930
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 292:
Line 292: + +
→Why the reversion on the "Jesus Christ" article?
::I was under the impression that Conservapedia presented the ''facts'' first, not any given religion. Stating blankly that Jesus is the Son of God is a pretty darn unsupported assertion, isn't it? Isn't the whole point of faith-based religion that we'll find out for sure after death?--[[User:M|M]] 17:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I was under the impression that Conservapedia presented the ''facts'' first, not any given religion. Stating blankly that Jesus is the Son of God is a pretty darn unsupported assertion, isn't it? Isn't the whole point of faith-based religion that we'll find out for sure after death?--[[User:M|M]] 17:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Personally, I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, it is a FACT that Jesus is the son of God. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)