User talk:Learn Together
Yes, I am Learn Together on CP. You guys were mocking some of my stuff, so I thought I better come on over and get the record cleared up. ;-) Learn Together 03:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
You do know
don't cha, that anybody could type in "SSchultz" to create an account here. So, it might not be me, though, we both know it IS.SSchultz 03:18, 21 November 2007 (EST)
On Fox's quitting, and such.
Over on CP, in the ensuing foofaraw, you said: Perhaps if Andy sees respectful behavior from those who don't agree with him instead of reinforcing the negative stereotypes he writes about, you would a gradual change in the overall demeanor and content of those few areas that you do find controversial. Considering how much respect he gives those deceitful Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberals, and that his "negative stereotype" consists of people trying to use facts to show him he's wrong and then getting banned for it, I'm not really seeing why he deserves any respect at all, except in an probably futile effort to avoid bannination. He's made it abundantly clear that he thinks liberalism is the source of all evil in the world, and I sincerely doubt anyone or anything short of Jesus Christ Himself returning to earth and endorsing Barack Obama could possibly change that. --Gulik 14:03, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- If you can't respect Andy, then respect the site. What does Andy see? A constant string of vandalism and "new" users who hone in directly for the controversial, and sometimes difficult to find, subjects. That's not going to help him to change his mind about you, is it? Learn Together 14:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- I am curious, do you believe that someone who accepts everything that is written on Conservapedia is the Truth is being presented a fair picture? --Shagie 14:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- With all due respect, Together, the site is Andy for all intents and purposes. Unlike Wikipedia, or RW, he is the sole source of power and the ultimate judge in every decision. He turns on conservatives who have productively and honestly labored to improve the site as quickly and sharply as he bans a liberal for trying to engage in honest discussion and factual editing of articles. He enforces his party line of pet beliefs and petty resentments so strictly that there is no escaping the fact that CP is a microscosm of the theocracy he would like to impose on us all. PoorEd 14:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- Hrm, aren't they only following the example set? Almost all the attention is given to "controversial" articles. Andy and his Liberals, Conservative and his Homosexuals, various editors on Christianity and Creation. Conservapedia has very few articles on mundane topics, at least those which aren't copied from US government resources. --Jeєv☭sYour signature gave me epilepsy... 14:43, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- And would you suggest that the site should not be judged by the worst of the articles, many of which follow Andy's party line of demonizing liberals with a complete disregard for facts, or decorum? Any article to which his name is attached is representative of what CP most truly represents. PoorEd 14:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- Alternatively, one could identify the 'best of the articles' written by each of the sysops that represent the site. For each sysop, pick three articles where that sysop has contributed the majority of the edits, or sysops as a whole have contributed the plurality of edits. Then, we could look at the example that is being set for other users. --Shagie 15:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- Part of the reason Andy sees "a constant string of vandalism" is because he defines "vandalism" as "anything anyone says that suggests that I might be wrong about anything". And if he and his catamites were a little lighter on the banhammer, maybe you wouldn't see so many "new" users. (I should point out that I currently only have one sock on CP. Trying to wedge a few facts in there just isn't worth the effort...) --Gulik 15:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Pagan vs Heretics
- While gnostics had a wide umbrella as far as beliefs, they followed ancient Greek thought in regard to the divine and are considered to be pagan. They tried to sweep up Christianity under that umbrella, but it didn't fit and they met resistance.
However, they did preach heretical messages as defined by the branch of the early Christian church that would later become the orthodox church.
- They preached heretical messages to those who knew Jesus. Their message would never match Christianity unless Christianity itself changed.
If you are interested in a scholarly approach to the early bible and what is not there, I would suggest reading http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scriptures-Books-that-Testament/dp/0195182502/ and http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ which goes into the early church and what is known about it. If you are unable to get these two yourself for whatever reason and want to read them, make a wish list and link it here, I would be happy to get them for you. --Shagie 14:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- I have followed the scholarly approach for over 2 decades of study. While I don't know the specifics those books will bring up, most usually deal with conspiracy theories as the only way to wipe the slate clean and recreate it as they wish. Simply taking the record, as written, doesn't work.Learn Together 19:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- The only diference between a Christian and a gnostic is that one group within one branch of the church made the decision to brand their beliefs heresy, and had the authority and power to enforce it. Augustine imposed his own interpretations on the early church, branded other Chrisitans heretics, and with the power of his alliance with the Roman imperial government, had them exiled, punished or worse. PoorEd 14:46, 14 March 2008 (EDT)