Talk:Evil
From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dave3172 (Talk | contribs) at 16:33, March 14, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Blasphemy
Does this really belong here? Murder and rape are univerally recognized by civilized societies as evil. Blasphemy is not.--Dave3172 12:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death". (Leviticus 24:16)
- "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29 )
- Looks pretty evil to me. Anyone who can't recognize that ain't part of a civilized society.
- JC 12:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
No, anyone who does not recognize that is someone who is not part of a Judeo-Christian society. There is civilization outside of the Judeo-Christian world; examples include India, China, and Japan.
- Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America.
- JC 12:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Blasphemy is dependent on a) if you follow the religion in question and b) then hold an antithetical view to that religion. It's not a universal evil; in fact, by its very definition it can only be considered evil by a subset of society unless you're talking about a theocracy.
- Perhaps a fair solution would be to give blasphemy a separate header and talk about how it can be considered evil. --Dave3172 12:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- JC, no it isn't. The bias you are trying to avoid is not mentioning blasphemy at all. Giving it a separate header avoids that problem. --Dave3172 12:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
America is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation with a (nominal, at least) Christian majority. There is a major difference between the two. Blasphemy is not considered a crime anywhere in the US. Religion is not mandatory in the US.
- Its not about what America is or ain't but what Conservapedia is.
- JC 12:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- JC, by insisting blasphemy be considered by all to be evil, all you are doing is substituting your bias for another. Giving it a separate section and discussing it there would be a fair solution. --Dave3172 12:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)