Changes

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously.  What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia.  Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject."  I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic.  Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all.  Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic.  Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned.  Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people.  Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion?  Is it your personal opinion that He's not?"  It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion.  While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously.  What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia.  Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject."  I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic.  Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all.  Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic.  Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned.  Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people.  Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion?  Is it your personal opinion that He's not?"  It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion.  While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised.

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted.  As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War?  I don't think so.  You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted.  As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War?  I don't think so.  You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post!

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..."

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

== Teachings of Jesus ==