97
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 151:
Line 151: − − − == Oh TK == − How long will it be until you're "on vacation" as well?
removing silly edit by single purpose editor
I don't think your intro to [[Satan]] is correct, but I respect your writing ability too much to revert it. In the previous version, I had moved down your "embodiment" sentence [http://www.conservapedia.com/Satan#Secular_and_liberal_views here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 13 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think your intro to [[Satan]] is correct, but I respect your writing ability too much to revert it. In the previous version, I had moved down your "embodiment" sentence [http://www.conservapedia.com/Satan#Secular_and_liberal_views here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 13 January 2010 (EST)
::thanks. I just expanded it somewhat. I think that Conservapedia should not try to take sides in theological debates (for example, is the devil a real person or an impersonal force?) I think that just confining the Satan article to Bible verses misses 1900 years of theology and art. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:07, 13 January 2010 (EST)
::thanks. I just expanded it somewhat. I think that Conservapedia should not try to take sides in theological debates (for example, is the devil a real person or an impersonal force?) I think that just confining the Satan article to Bible verses misses 1900 years of theology and art. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:07, 13 January 2010 (EST)