Talk:God

2007-04-05T07:22:03Z

TheDevil:

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

God's not that bad you guys. I'm finally just gonna take responsibility for what I've done. You know dinosaur bones? Me. Never existed. And I personally removed the excess water from the earth after the flood.

I'm sorry if I've led any of you astray, and I'm sorry for creating Islam, homosexuality, NBC news, and freedom of speech. Will you give ol' Satan another chance?[[User:TheDevil|TheDevil]] 03:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Satan

2007-04-05T07:15:26Z

TheDevil:

{{protect|MountainDew}}

Just to be clear, in the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who serves as the adversary of Man. He never rebelled and he still serves God, acting as a sort of "prosecutor" while God sits as judge. The page should probably be altered to reflect the split. I have no idea how Islam views the Devil, though I think they call him "Iblis." I have edited the article to present this alternate view, for fairness.

If I recall correctly, Iblis was either an angel or a Djinn who was thrown out of Heaven for refusing to bow before Adam. (Some mystics have sympathy for him, on the grounds that it's wrong for an angel to bow before anyone but God, even if God orders them to.) Supposedly, he'll eventually repent and be allowed back into Heaven.

Satanists don't actually worship Satan. where as Satan, as refered to in the article, is a physical being and/or person, Satanists instead believe in a archetype of their beliefs, which they call satan. thus when satanists refer to satan, they are actually talking about themselves/others and the manifestation of their ideologies within, as opposed to the devil.

==Oh, COME ON!==

This article was just editted to "remove the athiest bias". Take a look at the changes.

'''"In the Christian tradition, he rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]"'''

was changed to

'''He rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]'''

:This basically states that Christians are correct, and that it is not only in their tradition, but is fact. Fix this please.

'''"In the Jewish tradition, Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

was changed to

'''"Jews believe that Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

:This means the same thing, but seems to have been changed to make it seem like the latest change was not to make Christians look 100% correct by adding consistency. Change the wording back or leave it, doesn't matter.

'''"Christian Views"'''

was changed to

'''"History and Goals"'''

:This, once again, assumes that Christians are 100% correct. There are other views of Satan, not just the Christian view, so this should be changed back to stay accurate and unbiased.

'''"In Christianity, Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

:Once again, trying to show that the Christian view is the only view. Personally, that is not my view, and is therefore inaccurate to say it is the hisory and goals. Change it back to being a Christian idea.

'''"Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

:Again, only some people believe that, I personally do not, change it back to keep unbiased.

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions."'''

was changed to

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions, which offers compelling evidence of his existence."'''

:Yet again, trying to prove Satan's absolute existance, despite not everyone thinking so. This is a Christian view, and all these sections should be changed back to the unbiased state that they were in. It was not "athiest biased", it was simply showing the possibility of other views. Thank you. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nevermind, it had already been changed it back by the time I typed all this. Thanks. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

How come nobody ever listens to my side of the story? [[User:TheDevil|TheDevil]] 03:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:God

Talk:Satan