28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 140:
Line 140: + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 02:19, March 18, 2008
, 02:19, March 18, 2008Please expand on meaning of "verifiable"
*That would be better. This will probably be another commandment that is more of a guideline, as it is rather difficult to enforce. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 09:21, 29 January 2007 (EST)
*That would be better. This will probably be another commandment that is more of a guideline, as it is rather difficult to enforce. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 09:21, 29 January 2007 (EST)
== Please expand on meaning of "verifiable" ==
I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.
Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.
If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.
Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.