Solifugae

Welcome

Hello Solifugae, and welcome to wikipedia!I hope you enjoy yourself. here are links for newcomers

• The five pillars of Wikipedia

• How to edit a page

• Help pages

• Tutorial

• How to write a great article

• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.again, welcome to wikipedia-Abomasnow (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Alberto Rivera appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. __meco (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to the page Talk:Alberto Rivera constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policies

There are several wikipedia policies that you are ignoring in your edits to the alberto rivera article and it's accompanied talk page. I highly suggest you read up on said policies so that you will not be continuing to violate them in the future, as doing so can and will get you blocked from editing for uncivil behavior. Farsight001 (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm going to use wiki policies against you. The rules are there for a reason. You don't get to ignore them just because you really really really want to. So yes, I will apply wiki policy and continue to delete your article vandalism. I will also point out that you just threatened me on my own talk page, which is a HUGE violation of policy as well. Plus, there is no evidence that those pictures are actually of Rivera, or that those other people in them are Catholics as you would caption them. Those pictures of the letter I removed because they are extremely large, and thus not to be place in articles - again, in accord with wiki policy. Furthermore, you should read WP:NPOV, which does NOT state that both sides of a story should be given equal weight as you wish to think. That would be NO point of view. But on wiki, we have a NEUTRAL point of view. This means that if 99% of people think he's a fraud, then 99% of the article explains how he is a fraud, and only 1% in defense of him. So in reality, since well over 99% of people know he's a crook, this article is really rather biased on YOUR side. Thank you for pointing that out to me and I will be sure to remedy it in the future by trimming down the sections made in defense of Rivera a bit.Farsight001 (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - removing text from a talk page, as you did to my talk page, is another violation of wiki policy. Editors are not even supposed to remove text from their own pages! Don't worry. I put it back in already. Evidence gets to stay evidence. Farsight001 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

Just an fyi - from 1200 to 1800, there were only about 30 million people living in all of Europe, so the 68 million figure you added to the article is impossible. It's a common mistake. I've heard numbers all the way to 100 million, but you can't kill more people than there are alive. Scholarly estimates put it at under 10,000. Farsight001 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we do know how many people lived then. It's not an exact count, but no one can provide an exact count even today. The most accurate estimation, as I already said, was 30 million. Also - the obelisk is a historical artifact. There used to be an orb on top of it said to contain caeser's ashes, but that has since been removed and replaced with a cross, symbolizing that God conquers all. Is it pagan in origin? Yes. But so is the cross itself, and yet every Christian uses it. The origins of an object hardly matter. Is it used in pagan practices today? No. It's just a piece of the history of mankind that the Church sought to preserve. Farsight001 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you know that crosses were once used in pagan practices, then why do you use them? And if you can use something that was once pagan in religious way, you have no right to criticize us for having a Obelisk for the sole purpose of preserving human history. I don't know what the Masons have to do with this, but you get automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church for becoming a Mason.

My Catholic bible, which I JUST looked in certainly DOES have that verse and it certainly does NOT contradict Catholic doctrine, but you wouldn't know that because you have already demonstrated multiple times that you have zero comprehension of Catholic teachings. Not everyone goes to purgatory, you do NOT necessarily need works, and it is the grace of God ALONE that saves every person. Plus, if you think purgatory is only supported by the apocrypha, then you are sorely mistaken. Verses used to support it's existence include Matthew 5:48, 5:26, 12:32, 12:36, Hebrews 12:14, James 3:2, 1:14-15, Revelation 21:27, 1 John 5:16-17, 2 Samuel 12:13-14, 1 Corinthians 3:15, 15:29-30, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6, and 2 Timothy 1:16-18, among others.

Were you also under the false impression that Catholics do not or are forbidden to read their bibles? We never were and many of us do it daily. Furthermore, we have been studying scripture for the bare minimum of 1200 years longer than whatever denomination you are - it doesn't matter which, the statement remains true. Do you honestly think that we're still ignorant of scripture? That's kind of like a newlywed trying to tell a couple that's been married 50 years how to have a successful marriage.

Did it not occur to you, in all your time following Jack Chick, that just maybe HE is the evil entity, and not the Church? The man clearly doesn't speak truth regarding Catholic doctrine, and any Egyptologist will tell you that his Egyptian mythology is severely lacking. Can it not be he is lying about everything else too? Farsight001 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Well, the sacraments (ALL of them) can be found in the bible. What you ultimately object to is the funny name we've given them, which is no valid objection at all.

2. The obelisk is no male sex organ. Again - Jack Chick's comprehension of mythology is severely lacking. What I mean by that is that you shouldn't trust a single thing he says on the subject. But frankly, even if it was made to symbolize a male sex organ, it doesn't matter. Just like we don't care what the cross WAS used for or what other people use it for, we shouldn't care what the obelisk WAS used for or what others use it for. What matters is OUR intention in keeping it. Can you find fault with the desire to preserve the history of humanity? No? Then there's no problem.

3. Again you mention the masons. If a Catholic becomes a mason, they are automatically excommunicated, like I already said. So what the masons do is no reflection on the Catholic Church.

4. That you didn't find Acts 8:37 in your catholic bible tells me either that what you think is a Catholic bible is not or that you are lying. I checked both a NAB(the version we use in church), a Douay-Rheims(the English translation that precedes even the KJV), and an RSV(the version considered by scholars to be the most accurate translation). ALL of them have Acts 8:37.

5. I just read the whole of Matthew five and I don't really see how it applies. I noticed Matthew 5:11 - "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake", which gives me hope in the face of Chick's persecution of and lies about the Church. I also noticed verse 44 which says "But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you", indicating to me how extremely un-Christian Chick is being how he hates and not loves his enemies.

6. William Schnoebelin does not make me angry. Frankly, I don't see why it would. He was studying to become a priest, then he got into the occult and turned away from God. And that means what? I personally know people who were turned away from God simply by reading the bible. Just about anything can turn just about anyone away from God if it is used improperly. You blame Catholicism for his falling because you want to blame it. You have no logical reason to, but you do it anyway because Chick has taught you to do this - blame every evil on Catholicism. God wants you to love your neighbor AND love your enemy, yet all I see is you hating Catholicism. Please - come out of Jack Chick's web of lies and find the love of God. This is the reason you hate and not love, because you cannot give love if you do not already know God's love. Farsight001 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. It is true that loving your enemy does not just mean to agree with their beliefs or to remain silent. One must speak up against false beliefs. Simply doing so is not where the hatred lies. It is the WAY in which Jack Chick does it that reveals that it is hatred. The sensationalist attitude of his tracts, the expectation of blind faith in them, the complete and utter fabrication of ridiculous untruths (like the Jesuits starting Islam even though Islam existed more than 400 years before the Jesuits), as well as the way he says it reveal his hatred. Look at his tracts regarding Catholicism. Except for the few cases where the Catholic presented within "repents", every Catholic therein is a rotten excuse for a person. They are presented only as drunkards and pedophiles, chronic liars, deceivers, cheaters, etc, etc. The tracts are designed that way to incite fervent opposition in you when presented with Catholicism. I don't know of a single Catholic that's nearly as bad as Chick tries to make us all look in his tracts. That is how I know it is hatred and not love that motivates his action. It is possible to speak truth with hatred, and when people do that, they only strengthen the beliefs of the one they oppose. Truly, every Chick tract I read makes me MORE sure of Catholicism's truth, not less and I know of no Catholic that they've had the opposite effect on.

2. If you gave your Catholic bible away, how can you say you know that Acts 8:37 is not found within? If it is not there to look and check in, then you cannot know this. You can, however, find online copies of all of the versions I mentioned and see quite clearly that the verse IS there.

3. The Mehrheits text appears to be a German New Testament, not English bible and it is not in wide use. Nor do I find ANY indication that it is Catholic-approved. From what little I know of German (as all the websites referencing it are in German), it appears to be a translation of the Textus Receptus, which would explain why it might appear to be missing a verse, as the Textus, when found, was in very poor condition and missing some sections.

4. There is nothing behind Mary. There are some German words as a border, a church beneath her, and an odd curved section of ground with a few sprouts of grass growing out of it that she stands on. Nothing is behind her. Could you have provided the wrong picture by mistake?

5. While it is true that we give Mary the same title as that which is given to a pagan goddess in the bible, we do not consider them one and the same, nor is the goddess where the title came from. The title "queen of heaven" was thought up in the early church when the heresy that Jesus was fully human(and not divine) was becoming popular. In the face of the belief that Jesus was just a man, the church gave Mary the title queen of heaven. Now the queen in ancient times was the mother of, NOT the wife of the king. This is because polygamy was popular back then and you could only have one queen. Thus, to call her the queen of heaven means that she is the mother of the king. Were Jesus just a man, he could not be the king of heaven. So to declare Mary queen of heaven is to declare belief in Jesus' divinity. In short, Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Thus, Mary is the mother of God. God is the king of heaven. Thus, Mary is the mother of the king of heaven. The mother of the king is the queen. Thus, Mary is the queen of heaven. If Mary is not the queen, then either she is not the mother of Jesus(heresy), or Jesus is not divine(also heresy). This is why the title came about - to reaffirm Jesus' divinity in the face of growing dissent.

6. Catholicism does NOT mix pagan practices with Christianity. I explained this above already. The practices may have once been pagan, but like the cross, they are no longer. Nor does it matter what some pagans use it for. It only matters what WE as Christians use it for. Decorating a Christmas tree was once done to pay homage to a pagan god. Today, my family does it to bond and to grow in love for each other, which glorifies God. Had our intention been to pay homage to a pagan god, yes, there would be something gravely wrong with that. But that is not our purpose, just like using the formerly pagan cross in Christianity is not gravely wrong - because of the God-glorifying purpose behind it.

7. The Crusades were started in self defense against the Muslims and the Inquisitions were run almost entirely by the government and not the Church. Has the Catholic Church done some bad things in the past? Sure. But everyone has. Even buddhists have become violent before. Simply because an organization has sinned does not mean that it's teachings are wrong. In fact, Jesus tells the apostles that the pharisees, despite being hypocrites, are there by the will of God, and thus they should follow their teachings, but not their actions. That verse is actually where the phrase "do what they say, not what they do" comes from.

8. I don't think you swallow Chick's assertions without proof. I KNOW you do. He teaches that the Vatican has a "big computer" in it with the names, addresses, and other personal information of every protestant in the world on it. Setting aside the simple impossibility of this endeavor, even if all 1.1 billion Catholics helped, I still know you haven't seen any "big computer", and thus have no proof. If you believe it, then you believe without proof. If you think Chick is lying about this computer, then you cannot trust anything else he says either. Furthermore, yes, Chick quotes verses to support his arguments. However, do not forget that even Satan can quote scripture. The ability to quote scripture does not mean that one automatically understands the meaning of it.

9. Assuming that the story about the pendulum priest is true, so what? That reflects ONLY on him. To see one priest sin and think that every other priest is doing the same thing is truly silly. This is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned that the tracts were DESIGNED to incite you regarding Catholicism. You see one of us falling to witchcraft and you automatically assume the worst - that the rest of us are too. That is what Chick wants you to do and that is what he has designed his tracts to do. It is a virtue to assume GOOD faith with a person until proven otherwise. Do not assume that all priests do that. Assume that he is the only one that does, be a good Christian, and report him to the local bishop. (were he still around of course)

10. Of course a father who directs his child is better than a father who lets his child do whatever he wants. But Chick is not like a father directing his child. Chick is like a father berating, belittling, and verbally abusing not his own child, but someone else's. It is completely uncalled for - the way he does his "witnessing". The assertions can remain the same for as long as he wants, but while the attitude of his tracts remain, I will never heed a word he says.

11. Why would God not send a saved person to purgatory? Jesus quite clearly says, and I quote, "nothing unclean shall enter heaven". This means that we must be completely flawless before we enter heaven. If a person has genuine faith, they go to heaven. However, even with genuine faith, there can still be some sin, and sin is a flaw. That flaw MUST be removed before entering heaven because nothing unclean shall enter. The removing of this flaw, even if it only takes an instant, IS purgatory. Do you believe that flaws need not be removed before entering heaven? If so, then that goes against the bible, as I showed above. Do you believe that flaws do need to be removed before entering heaven? Then you accept purgatory in some form, no matter how much you don't want to. Farsight001 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Albertopriest.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Albertopriest.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Spanishletter-1-.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Spanishletter-1-.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jesuit meeting.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Jesuit meeting.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Englishletter-1-.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Englishletter-1-.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Albertoletter.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Albertoletter.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Purification after death is a logical necessity

Revelation 21:27 says that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven". This means that if you are imperfect in any way, with just one flaw, or one sin, you can't enter heaven. But since we are human, and by nature flawed, we are all unclean. So according to Revelation 21:27, if there is no place or state of purification, logically we all must go to hell and none go to heaven. If you want to believe that, I guess you can. But I'm going to stick with the idea that heaven is actually attainable and thus that purgatory exists, however long, short, or even instantaneous it may be.Farsight001 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)