Difference between revisions of "User talk:MAVE182"
ZackMartin (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Mave182, the fact is that there are many different understandings as to what "Christian" means, and whether Obama is a "Christian" or not depends on which definition of "Christian" you choose. Obviously, you have chosen one definition, the majority viewpoint on this site has chosen another. I think if you want to participate here, you are better off looking for places where you agree with the consensus of this site than trying to fight against it. I personally disagree with the consensus of this site on a lot of issues, but I don't see starting a dispute over them as being beneficial; I prefer to ask, ''What do I and this site have in common?'' - focus on the agreements not the disagreements. Or, if you really want to challenge the consensus, I think you will need to do a much better job than what you have been doing, just linking to a few pages of talking points, and failing to address the real issue, which is different understandings of what actually constitutes Christianity - on the one hand there is the viewpoint that "if they call themselves Christians they must be Christians", which is a secular understanding of Christianity; on the other hand we have the theological understanding of Christianity, where there are certain essential beliefs, and if one fails to hold to those beliefs, one is not a Christian, even if one calls oneself one. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 22:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT) | Mave182, the fact is that there are many different understandings as to what "Christian" means, and whether Obama is a "Christian" or not depends on which definition of "Christian" you choose. Obviously, you have chosen one definition, the majority viewpoint on this site has chosen another. I think if you want to participate here, you are better off looking for places where you agree with the consensus of this site than trying to fight against it. I personally disagree with the consensus of this site on a lot of issues, but I don't see starting a dispute over them as being beneficial; I prefer to ask, ''What do I and this site have in common?'' - focus on the agreements not the disagreements. Or, if you really want to challenge the consensus, I think you will need to do a much better job than what you have been doing, just linking to a few pages of talking points, and failing to address the real issue, which is different understandings of what actually constitutes Christianity - on the one hand there is the viewpoint that "if they call themselves Christians they must be Christians", which is a secular understanding of Christianity; on the other hand we have the theological understanding of Christianity, where there are certain essential beliefs, and if one fails to hold to those beliefs, one is not a Christian, even if one calls oneself one. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 22:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | One Question. Who are you to determine what constitutes Christianity? Obama has just as much a right to be considered Christian as you or I. And if the entire point of this website is truth and backing it up with evidence, why is what I'm doing not accomplishing that? --[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 17:27, 3 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:27, July 3, 2011
Welcome!
Hello, MAVE182, 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, MAVE182!
Hi Mave! I would suggest edits to the Obama page (like I just reverted) should be first taken up on the talkpage. Thanks and welcome! MaxFletcher 21:19, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
- Mave182, a few mass visits, black liberation theology, invitation for atheists to join WH Faith-based initiatives, no baptism record and much more secrecy. The refs just don't legitimize Obama's faux Christianity. --Jpatt 21:33, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Mave182, the fact is that there are many different understandings as to what "Christian" means, and whether Obama is a "Christian" or not depends on which definition of "Christian" you choose. Obviously, you have chosen one definition, the majority viewpoint on this site has chosen another. I think if you want to participate here, you are better off looking for places where you agree with the consensus of this site than trying to fight against it. I personally disagree with the consensus of this site on a lot of issues, but I don't see starting a dispute over them as being beneficial; I prefer to ask, What do I and this site have in common? - focus on the agreements not the disagreements. Or, if you really want to challenge the consensus, I think you will need to do a much better job than what you have been doing, just linking to a few pages of talking points, and failing to address the real issue, which is different understandings of what actually constitutes Christianity - on the one hand there is the viewpoint that "if they call themselves Christians they must be Christians", which is a secular understanding of Christianity; on the other hand we have the theological understanding of Christianity, where there are certain essential beliefs, and if one fails to hold to those beliefs, one is not a Christian, even if one calls oneself one. Maratrean 22:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
One Question. Who are you to determine what constitutes Christianity? Obama has just as much a right to be considered Christian as you or I. And if the entire point of this website is truth and backing it up with evidence, why is what I'm doing not accomplishing that? --MAVE182 17:27, 3 July 2011 (EDT)