User talk:FegelAntics

Welcome![edit]

Hello, FegelAntics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Disclaimer[edit]

1. It is irrelevant what "mainstream academia" thinks, as it is irrelevant what the majority thinks. Truth is not subjective. The majority of Germans in Nazi Germany might have supposed Jews were out to get them, but obviously they were wrong.

2. I made my name awhile ago. If you're wondering what it means, I used to make downfall parodies, before I became a Christian. I do not subcribe to them anymore

3. My mission is to glorify Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. If you do not know Him, please go here: www.needGod.com

4. If you think science supports evolution, please go here: www.evolutionvsGod.com

5. I reject Liberal "Chrisitanity" as a denomination of Christianity for the same reason I reject Mormonism as a legitimate demonition of Christianity: they deny core doctrine. (Note: I am not saying that universally all that call themselves liberal "Christians" are not Christians and/or deny core doctrine. It is just my typical observation that they are typically opposed to historical and orthodox Christianity)

Thank you for your reading.

Whatever the case is, please do not edit war. Although I myself am a Christian, I dont think edit warring will get you anywhere. Also, Wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not "edit war"; I will abide by Wikipedia's rules (Romans 13). Also, everyone is biased. It is simply a question of what bias is the best biased to be biased with. In any case, I will do my best to neutrally present information. It is my hope that you will see that reflected. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FegelAntics (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much. Cheers, and have a good time editing. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your disclaimer[edit]

While that's what more or less what the user page is for, a touch of advice on how it's going to be perceived by others:

Most Wikipedians mock the idea that one person can possess objective truth when countered by everyone else. This says nothing of philosophically subjective truths, which many Christian philosophers (e.g. Kierkegaard) have held to be the highest truths, but it does matter as relates to science. Wikipedia strives for philosophical objectivity, which is based on what the majority can observe (or at least the majority of those who have the training, prior knowledge, and/or equipment necessary to properly observe). That "everyone is biased" is not a strike against this goal, but rather the reason for it. For example, if a significant number of individuals with no training in auto mechanics or auto engineering, some bicycle repairmen, and a select few automechanics who can't get a job in legitimate garages insist that brakes actually cause accidents; and they came here insisting that the bias of "pro-brake" editors be balanced out by their bias -- that would result in true mob rule unless we stick to summarizing sources by individuals who have studied auto mechanics, engineering, and physics. This is why mainstream academia's assessment of topics is what Wikipedia presents as fact. Not "an alternative opinion," but scientific fact. You don't have to accept this outside of the site, but if you don't want to at least operate with that in mind, I recommend avoiding any article relating to science as you'll likely end up in a lot of trouble very fast (not a threat, just sharing advice based on experienced observations).

So, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, what mainstream academia thinks is the only thing that is relevant. Objective truths, by definition, are discovered by the majority. Your Reductio ad Hitlerum fails to understand that the Nazis are, globally and historically, a fringe group who rejected the outside assessment of others (preventing objective study).

You do seem to understand that mainstream academia does supports evolution, even if you think they are wrong about it. If you want to argue with them, you'll have to do it in their scientific journals, not on this site. Presenting their views as wrong, or presenting opposing views as at least equally possible alternatives, would be failing to be neutral.

And on a personal note: if a Liberal Christian affirms the Trinity of the Godhead, as well as the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus; and places their faith in salvation in Him and seeks to serve Him as best as they can (while knowing that it is Christ and not works that saves) -- how are they not Christian, bearing in mind John 3:16, Mark 9:41, Titus 3:35, Ephesians 2:8-10, and 1 Corinthians 1:13? The answer "anyone who believes that can't be Liberal" would be a No true Scotsman fallacy, by the way. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

My Response

It's irrelevant what "most wikipedians" think. It's irrelevant what "Christian philosphers" think. Truth is still absolute. It doesn't matter if every person believes a lie; it's still a lie.

My example with Nazi Germany was an adequate example of something still being false even though most people accepted it. It wasn't a "fringe group" in 1939.

And on my disclaimer on liberal "Christianity"; I said that because it appears it is commonplace for liberal "Christians" to deny core and signficant beliefs, and many times accept false doctrines such as universalism, which is damnable in that it denies that one much trust in Christ alone for salvation to be saved. I will edit my disclaimer to make this more clear.

Thank you for your time. Have you seen this resource?: www.answersinGenesis.org I would highly recommend it. I myself was leaning towards old-earth creationism until I found it.

Sockpuppet investigation notification[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FegelAntics. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FegelAntics. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]