Difference between revisions of "Talk:God"

Revision as of 19:20, March 14, 2007

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

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

Neutrality

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.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. --NVConservative 16:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called Conservapedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. 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. --Luke-Jr 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

you have a source for that definition? 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. --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.--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? 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.--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. --Petrus 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)