4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + Line 273:
Line 277: + +
no edit summary
<br />
<br />
<!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== -->
<!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== -->
== Sources ==
After reading just the first paragraph of this article no one except hardcore conservatives would take this site seriously. There's not a single source in the first paragraph. Remember that the first commandment of Conservapedia is that ''everything you post must be true and verifiable''. If you're going to publish a paper that's to be taken seriously you're going to need sources. The same applies here.
If we can't stick to that we have no chance of being taken seriously.
== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.
:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.
::No ''logical'' flaw? How about the statement where he ''rose from the dead''? Is that logical to you?
:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)