Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-05-24T18:53:24Z

Conservapedian: /* Yes */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]
:[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] - Matthew and John part of the 12? [[Matthew the Apostle]] is only ''traditionally'' [[Matthew the Evangelist]] - modern biblical scholarship seems to disagree on this point. [[John]] wasn't an Apostle at all. Please check your Bible before citing it, otherwise mistakes may occur. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Oops. Well, I was rushed when I made that edit. It doesn't really change the bible's reliability, though. --[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 14:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-05-13T01:13:42Z

Conservapedian: /* Yes */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-05-13T01:12:41Z

Conservapedian:

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conserapedian|Conservapedian]]

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-05-08T23:18:40Z

Conservapedian: /* Yes */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript.

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

Cavalry

2007-05-04T02:07:52Z

Conservapedian:

''Not to be confused with [[Calvary]], the hill where Jesus Christ was cruxified.''

''Cavalry'' are mounted soldiers riding horses into battle. Cavalry dominated early battlefileds but fell out of favor with the invention of firearms. The last major use of cavalry was in [[World War I]], and the last use was by the United States in [[World War 2]], during the defense of the Phillipines.

==Cavalry in the Bible==
In Revelation, Heaven's armies are riding on horses <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2019:11-21;&version=31;</ref>.

== References ==
<references />

Cavalry

2007-05-03T06:13:34Z

Conservapedian:

''Not to be confused with [[Calvary]], the hill where Jesus Christ was cruxified.''

''Cavalry'' are mounted soldiers riding horses into battle. Cavalry dominated early battlefileds but fell out of favor with the invention of firearms. The last major use of cavalry was in [[World War 1]], and the last use was by the United States in [[World War 2]], during the defense of the Phillipines.

==Cavalry in the Bible==
In Revelation, Heaven's armies are riding on horses <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2019:11-21;&version=31;</ref>.

== References ==
<references />

Cavalry

2007-05-03T06:13:04Z

Conservapedian: New page: ''Not to be confused with Calvary, the hill where Jesus Christ was cruxified.'' ''Cavalry'' are mounted soldiers riding horses into battle. Cavalry dominated early battlefileds but fe...

''Not to be confused with [[Calvary]], the hill where Jesus Christ was cruxified.''

''Cavalry'' are mounted soldiers riding horses into battle. Cavalry dominated early battlefileds but fell out of favor with the invention of firearms. The last major use of cavalry was in [[World War 1]], and the last use was by the United States in [[World War 2]], during the defense of the Phillipines.

==Cavalry in the Bible==
In Revelation, Heaven's armies are riding on horses <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2019:11-21;&version=31;</ref>.

Calvary

2007-05-03T06:12:50Z

Conservapedian: New page: Calvary, also Golgotha, is the hill where Jesus Christ was cruxified.

Calvary, also Golgotha, is the hill where Jesus Christ was cruxified.

Spear

2007-05-03T05:57:35Z

Conservapedian:

'''A spear''' is a weapon made by attaching a sharp blade to a stick. In battle this allow early man to attack his foes from a few feet away. This was a major advantage. A man armed with a spear could defeat many attacking [[warrior]]s with getting hurt himself.
Bronze was made obsolete when [[ironworking]] was developed. From the spear, the pike was devolped. The pike was a longer spear with different iron tips for a different situation. Pikes and spears were commonly used as a defense against charging [[cavalry]].

[[Category:Weapons]]

Spear

2007-05-03T05:57:14Z

Conservapedian: fixing spelling

Turkey (bird)

2007-05-03T05:55:47Z

Conservapedian:

The '''Turkey''' is a very large variety of flightless bird. [[Benjamin Franklin]] thought that the turkey should be the national bird of [[America]] rather than the the [[bald eagle]]. Turkey is a traditional [[Thanksgiving]] food. It is usually roasted.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Livestock]]
[[Category:Meat]]

Korea

2007-05-02T18:32:20Z

Conservapedian:

A country that is split into [[North Korea]] and [[South Korea]]
because of the issue of communism. The United States and 15 other countries
came to the aid of [[South Korea]], the half which had been assaulted first.

==Language and Writing==
Although some spelling or words are slighlty different between countries, the official language of both South Korea and North Korea is Korean. Five major dialects in South Korea and one in North Korea are mutually understandable among speakers from different areas. <ref>http://www.todaytranslations.com/index.asp-Q-Page-E-Korean-Language-History--31760371</ref> For more than 2,000 years a Chinese system of writing has been known to Koreans. The Chinese system of writing was widely used during Chinese occupations. After the fifth century AD, Koreans devised three different systems for writing Korean with Chinese characters. (The Japanese systems are were similar to these thus Japanese writing is probably modelled on the Korean system.) King Sejong (r.1418-1450) invented the Korean alphabet in 1444. The Korean alphabet has been called many different names but it is currently known as Hangul or Hangeul (depending upon transliteration). Originally called "The correct sounds for the instruction of the people", (''Hunmin jeongeum''), or "national writing" (''Gukmeun''.) the alphabet was also known as "vulgar script", or ''Eonmeun'' by Korea's nobility who felt it was simple next to the traditional Chinese characters. It didn't catch on in Korea until the mid 1800's. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/20746/non/info/history.html</ref> Ju Si-gyeong (Korean linguist b. 1876 d. 1914) coined ''Hangul'' the modern name for the Korean character set. <ref>http://www.omniglot.com/writing/korean.htm</ref> Today, Hangul is honored in South Korea on Hangul Day, on October 9. <ref>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002529.html</ref>

The [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
devastated the south, but it bounced back to become one of the four [[Asian Tigers]].

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

== References ==
<references />

P.E.T.A

2007-05-02T05:54:28Z

Conservapedian:

'''P.E.T.A''' - "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"

A self professed group of "media tarts"{{fact}} who claim to promote Animal Rights, Vegetarianism & other dubious causes through the use of controversial propaganda<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176739,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15000578&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6</ref>& bad science{{fact}}, and regarded by an increasing number of people{{fact}} of causing animals more harm than good.{{fact}} 
Also known to fund convicted arsonists{{fact}} & a phoney physicians group{{fact}}. 

== References ==
<references />

==External Links==
[http://www.peta.com Peta.com] 
[http://www.petakillsanimals.com PETAKILLSANIMALS.com] 
[http://www.animalscam.com An anti-PETA website] 
[http://www.petapetition.com Petition to remove PETA's tax exempt status]

P.E.T.A

2007-05-02T05:52:15Z

Conservapedian: these are just a few examples among MANY

'''P.E.T.A''' - "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"

A self professed group of "media tarts"{{fact}} who claim to promote Animal Rights, Vegetarianism & other dubious causes through the use of controversial propaganda<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176739,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15000578&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6</ref>& bad science{{fact}}, and regarded by an increasing number of people{{fact}} of causing animals more harm than good.{{fact}} 
Also known to fund convicted arsonists{{fact}} & a phoney physicians group{{fact}}. 

==External Links==
[http://www.peta.com Peta.com] 
[http://www.petakillsanimals.com PETAKILLSANIMALS.com] 
[http://www.animalscam.com An anti-PETA website] 
[http://www.petapetition.com Petition to remove PETA's tax exempt status]

User talk:DanH

2007-05-02T05:34:59Z

Conservapedian: From Conservapedian

'''Archive:''' http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:MountainDew
==Much Better==
Nice suit, fits real good. Do you like mine?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==?==

Cut what out exactly?

:I didn't add any of the names...I simply tidied up the page, like the table. [[User:Wattylfc|Wattylfc]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Big edits==
Thanks for the tip. Why the name change, MountainDew? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I see... I don't think your old discussion page redirects to your new one. Might want to put a redirect in there too so people don't get confused. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks!==

Thanks for blocking Iamwhoiam. I hate having to sit here and revert all that nonsense when I can be contributing to articles! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 15:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrocoite&diff=132272&oldid=132268 Thanks for the revert!] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 18:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Main Page ==
i did not write the comment on encyclopediac standards. I deleted the f word in the comment and you banned the user.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

--------------
I took a screen shot of those ban messages lol. I shall post them under the heading "Look what conservapeida bans you for". Indeed. I shall never run our of IPs dude so why ban me?
-----
will you not ban me if i just stay on talk pages?

Oh well ban me if you want i need to get a good night sleep school tomorow.

Have a nice night (or day depending on your geologial position)

== Lazarus ==

The new article [[Lazarus (Parable)]] is ready. But I am not able to make the disambig to ([[Lazarus]]).

Could you please do it?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you!

::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good luck ==

with that paper. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==vandals==

Here's my question - some people are creating articles that have offensive titles, but benign content. In these situations, I can delete the content, but the offensive title still exists on a site. I know the Sysops can delete these entirely, but is there anything I can do to erase that material? All I know to do is alert Sysops of the problem, but if nobody is available to delete it immediately, the articles can sit on the site and look bad for the site. Any ideas? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:27, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Eagle... ==

I was too slack to make Eagle (it doesn't help if one is not a US citizen)... but does that make me a Scout for Life? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Question for you on the [[Conservapedia_talk:Request_for_Bureaucratship]] page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind ... saw your reason. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Grandpa!==
Nananana Batman!

* 14:43, 24 April 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cherry-picking" (too much speculation)

Thanks, MountainDew. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick catch there of "Andrew Nissian"! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hey Dan==
I just wanted to ask why the Ted Stevens got reverted out of the "internet" article. The series of tubes statement is getting passed around a lot and I think people need to know where it came from.1

==New Age==
What was wrong with my edits to [[New Age]] that they had to be reverted? I didn't use the {stub} template on that one. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Budapest ==
I understood.--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 19:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Beaver ? ==

''"Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet."''

I really don't know what you're talking about here; my [[Beaver]] article is '''entirely factual'''.

Lots of animals are classified as fish by the Catholic Church for Lenten dietary purposes; I thought that was an interesting beaver-related fact. I will get you a citation for it... Here [http://anvil.unl.edu/agnes/RecreatingLent.htm]

Had I wished to create a properly satirical article about ''Beavers'' it would surely have been rather different, just run the implications of the word through your mind...

(My biscuit article was entirely factual too, that sort of thing really does go on - again I can get you a reference if you like.) If you considered the material to be irrelevent or inappropriate, you were free to remove it. Defining it as vandalism (and blocking me for it) was a most unfair and disproportionate reaction in my opinion.

You've blocked me unjustly once, and now you're persecuting me about the content of a completely authentic article. Please stop doing this. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Just wondering==

What could I do to gain your trust? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I can't say I agree with your assessment of the "edit war" at Fargo. The source was eventually added, btw, so I think I was right. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== NAMBLA ==

I certainly don't advocate for NAMBLA or the inclusion of the link, but for the sake of knowledge, NAMBLA has never explicitly supported man-boy love; they promote the legalization of such activity. Sick perverts... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mammon ==

I need an expert. I found this article, and it was a hostile rant, but not without some truth. I changed it to create a structure, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable adding a lot of content. Could you or someone else with knowledge help out?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
==[[User:JeffersonDarcy]]==
I endorse the block on JeffersonDarcy; I was going to do it myslelf and with a 12 hour block using [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Edit_Warring Edit Warring] as a Guideline. He can't say he wasn't warned, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&diff=prev&oldid=131570] and I want to make a record I support it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:I screwed up, as a guideline this reads [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Between_A_Sysop_and_a_non_Sysop 3 hours to one week] after the warning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal ==
No problem. Thanks for blocking him. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any idea on how to tag this guy, Dan? I blocked some of his IP's I found via Traceroute, but he's still coming back. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::This guy really needs to get a life. My annoyance with him is negated by my laughs over his pathetic hobby. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
No joke. Doesn't he have anything better to do on a Sunday? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Polap Srewdna ==

he didn't edit, why the block?

== You can talk to me directly==

Mate, I an't hiding anything feel free to ask me anything, anytime. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Take another look at my contributions the past few days since the reversal of my block. Take a look at what icewedge has contributed to the site in the last few days. Then ask whether a post by icewedge with a vague cryptic remark on my wikipedia talk page tips the scales relative to my contributions to put me under investigation. If you are curious about why I post that message on various talk pages, feel free to ask me directly. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No harm, no foul. I am only pressing this point because I am a member of this community, there is WAY to much of this SYSOPS vs. Editors war floating around. Lets work towards breaking down that wall. We are both humanbeings, whatever usergroup we are in shouldn't force use to talk past or around each other.

As to why I post that message, take a look at the users I post it too. They are not vandals, they are not people that are bad. They are people that have a political, scientific, and cultural view much like my own. They also share a common interest in wiki editing and have decided to try conservapedia out. Much like myself. This is a group of people with a lot in common. We like to talk to each other about a range of things. Its off-topic to CP and doesn't belong here. So when I see someone that I think would be interested in our group I invite them to contact me and we talk about it. Nothing nefarious there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Toulouse would've told me if there was a conspiracy. I feel left out of there is one that he's hiding from me.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I was too quick to judge and I apologize again for it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Page Delete Request ==

Could you please delete a page for me. I'm an idiot and was working while watching tv. I accidentally mistyped the page I wanted as "Deviance Behaviour" instead of "Deviant Behaviour". I can't figure out how to undo it, so it must mean I can't. Thanks --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bohdan==
I see you're still having trouble with Icewedge. His post on Bohdan's userpage looks like they're working together. Do you think a block of Bohdan is necessary? [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i have no involvment with him[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Simpsons are really liberal ==

Homer punched out George Bush and called president Bush Commander Kookoobananas. Not to mention that he supported Republican parodys Mr. Burns as governor and sideshow Bob. Somebody should show how liberal they really are!!!

::I think the Simpsons speaks for itself. If one can't pick up on the undertones by themselves, then they are an idiot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Leftists strike again. Are you going to accuse me of being "inbred" and living in a "trailer" for your next act?--[[User:ILikeCookies|ILikeCookies]] 17:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I wasn't making fun of you. I just think that going around telling people the Simpsons carries a liberal message is a redundant act. Most people who watch the Simpsons already know that it carries said message, and if they don't they're either burying their heads in the sand, or they really are just ignorant.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::The Simpsons are satire, especially early seasons. They make fun of everybody. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal attacks ==

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] must resign as a sysop before there is any chance of the vandal attacks ending. [[User:Davros|Davros]] 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list [[Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I tell ya, what makes ''me'' suspicious is when a brand new user "knows their way around" CP, and almost instantly has a handful of UXBs set up. They should all be clumsy newbies, like I was! [[User:Human|Human]] 20:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::C'mon - you're still a newbie, Human. I mean, you haven't even been threatened with the 90/10 rule yet, have you? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Hahaha, well, actually, that's probably the one rule they could ''never'' bust me on. Have you checked my alleged contribs lately? The only thing I've been accused of is relying on myth-filled, distorted YEC science texts. Oh, and I was mean to someone who used very poor grammar once, but Ed (I think) deleted it and I fixed it and sorried for it. What ''does'' make me a n00b, I guess, is not knowing what all this fuss over evolution is about? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I don't think anyone knows what it's about. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia ==

[[Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Page deletions==

Thanks for the recent deletions of unwanted British articles, they seem to be spreading a vast web of lies over us, ill try and keep my eye out for them. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 13:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

what on earth is "unwanted" and who decides? I note that [[faggot]] has been deleted; http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/faggotswithoniongrav_3899.shtml is the first google hit for "faggots" (through google.co.uk). These things are easily verifiable without even consulting wikipedia. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Likewise the article on Chip Shops, the Ham Shank and Tommy Toley, all much loved British cultural treasures. Is it true that 90% of Americans have no passport and are not interested in anything outside the US of A? [[User:Tommy Toley|Tommy Toley]] 15:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, just like 78.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Surely 77.4% is the approved Conservative figure. That 78.9% number looks very LIBERAL to me. GUARDS!!!!!! [[User:Tommy Toley|Tommy Toley]] 15:15, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

earlier you twice deleated the page [[faggot]]. can you delete it again, or is it now allowed?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Faggot ==

Whay on earth are you protecting Faggot? This is the kind of filth I protest at and you are protecting it? What kind of sysop are you? [[User:DrSnoddy|DrSnoddy]] 18:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It would appear that you have deleted and protected an article on Northern English cuisine. I fail to see how this could be controversial. Is this a case of Anglophobia or racsism? An Encyclopedia should cover all knowledge (that's what the word means). Perhaps you could expand your reasons for this. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Further (non-Conservopedia) research has led me to conclude that what we in the UK consider the main meanings of the word faggot are unfortunately almost completely unknown in the United States of America, where the word has merely the most unsavoury connotations (as I learned earlier this evening from the now deleted article). It is unfortunate but a fact that some words have been denuded of their wholesome content and effecively rendered unfit for polite usage. Faggot appears to be one such word, though I will continue to munch on and indeed cook with faggots as long as I breathe British air.

Such staple words of the English language should not be tainted in such a way. It was bad enough finding out that "gay" means something other than happy and that the tadger is no longer purely descriptive of the pocket billiards cue. Queen Elizabeth herself should issue a proclamation and prevent the noble langue d'Anglaise from further bowdlerising. [[User:William H Bhuna|William H Bhuna]] 18:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

William, I agree in principle, yet amcoming to recognize increasingly that Conservapedia is very much an American undertaking. I expect 'bowdlerise' also means something frightful in Colonial parlance.[[User:DDWatkinsIII|DDWatkinsIII]] 18:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Quite possibly, they are that far from the Queen's presence that surely all those hamburgers and MTV have tainted their minds. And DanH, I consider it rude for you to block me as I was merely correcting an unfortunate spelling of the town of Thirsk - home of a fine church and a finer brewery dating back over 300 years. When you have some history dating back farther than that, feel free to excersise your "right" to block me. Until then, make sure you salute the Queen before every meal and pray to the TRUE flag, the Union Jack. we exiled you rabble once and you raped the langue D'Anglais, you no longer support your true queen and you heathens never even invented cricket. Call that civilised? [[User:William H Bhuna II|William H Bhuna II]] 18:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Did I miss something? What unsavoury connotation could be construed from a faggot when it is a savoury dish - i.e. not sweet. Perhaps some ignorance has interfered with the Queen's or indeed King's English as faggots go back many hundreds of years. Any way please enlighten me on how it is unacceptable.[[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Strange as it may seem, Mr. Zuma (and it is a pleasure to communicate with you), the word faggot, though in the English language it calls to mind nothing more unwholesome than a meaty mouthful of beef, dripping with copious quantities of gravy, or a short firm stick of the burning kind, in the American demotic appears to refer to the unspeakable sect of Bulgars and their Carthigensian praxii. I hope my meaning is clear. [[User:DDWatkinsIII|DDWatkinsIII]] 19:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question==
can you delete [[User:Sisterhix]] and the talk page? You blocked this user yesterday(blocked "Sisterhix (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (racism)) and the comments on the page are offensive to Jews(specifically the use of "kike").[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== From Conservapedian ==

Thanks for the welcome.--[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 01:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Korea

2007-05-02T05:23:22Z

Conservapedian:

User:Conservapedian

2007-05-02T05:12:59Z

Conservapedian: New page: Hello everyone! ==My beliefs== I am saved in Jesus' name! Amen? Anyway, from a political view, I am middle of the road. I am not conservative, but I appreciate COnservapedia writing an ...

Hello everyone!

==My beliefs==
I am saved in Jesus' name! Amen?

Anyway, from a political view, I am middle of the road. I am not conservative, but I appreciate COnservapedia writing an encyclopedia as it is meant to be: family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments] So, I looked around and was disappointed to see that many articles are short or limited. That is why I am here, and having said that, I look forward to a good time at The Trustworthy Encyclopedia!