have to trust Christ. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I fully understand the stock you place in Biblical authority. I was attempting to end our discussion on a note of civil disagreement. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. God bless, my friend. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

== The problem of hell ==

Good comments. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 05:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Catholics ==

Mr. Ultimahero,

I have to say that I share your disdain for Catholics. Some of their ideas are so silly, and it seems ridiculous that they have the audacity to call themselves Christians. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree that they are genuinely nice people, but being genuinely nice doesn't mean you get to be saved! --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 17:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Ultimahero

2008-06-18T21:21:30Z

JosephG:

Hyper-Calvinism

2008-06-17T21:36:19Z

JosephG: New page: Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His own divine will, and that no human works can affect whether or not a person will be saved. It is generally considered to ...

Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His own divine will, and that no human works can affect whether or not a person will be saved. It is generally considered to be outside the mainstream of Christian theology, although there is a great deal of Biblical support for its tenets. Its lack of widespread acceptance does not negate its validity as an acceptable Christian doctrine. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html</ref>