18
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + +
Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias? (view source)
Revision as of 04:19, March 20, 2007
, 04:19, March 20, 2007no edit summary
We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)
We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), then let's settle in and solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== It should==
== It should==