Difference between revisions of "Talk:Virgin birth"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
It would have been nice if they could have looked at my properly-sourced edit, but it was removed immediately, and I was blocked by you, apparently for ideological reasons. What happened to being open to all points of view? --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 22:38, 18 February 2010 (EST) | It would have been nice if they could have looked at my properly-sourced edit, but it was removed immediately, and I was blocked by you, apparently for ideological reasons. What happened to being open to all points of view? --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 22:38, 18 February 2010 (EST) | ||
:It may have been a "properly-sourced" edit, as you claim, but is it the truth? What I saw was just a repeat of "did God ''really'' do that?", a philosophy taken up by the God-hating crowd since Eden. We don't have to be open to points of view which pushes that sort of thinking. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:42, 18 February 2010 (EST) | :It may have been a "properly-sourced" edit, as you claim, but is it the truth? What I saw was just a repeat of "did God ''really'' do that?", a philosophy taken up by the God-hating crowd since Eden. We don't have to be open to points of view which pushes that sort of thinking. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:42, 18 February 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | :: I see, truth is set in stone for you. So when the Conservpedia guidelines claim, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", that's just a joke, right? I get it. --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 00:10, 19 February 2010 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 05:10, February 19, 2010
To anybody who doubts the value of the Conservative Bible Project, just look at Teamonger's edit to this page. JacobB 20:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)
It would have been nice if they could have looked at my properly-sourced edit, but it was removed immediately, and I was blocked by you, apparently for ideological reasons. What happened to being open to all points of view? --Teamonger 22:38, 18 February 2010 (EST)
- It may have been a "properly-sourced" edit, as you claim, but is it the truth? What I saw was just a repeat of "did God really do that?", a philosophy taken up by the God-hating crowd since Eden. We don't have to be open to points of view which pushes that sort of thinking. Karajou 23:42, 18 February 2010 (EST)
- I see, truth is set in stone for you. So when the Conservpedia guidelines claim, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", that's just a joke, right? I get it. --Teamonger 00:10, 19 February 2010 (EST)