Changes

::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia.  2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach.  3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia.  2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach.  3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED.  Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable.  2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable.  Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective.  You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven.  3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise.  [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED.  Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable.  2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable.  Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective.  You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven.  3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise.  [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::You sounds as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion.  Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse - [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm a useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion.  Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse.  Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)