From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TK (Talk | contribs) at 17:27, 15 December 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search


Does this really belong here? Murder and rape are univerally recognized by civilized societies as evil. Blasphemy is not.--Dave3172 12:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death". (Leviticus 24:16)
"But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29 )
Looks pretty evil to me. Anyone who can't recognize that ain't part of a civilized society.
JC 12:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, anyone who does not recognize that is someone who is not part of a Judeo-Christian society. There is civilization outside of the Judeo-Christian world; examples include India, China, and Japan.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America.
JC 12:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Blasphemy is dependent on a) if you follow the religion in question and b) then hold an antithetical view to that religion. It's not a universal evil; in fact, by its very definition it can only be considered evil by a subset of society unless you're talking about a theocracy.
Perhaps a fair solution would be to give blasphemy a separate header and talk about how it can be considered evil. --Dave3172 12:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
That's the kind of liberal bias we are trying to avoid.
JC 12:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
JC, no it isn't. The bias you are trying to avoid is not mentioning blasphemy at all. Giving it a separate header avoids that problem. --Dave3172 12:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

America is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation with a (nominal, at least) Christian majority. There is a major difference between the two. Blasphemy is not considered a crime anywhere in the US. Religion is not mandatory in the US.

Its not about what America is or ain't but what Conservapedia is.
JC 12:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
JC, by insisting blasphemy be considered by all to be evil, all you are doing is substituting your bias for another. Giving it a separate section and discussing it there would be a fair solution. --Dave3172 12:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
So killing babies ain't evil? [1] Ain't that kinda Liberal?
BillyBoy 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Psalms 137:9, 2 Kings 15:16, Numbers 31:17.... God's never objected to killing babies, as long as they're EVIL babies. --BobD 02:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


repointing the link for 'goodness' to 'good', since #REDIRECT doesn't seem to be working for me. Ilikepie 16:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 45:7

The Hebrew word that is translated "evil" can have different meanings, as is common in Hebrew. If you note the full verse, it's a foil. It compares light and dark -- opposites. It then compares peace/prosperity and ??? Calamity or hardship would be more likely. Learn together 15:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm a little concerned...

It seems to me that we could take a more definitive stance on evil here. The article seems to be aiming for a neutral presentation, but in places it comes across as suggesting that "evil" is relative and depends on opinion...which seems contrary to Conservapedia's clearly-articulated affirmation of Biblical principles and Christian values. Should this article take a stronger stance in presenting the reality that evil exists, that it is objective, and that it consists of opposition to God's Will? --Benp 17:08, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Yes, it should. Give it a try. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:27, 15 December 2010 (EST)