Conservapedia is probably the only place on the internet with a zero tolerance policy for rudeness and trolling.
- 1 For Conservapedia's Critics
- 2 What's great about Conservapedia
- 3 I've just been granted blocking rights
- 4 Essays Created
- 5 Opinions
For Conservapedia's Critics
- You only think someone is "biased" when their bias is different from yours
- You only think of something as "propaganda" when it promotes an ideology you don't like
- You only think people are being "indoctrinated" when people are being educated in a way that teaches them things you don't like
The reality is you have a bias, you like propaganda that supports your own ideology, and the way you teach your ideology to others is indoctrination.
Also, whoever that troll is who keeps making sock accounts boasting about being an ex-Navy SEAL, we know that's from an overused copypasta, and you don't intimidate us.
What's great about Conservapedia
This is a place where rules apply. Rules governing civility and decorum are strictly enforced, and those who break them are quickly blocked, making this one of the few places on the internet where socially inappropriate behavior has consequences. As a result, Conservapedia is the cleanest, most civilized, and morally upstanding place on the internet.
I've just been granted blocking rights
I vow to use these privileges to keep this site free from vandalism and trolling.
- Essay:Virtue: Christian vs secular
- Essay:Great Conservative Media Hated by Liberal Critics
- Essay:Counter-cultural Christianity
- Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism
- Essay:What Conservative Americans ACTUALLY Think about Immigrants
- Essay:Why Christianity is incompatible with Liberalism
- Essay:Great Moments in Otherwise Liberal Media
- Essay:Media with female protagonists that ISN'T woke
- Essay:How Liberals Kill Intelligent Discussion
- Mystery:Are Conservatives the Only Sane People Left in The World?
- Essay:Tactless "Christian" vs. Tactful Christian
DISCLAIMER: These are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of Conservapedia, it's Sysops (for example, Northwest is Catholic), or administrators.
I believe in God the Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth, in Jesus Christ, his only Son, and in the virgin birth. I believe that Jesus did all the work that was necessary for our Salvation and that nothing we do has any bearing on it (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3 and 4 with emphasis on 3:27-28 and 4:1-5).
There are many great conservative Catholics, such as Abby Johnson, Former Planned Parenthood Clinic director and Lila Rose, President and founder of Live Action. Nevertheless, I have extreme misgivings about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and many of the things its priesthood and Magisterium have done.
Why I will never be Roman Catholic
It's frightening to think that so many Catholics have trusted in the sacraments to save them rather than Christ (See "Talking with Catholic Friends and Family" by former Roman Catholic James G. McCarthy starting on page 55). Paul said in Ephesians 2:9, Romans 3:27, and Romans 4:2, no one can boast about the things that they do to merit Eternal Life. Paul teaches in Romans 4:4 that anything that is earned by works and deeds is not a gift (which Salvation is described in Ephesians 2:8) and in Romans 11:6, Paul teaches that if you add works to grace, it is by definition no longer grace. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, defines "grace" something that is quantifiable and increases through works such as good deeds and the sacraments, and decreases with sin. Isaiah 64:6 reveals that God considers any works we do as useless "filthy rags" when it comes to our standing.
In Catholicism, there is no sense of becoming a wholly "new creation" as outlined in 2 Corinthians 5:17, rather, they are the same person with sins removed by a priest in a temporary state of righteousness until they sin again.
Dataclarifier posted a copied article in which a Catholic priest says "St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators." While I agree with the intercessory prayer part. I do not see that as commanding churches to set up the confession booths with the "forgive me father for I have sinned..." and the "pray the Rosary 5 times and do 3 Hail Marys..." Hardon also says "And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world." Exactly, but Catholics get it in their minds that they can't be forgiven without a priest to do the confession rite. Yes, Christ does use his body to communicate, there is no conflict with what Protestants believe there. "What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow." 1 Corinthians 3:5-6 A priest, however, makes himself more than a mere servant, actually having a level of supernatural control over the penitent's forgiveness and being able to declare what they must do to have their sin removed. Richard Bennett understood this when he used to take confessions and never tried get around it the way Hardon does.
We do not "misinterpret" or "misrepresent" Catholicism, we merely analyze what it's practices logically imply and are confused by the mental gymnastics done by Catholic apologists.
As This video says "Most, if not all, that happens to us when we receive Christ would be invalidated if salvation could be lost." Ultimately, a Catholic's salvation is dependent on continuous participation in Church rites and rituals, not on being Born Again or a new creation. I am not the best debater, there are men who are much wiser than I. I merely wish to articulate my beliefs. I have also heard many Catholics deny that the Bible was ever denied to the common people despite ‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ From the council of Toulouse in 1229 
Catholic Conservapedians have NOT shaken my faith
Dataclarifier boasted that I gave a "hot" response because "the truth hurts." the only thing that bothers me about that is his own hubris. Most of the canards that Catholic Conservapedians throw around are ones that I've heard and heard debunked a thousand times before. The fact is, plenty of Protestants have read the Bible from cover-to-cover and have answers to all of the proof texts that Catholic apologists attempt to use and most of what DC has attempted to use are ones that they would have never even considered as supporting Catholic doctrine until someone like DC says it does. Most of the proof texts do not directly describe a Catholic concept, but have more general language that they have twisted to make an ad hoc argument. This video strengthened my faith even more. Even though Richard Bennett was a Catholic priest for over 20 years he can see the obvious contradictions between Catholic doctrine and scripture and doesn't dance around it, or attempt ad hoc justifications.
The Roman Catholic Church's dark history and present evil
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has committed many atrocities throughout its history, and the Magisterium continues to cover up sin in the priesthood today with all of the abuse scandals. For more information, see "Catholicism: East of Eden" by former Roman Catholic priest Richard Bennett.
Hebrews 7:27 "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." This is in contrast to the high priests of the Old Covenant who needed to perform offerings repeatedly to cover sins, which is what the Catholic Church does. Your attempts at mental gymnastics about an "ongoing sacrifice" make no logical sense. It's flawed ad hoc reasoning designed to rescue unbiblical Catholic doctrine. Also, Galatians 1:8 says "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" No, do NOT just blindly obey church authority, fact check spiritual leaders like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11: "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Dataclarifier and other Catholics have in the past made the usual Catholic boast that they've been "practicing the same faith for 2000 years" and "what you practice has only been around for 500 years" and calling objections to their positions "the gates of Hell." Dataclarifier also called Rob "crazy" and said that his mom also thinks Rob is "crazy," so there is definitely vitriol on both sides. Understand that Rob comes from a Catholic family and he had a bad falling out when he left the Catholic Church. Regardless of what you feel, you're better off letting things go. You can't change it, and you'll only make things worse. Conservative have made it clear that they want both sides to stop the back-and-forth about this matter, and that means you too. If you won't, I WILL block you again. It's the real reason I blocked you before. Conservative have warned everybody about this (yes, RobSmith too). In fact, my recent message to Conservative was in response to something that Rob started, not the Catholics (yes, I do notice when Rob is in the wrong sometimes). The Catholics, unfortunately, took Rob's bait and started the back-and-forth again. I only wanted for Conservative to respond, but you came in and accused me of "stifling debate" and that started another back-and-forth, even though it wasn't about stifling debate, but rather moving it to the appropriate pages.
Rob has seniority over me, so I can't block him or control what he does, but the Conservative guys are intervening and trying to keep him in check. Just let it go and leave Rob alone.
You seem to have lots of pent-up anger about Catholics because of bad experiences that you had, but I suggest you abide by Conservative's wishes and keep things off the talk pages.
I am in strong disagreement with the tone of the video game article. I grew up on the NES, then to the Super Nintendo and onward. I remember the video game controversy of the 90s and how older adults who did not play and had limited knowledge of video games were complaining that they were "too violent." I later learned that the controversy resulted in Senate hearings headed by Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl (both Democrats) who were making a strong argument for legislating video games and showed a very strong ignorance of the medium. For example, they used the game "Lethal Enforcers" by Konami as one of these "violent games." However, Lethal Enforcers is a light-gun rail shooter in which the player plays the role of a law enforcement officer shooting at armed criminals who taunt and shoot at the player. Meanwhile, innocent bystanders in fear of their lives say "don't shoot!" and "help me!" Sometimes, the criminals even take bystanders hostage. Overall, it creates a situation which real life law enforcement officers find themselves in: being caught in a shootout with criminals where innocent bystanders are around. In such a situation, police must stop the criminals while protecting the public. This kind of action is reflected in the game by its scoring system: players are rewarded for high accuracy and severely penalized for any innocent victims that are killed. A players rank is advanced at the end of each level based off of the players score, however players can be demoted for killing innocent victims. Far from promoting senseless violence, it promotes the use of control and restraint which many real life law enforcement must show in any situation in which they are required to use deadly force.