From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why do certain editors have a problem with the word Biblical law?

The first time I put it in next to Sharia (there were now 2 examples of religious law) it was reverted and I thought it was because the editor in question believed it would make that section to lengthy, making it less clear.

Then I added Manu Smriti and put Biblical Law back in (there were now 3 examples of religious law), but only Biblical was removed afterwards, why?


Because some poor innocent (or possibly the FBI) might think that this site agitates for a United States of God's America. All this talk of the right to bear arms on userpages.....the game's afoot! --Robledo 19:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, appearing in this article, right next to Manu Smriti and Sharia Law isn't exactly promoting Biblical Law (on the contrary), but I don't see why it would be inappropriate given that they are similar. Unless someone would want to censor anything that doesn't promote the Bible...


What is "Biblical Law"? Roman Catholics are guided by the Roman Curia and Church tradition, Protestants literally adhere to Rom 6:14, "ye are not under the law, but under grace" [1] While I can appreciate you're efforts to impugn Christian "Rightists" such as Pat Robertson as "theocrats" in the same league with fascist holocaust deniers and other fundemental theorcrats like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I'm sorry but you are just going to have to bring some facts to this discussion. RobS 15:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

What if I changed it to "various interpretations of the Sharia and Biblical Law"? (Sunnis, Shiites and Salafids don't agree on the Sharia either.)


Point is, the only so called "biblical law" that exists, is Mosaic Law. So even to use such a term, you would have to qualify it as espoused or followed by Orthodox Jews, and then refer to it as "Bibical Law minus the New Testament". And yes, there are certain fringe factions and dissenters in a few Protestant denominations who preach a gospel of works, however most scholars and pedestrian Christians will quickly point out, that is not Christian teaching. RobS 16:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Why is this page protected?

It does not seem to have even suffered from even one recent vandal let alone enough to warrant protection. --Ben Talk 19:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)