Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-07-23T00:35:29Z

Stephan: /* Yes */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==
If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

2007-07-23T00:33:50Z

Stephan: /* Why? */

If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

== Nothing ==
We dont need to be saved...Thanks for the offer though

Human beings have no power to save souls. God has the power to save souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, but don't you believe we have the duty to evangelize? Aren't we commanded to convert others to Christian faith? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 10:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I suppose they're just like Buddists, Confuscians, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Jains, Pagans, etc. People almost never abandon their faith. You might not appreciate it if some Muslims tried to convince you that Jesus was a fraud and that you'd go to hell unless you converted to Islam. Why would they accept a Christian doing that to them? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Who says any one religion is the right one for everyone to follow? A good Christian would accept their religion and faith as their own beliefs and not persecute them for believing in something different. "Save their souls" <-- that's almost a laughable statement. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is Conservapedia. Writing about things from a Christian perspective is one of its aims. - BornAgainBrit

I think something should be said to the fact that they still believe in the same God it's just called by a different name Allah.

Some of these comments do not hold up to what the Bible says. Jesus said "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think all should just honestly leave well enough alone. Religion belongs as a private matter.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Religion is the bond between God and his creations. We are expected to worship Him. As believers, we have an obligation to those less-fortunate who have been suckered into praising false idols. Altruism is expected, and to sweep it away as an invasion of privacy is offensive. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:45, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Aaaaaaaaand that's what led to the Crusades. Super.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Let's set the record straight. There was nothing wrong with the first crusade - that went well. As for all the others, well, that was a result of poor tactics and inadequate devotion of resources. Children?! They just can't fight the spawn of Satan as well as one would think. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Phew, you're being sarcastic.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

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

== Shouldn't you convert to their religion? ==

Hah, I find this discussion amusing. It acknowledges that basically, your religious beliefs, if any, are inspired by what your parents and countrymen believe, yet there is still the tacit assumption that Christianity is the correct religion. Don't you ever wonder that, just possibly, if there is a God, it isn't the one you're worshipping, and you're in deep, deep trouble spiritually. There have been literally thousands of different religions and cults throughout history. Yours just happens to be popular at this point.

:Of course I've considered it, but decided on Christianity. The Bible has the power of predictive prophecy in its favor, such as the messianic prophecies. The Bible has more proof than any other book.

In that case, why Christianity and not Judaism? According to the Catholics, Jews are all going to hell. . Most Christians I've asked this of tend to say they feel moved by the spirit. This always strikes me as a circular argument. Why do you believe, because the spirit moves me. Most religions though, like Jewdaism, and Christianity, are mearly different when it comes to traditions. Only the catholics believe the jews are going to hell, the evangelical prodistants do not, and admint that the christian roots stem from Jewdamism.

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

::::840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city

In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

::::846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

::::Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

::::Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#839]

The Christian faith has two lines of thought, the Muslims are
are going to Hell. Men with much more time on their hands and many more religious texts have thought of this for years years since the time of Christ himself. My personal belief is that the Christian faith is the one true path to salvation.

:: That's cool. Faith is faith.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, somewhere down the line you have to come to the decision to believe or not one way or the other. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You assume that the truth will necessarily make sense? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem being a Christian. What if there was someone who never had a missionary come and tell him about Christianity? Does he go to Hell by mere circumstances of his birth? That's also not even taking into account I don't really see Hell and Satan and literal entities, but non withstanding, even if they are, I don't think God would do something like that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==YES!==

People all need to be saved by Jesus.

User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's sorta an evangelical belief from what I understand.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::Because, while they dont realise it as long as they live, they will be extremally thankful for it afterwards. The new testament is very clear on this: There is only one route to salvation, and that is Christ. - BornAgainBrit.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

2007-07-23T00:32:16Z

Stephan: /* Shouldn't you convert to their religion? */

If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

== Nothing ==
We dont need to be saved...Thanks for the offer though

Human beings have no power to save souls. God has the power to save souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, but don't you believe we have the duty to evangelize? Aren't we commanded to convert others to Christian faith? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 10:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I suppose they're just like Buddists, Confuscians, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Jains, Pagans, etc. People almost never abandon their faith. You might not appreciate it if some Muslims tried to convince you that Jesus was a fraud and that you'd go to hell unless you converted to Islam. Why would they accept a Christian doing that to them? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Who says any one religion is the right one for everyone to follow? A good Christian would accept their religion and faith as their own beliefs and not persecute them for believing in something different. "Save their souls" <-- that's almost a laughable statement. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is Conservapedia. Writing about things from a Christian perspective is one of its aims. - BornAgainBrit

I think something should be said to the fact that they still believe in the same God it's just called by a different name Allah.

Some of these comments do not hold up to what the Bible says. Jesus said "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think all should just honestly leave well enough alone. Religion belongs as a private matter.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Religion is the bond between God and his creations. We are expected to worship Him. As believers, we have an obligation to those less-fortunate who have been suckered into praising false idols. Altruism is expected, and to sweep it away as an invasion of privacy is offensive. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:45, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Aaaaaaaaand that's what led to the Crusades. Super.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Let's set the record straight. There was nothing wrong with the first crusade - that went well. As for all the others, well, that was a result of poor tactics and inadequate devotion of resources. Children?! They just can't fight the spawn of Satan as well as one would think. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Phew, you're being sarcastic.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

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

== Shouldn't you convert to their religion? ==

Hah, I find this discussion amusing. It acknowledges that basically, your religious beliefs, if any, are inspired by what your parents and countrymen believe, yet there is still the tacit assumption that Christianity is the correct religion. Don't you ever wonder that, just possibly, if there is a God, it isn't the one you're worshipping, and you're in deep, deep trouble spiritually. There have been literally thousands of different religions and cults throughout history. Yours just happens to be popular at this point.

:Of course I've considered it, but decided on Christianity. The Bible has the power of predictive prophecy in its favor, such as the messianic prophecies. The Bible has more proof than any other book.

In that case, why Christianity and not Judaism? According to the Catholics, Jews are all going to hell. . Most Christians I've asked this of tend to say they feel moved by the spirit. This always strikes me as a circular argument. Why do you believe, because the spirit moves me. Most religions though, like Jewdaism, and Christianity, are mearly different when it comes to traditions. Only the catholics believe the jews are going to hell, the evangelical prodistants do not, and admint that the christian roots stem from Jewdamism.

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

::::840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city

In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

::::846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

::::Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

::::Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#839]

The Christian faith has two lines of thought, the Muslims are
are going to Hell. Men with much more time on their hands and many more religious texts have thought of this for years years since the time of Christ himself. My personal belief is that the Christian faith is the one true path to salvation.

:: That's cool. Faith is faith.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, somewhere down the line you have to come to the decision to believe or not one way or the other. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You assume that the truth will necessarily make sense? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem being a Christian. What if there was someone who never had a missionary come and tell him about Christianity? Does he go to Hell by mere circumstances of his birth? That's also not even taking into account I don't really see Hell and Satan and literal entities, but non withstanding, even if they are, I don't think God would do something like that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why?==

Why would you try to convert someone, and what makes you think they need saving? No one should stick their nose in other peoples bussiness to try to mess stuff up.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's sorta an evangelical belief from what I understand.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::Because, while they dont realise it as long as they live, they will be extremally thankful for it afterwards. The new testament is very clear on this: There is only one route to salvation, and that is Christ. - BornAgainBrit.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]