User:Kevinkor2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Who am I?[edit]

This user resides in Canada This user is from Canada.

I edit Wikipedia from Canada.

Gay flag.svg This user is interested in LGBT issues—which does not necessarily reflect the user's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Female.svgMale.svg This user identifies as straight.
HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

I am interested in LGBT issues. I am straight and believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

MedCom laurel.png This user believes in civility and assuming good faith.

I believe in the process of Wikipedia: That verifiability, no original research, and reference to reliable sources will produce good quality articles that reasonably approximate the Truth.


My studies of Wikipedia[edit]

User:Kevinkor2/History of Truth

User:Kevinkor2/Inline templates

User:Kevinkor2/LORD

User:Kevinkor2/LORD2

User:Kevinkor2/Pages that use internal links inside external links

User:Kevinkor2/Prove You're Human

User:Kevinkor2/Research into names of Wikipedia articles

User:Kevinkor2/Vandalism Study 1

Other pages[edit]

User:Kevinkor2/AIDs in Uganda (raw figures)

Am I a Dominionist?[edit]

I am impressed by the article from Public Eye Magazine, The Rise of Dominionism. (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html) The author, Frederick Clarkson, defines dominionists as:

  1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
  2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
  3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

I believe the United States is a Christian nation. Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it does not change the beliefs of the American people or the roots of American democracy. According to a 2007 survey, 78.4% of adults identified themselves as Christian, down from 86.4% in 1990, but still being a supermajority. I believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character was fundamental to early American culture. I acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, but argue that his deism had its roots in Christianity and his morality had its basis in the teachings of Christ.

I believe in the superiority of Jesus Christ. He claimed, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) I believe this claim. I believe he is the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for. I believe that he died and was raised by God from the dead, in opposition to the Islamic view of Jesus' death.

I believe that religion is man's construction. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27) "God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." (Acts 10:34)

I believe that American law and the U.S. Constitution should have a foundation, and that this foundation should be historic principles. Some of the historic principles are Biblical principles. Without such a foundation, the law can be twisted beyond recognition of its writers. An attempt to construct a foundation without reference to historic principles will result in a self-referential mess. "The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" (Ecc. 6:11)

I predict that if Frederick Clarkson looked over my beliefs, he would conclude that I am a dominionist.

The Truth Project[edit]

I have taken and enjoyed a course, Focus on the Family's The Truth Project.

"The Truth Project is a DVD-based small group curriculum comprised of 12 one-hour lessons taught by Dr. Del Tackett. This home study is the starting point for looking at life from a biblical perspective. Each lesson discusses in great detail the relevance and importance of living the Christian worldview in daily life."[1]

Abortion and Loaded language[edit]

I suggest that if a person believes that

  • a "pregnant woman" is a "mother-to-be"
  • a "fetus" is an "unborn child"
  • and abortion is "killing an unborn child"

that person will be more likely to advocate restrictions on abortions.

 

On the other hand, if a person believes that

  • a "pregnant woman" is a "victim of an unplanned pregnancy"
  • a "fetus" is a "parasite"
  • and abortion is "unwanted tissue removal"

that person will be more likely to advocate freer access to abortions.

The way we frame the debate and the words we use can influence the outcome.

What is politics?[edit]

Hi everyone,

A recent discussion on a talk page about politics made me wonder, "What is politics?" and "What is a political motivation?"

Here are my thoughts on politics:

  • Politics and political discussion in Canada and the U.S. is generally on a left-right spectrum. People on the left of the spectrum generally advocate less social control and greater economic control by government. People on the right of the spectrum generally advocate more social control and less economic control by government.
  • The Nolan chart, with the traditional left-right policial spectrum on the dashed diagonal
    The Nolan Chart chart expands on this by dividing social control/freedom and economic control/freedom into separate dimensions.
  • In general, "politics" is also used in a phrase like "office politics" and the practical politics seen been divisions of a company or departments of a university. In this, politics are of the sort: "I will support your policy (that I may or may not agree with) if you support my position." People divide into political factions exemplified by reality TV camps.

Political motivations:

  • Advancing the power of political party.
  • Advocating the ideas on the left-right political spectrum.
  • Advocating more/less social control/freedom.
  • Advocating more/less economic control/freedom.
  • Advocating the support/rejection of group of unrelated policies based on popularity or power.
  • Advocating the support/rejection of policies based on personal friendships/rivalries.


Name of God: a prayer[edit]

God,

I pray that I will revere and fear you and not use your name lightly.
I confess that my fellow Christians and I sometimes think we can name you and somehow get control on the infinite, as opposed to humbly relating to you as you have revealed yourself.
I pray that I will not use your names "Yaweh", "Jehova", "YHVH", "Lord", "Lord", or "God", and think I can compell you to do anything because I "know" your name.
I pray that I will not look down on other people because they call you a different name. Their relationship with you is your business, not mine.
You are God. I am not god.
I pray this boldly but humbly, as Jesus Christ instructed.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Humor[edit]

Wikipedia as a MMORPG[edit]

By the way, I have recently stopped playing World of Warcraft because I am short on cash.

Because it is free to play Wikipedia as a MMOPRG, I have returned to this world to satisfy my RPG addiction.

Supermarket of knowledge[edit]

Wikipedia is a supermarket of knowledge.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Lots of junk food.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Celebrity magazines right by the checkout stand.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing humans with intelligence[edit]

Recently, a user wrote on his talk page:

no wonder bots are confused when it's inherently confusing for humans with intelligence

I am a human with (alleged) intelligence and ((hopefully) demonstrated) humor. Here are possible meanings:

  • Humans have intelligence. The task is confusing for them. Therefore it would be more confusing for bots without intelligence.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some humans have intelligence. (The rest don't have intelligence.) The task is confusing for those humans with intelligence. Therefore it would be more confusing for bots and humans without intelligence.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The bots are thinking that humans have intelligence. Therefore, the bots are confused.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The bots are confusing humans with species that have real intelligence, like dolphins. (Thanks for All the Fish!)--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)