Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-07-25T08:19:45Z

Charlesincharge: /* Yes */

{{debate-politics}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples. The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administration[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Apparently, some conservatives disagree with you. OBEY. CONSUME. REMAIN SILENT. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''': American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year. Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis). Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times. The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus. One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater. Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No:''' It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were ''positive'' existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Saddam would have never used WMD's, even if he had them. He was too smart to do that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Iran Iraq war, Saddam gassed (poison WMD) thousands of innocent Kurdish men women and children. Saddam was a dumb ass, a tyrant, a miscalculating butcher.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sorry, Saddam would have never been dumb enough to use WMD's against powerful Western Nations. To put it frankly, Saddam's actions in Iraq helps to keep Iran in check by destabilizing the region. Now that he's gone, we see possibilities of Arab coalitions and the like, which bodes bad for us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Every time we put together a "coalition" against someone else, it's just us and some other nations as window dressing. By the same token, no coalition of pure window dressing is a threat. But we are learning that America could take all her military technology and prowess, drop back in time to the bronze age even, and still lose every single conflict if the President lacks the willpower to fight. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 21:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"Willpower" isn't the problem here. President Bush '''wanted''' this war, and has been its single biggest booster since day one. Lack of SMARTS is the problem. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHA The iraq war! a success!! wow, that's sad. Why would you have to ask that. Here are the statistics: over 3000 American soldiers dead. over 300,000 iraq civilians dead. NO weapons of mass destruction. NO ties to Osama bin ladin. NO ties to Al Quaeda. And a country in a civil war in complete ruin. Figure it out yourself. My source, CIA 9,11/iraq comission report, UN iraq overview. a success? not in a million years.--[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:10, 31 Juner 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is a good analysis, but it stops two step short of naming the human problem. An unamed human problem is the core of the difficulty and people are refusing to look at it. We are all human beings, we are all motivated by the same urges and (broadly) feelings. The West has exploited the Mideast. The West grew strong and remains strong because, in general, people earn their own way. In the west, people contribute to other people, through daily work, through creation, through new inventions, and so forth. This isn't what goes on in the Mideast where the population is supported by the mineral wealth pooled beneath their feet. There, people don't have the need to earn their daily bread as in the West. People of the Mideast can, therefore, hang on to those historical ways that worked in the past because there is a vast pool of mineral wealth beneath their feet. Given nothing to do, people don't develop pride. And that is the human value the West's exploitation has undermined in the Mideast. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

::Jpatt--Said democratic government in Iraq will probably be demoted to "lamp-post ornaments" about 48 hours after the US troops leave, and then Turkey will invade the north and slaughter the Kurds (making the SECOND time an American named Bush has left them twisting in the wind) while the Sunnis and Shi'ites blow each other to Heaven on clouds of Semtex smoke. As other people here have pointed out, declaring war on an abstract noun like "terrorism" does not work too well (unless you have Abhorrent Weaponry and the will to use it). Or we can stay there forever. After all, there's a fixed number of Terrorists, and everyone we defeat means one less forever, since no more people will ever sign up, right? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually, Bush Senior's decision to not invade Iraq after expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait was a good decision on his part. Bush Sr. was, unlike his son, a master statesman and knew that by entering into Iraq would go beyond the scope of the UN mission (Sound familiar Georgie?) and would make the US into an international pariah (Again, George, next time listen to Daddy). He also knew that taking the fight from the desert of Kuwait to the streets of Baghdad would result in the death of US troops and unpopularity for the war. After all, the US is fantastic at open ground combat as we have the most advanced weapons on the planet. However, those weapons can't help our soldiers trying to purge buildings of insurgents. Take the US's destruction of the Hammurabi Division on Highway 80 during the end of the Gulf War. It was literally an absolute turkey shoot. You have old Russian tanks and convoy trucks retreating while being pounded from miles away by Apaches and Abrams. However, now, you take the soldier out of the safe tank or assault chopper, and put him in front of a door, and he doesn't know when he opens that door, if there will be no one on the other side, or 12 armed men. And people wonder why the war is unpopular.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Also, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer between the US, and the regions bigger threat, Iran. Now that buffer is gone...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well LDobbs, you can make the case for falure if we leave and you can make the case if we stay. All hell to break when we leave, maybe. If we don't stand up wherever they are, then its 1996 all over again. The USA too busy and too enept to confront terror. You sound like you favor the Democrats in the House that want to change the wording of 'war on terror'. Let's put aside the fact that the USA is still in Korea after 50 years. Let's talk Iraq and Afghanistan as a launching point against Iran. If there are war moves by Iran, would you rather be launching attacks from America or from the region? 25,000 bandits in Iraq is not a fixed number or one less per each jihadist death. If Iraq is tranformed into the image of South Korea, the region will be a stronger ally of the USA.

:::::Elamdri, Bush Sr. failed America by working through the corrupt UN. The main reason he did not finish the job, besides the mandate, they knew that we couldn't hope for a better leader to emerge that would replace Saddam, Democracy would be hard to establish, formerly occupied by the British, would not welcome English aligned armies. Bush 41 hoped the Iraqis themselves would take control of their leadership. After 9/11, Bush 43 realized that Saddam was part of the problem America had to confront. That Saddam was the last straw of credibility the UN blew away. That Saddam would not be replaced by his people. Bush 43 sought to increase nation states to democracy in the fight against extreme rogue states and their supporters- jihadists. Will it work? Time will tell.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I doubt that. Honestly, the Grand Coalition was probably the greatest success the UN has every had. In reality, Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. He helps keep Iran in check, and then people started to blow his power out of proportion after 9/11.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I doubt your view as well. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people??? How about the Iranians, how about the Israelis, how about the Kuwaitis? Invasion of Iran, Invasion of Kuwait, 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families who kill Israelis. I am no expert, can you admitt it?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Let me rephrase, Saddam wasn't a threat to the western world as the Bush Administration tried to make us believe. Should he have been removed? Probably, but right now? Probably not.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen? Secondly, he was a threat to his own people as you have stated. Do you believe it was an unjust cause to go in and liberate the Iraqis, or should America just focus on pleasing its own free people who have never known oppression? That was a long string of questions - forgive me please - but I would like to hear your opinion. As for me, I believe strongly that overthrowing Saddam was the best thing for America and the rest of the free world. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Its not so much removing him as it is using him to stage proxy wars.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::''So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen?'' - DavidR See, that's the difference between Hussein and bin Laden--we KNEW where Hussein was, and he had an actual country we could bomb. That made a powerful disincentive to mess with the US. You will note that he didn't actually DO anything to inspire the US invasion besides sit there 'looking at us funny'. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

What to you Hawks think about your war now hahahahahaahahahahhaahahahah[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Rebiu, Ho- and BobD, If Bush had NOT liberated Iraq, WHAT?
Serendipity! If alQaeda had not been busy there, it stated intent to be HERE - using Saddam's sarin (Christian Gen. Georges Sada) or gathering A-bomb knowlege and materials (Duelfer Commission ). Nothing other than the Iraq invasion could have better accomplished the President's first responsibility - protecting us. [User:HowardLong]

Yes. We have won the war in Iraq. Everything has worked out exactly as President Bush has expected. There have been no flaws in his War Plan, and the Democrats should be imprissoned for treason for saying otherwise.

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2007-07-25T07:42:55Z

Charlesincharge:

New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Trying to define what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy")

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Seriously on that last sentence? I've yet to see a Bible that uses the phrase "homosexual". Pretty recent word IMO, certainly not in any Bible I've read.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 23:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's 1 Cor 6:9. NET and WEB use homosexual. Rotherham uses Sodomite. It seems to be missing from my version of the Vulgate. All other versions I have use some construction of "men who abuse themselves with men." Shouldn't this be a Discussion or Debate?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 02:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

--NET and WEB are new versions of the bible which have undergone many translations and transformations. If you look at the King James Bible - accepted all over the world as the most accurate, the "Authorised Version" - you'll see it's not about homosexuality at all. It says "nor abusers of themselves with mankind". So don't accept the word of people who just decide for themselves that's what an ambiguous verse is about, twisting words until they are unrecognisable like so many preachers do. And they do. Proof of that is in the existence of countless different kinds of Christianity.

Whats with that one that calls fornicators sinners? I still fail to understand why sex in marriage is ok and sex out of it isn't. Adultery is wrong yes, but just fornicating? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:09, 22 April 2007

:Fornication covers far more than just sex outside marriage. My KJV dictionary describes it as "sexual immorality," which, as you can imagine, covers a wide array of behaviors, many of which hadn't even been invented when the Bible was compiled. (Likewise, certain behaviors considered immoral then may be moral today; but let's not go there.)

:For the sake of argument, let's accept sex outside of marriage = fornication. Imagine a child born out of wedlock in an ancient, tribe-based society. Imagine trying to determine the rights and obligations of all parties involved, to include care of the child, inheritance, legal lineage, etc. Back then, it was much easier just to restrict who is having sex with whom. Today, we have the benefits of contraception, paternity testing, etc., so it's not as big a deal. But there is always a counterexample to make us think that maybe the ancients were on to something (see: DannieLynn Stern/Birkhead/Whoever).--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, the Bible says plenty against homosexual sex out of the context of a relationship, but the only comment it makes about a loving homosexual relationship is between David and Jonathan, which is even said to be better than that of a man and a woman: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26, King James). They formalised the relationship: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Samuel 18:3-4, King James). I thought with so many negative quotes from the Bible on this page, it might be refreshing to have a positive loving one :-) [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 18:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Wrong''' David and Jonathan were not homosexual. <s>Take this as a block warning.</s> --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the quotes check out (though they may be out of context). We don't block for ideological reasons, according to your awesome proposed block policy, CPA1. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, no block warning. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry - didn't realise I was near a nerve. I'll back up slightly. I will say though that the view that they were homosexual seems to me no less conservative than that they were not - it has been believed by many for centuries (e.g. "indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus", Life of Edward II, 1326 AD).
:::: Dont worry, you will be had, sooner or later I am sure. I mean, check out the link related to Schlafly on wikipedia and provide them here and you will see how quickly you will be BLOCKED. Oh yes, that most Reverend Haggard also, not a peep about that man here nor will we ever see any mention. Ah yes, Our Vice President and how angry he got when CNN Wolf Blitzer started down the road about his daughter. So, watch out, big brother IS watching and WILL stop you when they find anything they deem objectionable (Oh yea, the reasons will not be what you think they are or what they state
:::I don't know whether we can say categorically that they were not homosexual, but I do admit there is a grey area. The key word seems to me to be 'ahabah', which is the Hebrew word in the text for the love that they shared. It is the same word as between Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:20). It also features between a man and a woman in Pro 5:19 and 2Sa 13:15. It is also used often to describe God's love for his people.

:::The argument that their relationship could be political does not to me seem very credible as all of their covenants were made in private. Although David was married to many women, the Bible never states that he loved them, only that one of them loved him. In fact, when he learns of Jonathan's death, he states that his love for him was greater than that of women (as quoted above). What is the argument that they categorically were not homosexual? [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::P.S. the quotes were only out of context as it would be a little counterproductive for me to paste the entire passages here. I gave references so that they could be read in context which, I believe, supports my point.

yeah your totally out of context...it would depend on your definition of love..does that ALWAYS
include sex? IF you Love God even more then a women, does that mean you had sex with God? does
"1 Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us. " mean God had sex with us? That verse you
so need to be homosexual is talking about a brotherly love greater then love between a husband
and a wife.--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Please, guys, get over it! Read another book. The bible is - er - out of date and was written by a bunch of chaps who were not exactly up-to-the-minute. Anyone who says being gay is wrong is immoral. Anyone who says that sex is wrong is immoral. We must find other codes to live by, beyond those outlined in the bible, which is a book completely irrelevant apart from some cultural and literary interest. The bible is wrong. It is not the word of god. God does not exist, except in the minds of the emotionally depleted and the intellectually feeble. Is this clear?

much love and best wishes

chris larner

The Church discourages it and in some cases it is condemned and forbidden. Like marriage = A man + a woman only. --[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 23:54, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe Christian teaching is that all homosexuals should be put to death. (LEV 20:13) ----[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] --[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT) (Sorry, forgot to sign)
:You may wish it were so Charles, but it does not make it true. Christianity is about mercy and recognizing that all have sinned and are in need of forgiveness. If you have a desire to argue the point, you may wish to log onto a jewish wiki or a jewish website and see their views as they do not believe in the New Testament message and give a prominence to the Torah that is often lacking in Christian circles. As I have been active in different debate forums and come across many "Charles" in my life, I already know that you have no desire to do so -- your barbs are aimed at Christianity specifically, not the originators of the scriptures. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Allow me to rephrase... In the Bible, it states that homosexuals should be put to death: Leviticus 20:13 - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 03:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-07-25T05:53:13Z

Charlesincharge: /* Yes */

== Yes ==
The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretation[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've never read the bible completly, but alot of what I have read is soo violent and alot is degrading towards women. I am not saying the WHOLE bible is that way, but it seems that way. Yes, lets kill anyone who breaks the silliest of rules. It says thou shalt not kill for one of them comendment things, but then its like PUT THEM TO DEATH YAY FER KILLING PEOPLE. Overal, it's a poor display of morals and ethics and makes it sound okay to be mean and hurt other people and destroy stuff [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Its all open to interpretations. I mean, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, obey your parents, it's not like those are a bad set of morals. Now, when the Bible contradicts itself is when you have to apply your own judgment. At least, thats how I view it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::<Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. --Gen 19:8>
I'd say that's a bit more than an offer. He's begging these strangers to gang-rape his daughter in order to leave him and his guests alone. Less than the best example of fatherhood.--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

i think it's only fair to point out that the ten commandments were only intended to apply to other jews (judaism being the religion of moses tribe) therefore Thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not kill other jews (or christians) and so on. what the bible basically says is that you can do anything to someone who is not of your religion, and that there is nothing morally wrong with that. in todays multicultural society that is obviously not an accebtable source of morals. {{unsigned|Bolly Ottihw}}

:It's really "yes and no" but I'll post here.

:The Bible puts on display the poor ethics and morals of a number of people. The first that comes to mind is King Herod. Some of the ancient Egyptian kings were pretty bad, too. Then there was the king who wanted Abram's wife and was going to kill him to get her. I tell that one in Sunday School, whenever the kids get too rowdy to pay attention to theological stuff. The good examples of [[Ruth]] and [[Esther]] make the little girls sit up and pay attention, too. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I am reminded of a novel by Irving Wallace, ''Seven Minutes'' where a book publisher is being prosecuted for selling a pornographic novel. His attorney, reads several passages from novels/books and asks a ''community person'' as to whether or not she thought the passages were ''pornographic'' - and in the novel, she concludes three of the four passages as fine, while the fourth passage, she declares as ''pornographic'' - the three passages she claimed were NOT, were from books that were BANNED, while the fourth passage was selected from the Bible. The author goes onto say that ofcourse he was not implying anything about the Bible being pornographic - but that when passages are taken out of context, any conclusions can be drawn. The Bible includes stories that describe good and evil - and so can be taken out of context. Peter McWilliams had, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Bible in a book titled 'Aint Nobody's Business if you do" [[User:Seekcommon]]

<Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. --Gen 19:8
>
Block quote
</blockquote>--Gen 19:8.

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing wether the nations the isrealites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But i can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment. And who knows, maybe in the afterlife, how he'll judge his people. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]] 8:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is of course a distinction here between the God of the old testament and that of the new. The God of the new testament is a forgiving God, and the God of the old testament was a vengeful God. I would argue that ethics and morals vary civisilisation to civilisation, and era to era. You can only judge the God of the time by the morals and ethics of the time. Until we hear differently, we must assume the current God is that of two millennia ago. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==From Eye For An Eye To Turn The Other Cheek==

The contrast between the Old and New Testaments are stark. In the Old Testament the Israelites are told to kill all their enemies, even their wives, children, and animals.

Yet in the New Testament Jesus says pray for your enemies and if they take your shirt let them take your shoes as well.

I the think a more accurate pattern is that God is preaching against violence. He is telling the Israelites during those savage times, an eye for an eye, not a life for an eye. Kill your enemies but do not kill for the sake of killing.

Jesus is furthering this by saying that all violence is wrong. Still a hard concept for us today. How many of us would not defend our families or our country with violence?

Pacifism would not have worked in the savage BC times and so God was taking it one step at a time.

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-07-25T05:52:48Z

Charlesincharge: /* Yes */

== Yes ==
The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretation[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've never read the bible completly, but alot of what I have read is soo violent and alot is degrading towards women. I am not saying the WHOLE bible is that way, but it seems that way. Yes, lets kill anyone who breaks the silliest of rules. It says thou shalt not kill for one of them comendment things, but then its like PUT THEM TO DEATH YAY FER KILLING PEOPLE. Overal, it's a poor display of morals and ethics and makes it sound okay to be mean and hurt other people and destroy stuff [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Its all open to interpretations. I mean, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, obey your parents, it's not like those are a bad set of morals. Now, when the Bible contradicts itself is when you have to apply your own judgment. At least, thats how I view it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::<Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. --Gen 19:8
>
I'd say that's a bit more than an offer. He's begging these strangers to gang-rape his daughter in order to leave him and his guests alone. Less than the best example of fatherhood.--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

i think it's only fair to point out that the ten commandments were only intended to apply to other jews (judaism being the religion of moses tribe) therefore Thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not kill other jews (or christians) and so on. what the bible basically says is that you can do anything to someone who is not of your religion, and that there is nothing morally wrong with that. in todays multicultural society that is obviously not an accebtable source of morals. {{unsigned|Bolly Ottihw}}

:It's really "yes and no" but I'll post here.

:The Bible puts on display the poor ethics and morals of a number of people. The first that comes to mind is King Herod. Some of the ancient Egyptian kings were pretty bad, too. Then there was the king who wanted Abram's wife and was going to kill him to get her. I tell that one in Sunday School, whenever the kids get too rowdy to pay attention to theological stuff. The good examples of [[Ruth]] and [[Esther]] make the little girls sit up and pay attention, too. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I am reminded of a novel by Irving Wallace, ''Seven Minutes'' where a book publisher is being prosecuted for selling a pornographic novel. His attorney, reads several passages from novels/books and asks a ''community person'' as to whether or not she thought the passages were ''pornographic'' - and in the novel, she concludes three of the four passages as fine, while the fourth passage, she declares as ''pornographic'' - the three passages she claimed were NOT, were from books that were BANNED, while the fourth passage was selected from the Bible. The author goes onto say that ofcourse he was not implying anything about the Bible being pornographic - but that when passages are taken out of context, any conclusions can be drawn. The Bible includes stories that describe good and evil - and so can be taken out of context. Peter McWilliams had, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Bible in a book titled 'Aint Nobody's Business if you do" [[User:Seekcommon]]

<Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. --Gen 19:8
>
Block quote
</blockquote>--Gen 19:8.

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing wether the nations the isrealites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But i can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment. And who knows, maybe in the afterlife, how he'll judge his people. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]] 8:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is of course a distinction here between the God of the old testament and that of the new. The God of the new testament is a forgiving God, and the God of the old testament was a vengeful God. I would argue that ethics and morals vary civisilisation to civilisation, and era to era. You can only judge the God of the time by the morals and ethics of the time. Until we hear differently, we must assume the current God is that of two millennia ago. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==From Eye For An Eye To Turn The Other Cheek==

The contrast between the Old and New Testaments are stark. In the Old Testament the Israelites are told to kill all their enemies, even their wives, children, and animals.

Yet in the New Testament Jesus says pray for your enemies and if they take your shirt let them take your shoes as well.

I the think a more accurate pattern is that God is preaching against violence. He is telling the Israelites during those savage times, an eye for an eye, not a life for an eye. Kill your enemies but do not kill for the sake of killing.

Jesus is furthering this by saying that all violence is wrong. Still a hard concept for us today. How many of us would not defend our families or our country with violence?

Pacifism would not have worked in the savage BC times and so God was taking it one step at a time.

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

2007-07-25T05:47:59Z

Charlesincharge:

It's a tough one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Before you all nuke me for asking this question, I just want to say that I asked it in good faith. If it is legitimate to ask about Christians converting Muslims, isn't it legitimate to ask about Muslims converting Christians? --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:That was the point of this page. I took the title of another page and swapped Christians and Muslims. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 03:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dude, I thought I was the one who did that!! --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see what happened. Look at the times after the signatures and the history. I created this one. You created the one that is prefaced by the word "Conservapedia:". Great minds think alike. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 03:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

We can do nothing to save souls. Salvation requires grace. Grace comes exclusively from God and is defined as unearned favor. On must remember, however, that God is just. The God I believe in, for example, would not subject the souls of aborted babies to eternal torture simply because they never dotted the i's and crossed the t's and "accepted Christ". This same principle of justice would apply to people who lived in America before Columbus, for example, or for the Muslim woman who grew up in Yemen and was installed in a harem at age 14 where she lived in isolation until her death at age 49 never hearing the gospel. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, yes, maybe we should sent more imams to the west, those poor people have been misled for centuries and many have never even heard of the Prophet, it's not their fault.
We can still save them with the help of merciful Allah!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Perhaps we should send more missionaries to the mid-east, those poor peoples have been misled for centuries and many have never even heared of the Messiah, it's not their fault. We can still save them with the help of Christ. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:21, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

:::We tried that at the beginning of the last millenium, and look where it got us.--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:47, 25 July 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?

2007-07-25T05:45:55Z

Charlesincharge: /* Nothing */

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 thought writing about things from a ''conservative'' perspective was one of its aims? There are liberal Christians, just like there are conservative Atheists.--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

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.

Personally, if there has to be a God, or pantheon of Gods, I'm banking on the Norse. The whole thing has the ring of revealed truth to me, it's definitely how Gods would behave if they existed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 22:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: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. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You know that all those prophecies were re-analyzed ''ex post'', right? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, why Christianity and not Judaism? According to the Catholics, Jews are all going to hell. Even religions with the same God are damning each other to the nether regions for all eternity. Most Christians I've asked this of tend to say they feel moved by the spirit, or some such. This always strikes me as a circular argument. Why do you believe, because the spirit moves me. Why doesn't it move me too, then? Because you don't believe. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::WOW, I'm just wondering if you are a Catholic? If you are, you are seriously misguided about the views of the Church, if not, the same rule applies. Catholics (myself included) DO NOT belive that all, cited from the Catechism

::::The Church and non-Christians

::::839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

::::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.

::::841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

::::842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

::::All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
::::843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

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

::::Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
::::845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

::::"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

::::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. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
::::847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

::::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
::::848 "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]

::::That is the true Catholic doctrine.The Christian faith has two lines of thought, either the Muslims are just like us or they are going to Hell. The Catholic church likes to take a middle ground. 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, but if you are not a Christian it does not mean God abandoned you. I think that those of other faiths who try to live their lives loving each other as themselves can be saved because God is forgiving. It seems that the Catholic Church backs that up with its statements. BUT NEVERTHELESS I AM NOT GOD, SALVATION IS HIS DECISION.

--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 00:05, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, please read this article [http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm] The statement is not mine so I will merely link to it. It shows an interesting insight into many teachings of the Quran. This is a post script but is has me baffled. PLEASE READ

:I've heard that claim, but do not personally believe it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::
::Good argument. With reasoning like that, nobody should believe it. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: 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)

:See, I think MountainDew's point here is very legitimate. It goes to my whole feelings on "creation science." If you believe creationism, but admit that it's just on faith, that's cool. Just when YECs push creationism into science, or the public sphere, and outside of the realm of private faith... that gets me angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. But personal faith is unassailable, because it's just that - personal.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:01, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point of disagreement. I'm still of the philosophy that if something makes sense - you can intelligently explain it. If it doesn't make sense, you shouldn't believe it. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 23:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

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

And you have to use good arguments. For instance, "the fact that the earth is young proves the Bible"... don't think so. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Fair, Rusty, I guess it's just that I adamantly believe that personal faith isn't my business until it encroaches on others' faith. It's informed by my understanding of the Establishment Clause, and founder's intent, et al. This also explains my entire presence on this site: I don't want to prove to people that creationism is WRONG - I just want them to admit that it's personal faith, nothing more, nothing less, and that that's okay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: There is no such thing as an article of faith or belief that doesn't affect other people. If a person believes something, it informs every decision they make. One might argue that some beliefs, such as Christianity, are beneficial or harmless, but not that one can practice Christianity without effect on those around you. If nothing else, it tends to affect the freedom of religion of any children they might have. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem being a Christian, but I don't feel a duty to evangilize. I think people's religions are a relative matter. Besides, I think that if God was truly just, he wouldn't damn people to hell because humans failed to convert them. 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]]

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?

2007-07-25T05:45:24Z

Charlesincharge: /* Nothing */

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 thought writing about things from a ''Italic text''conservative''Italic text'' perspective was one of its aims? There are liberal Christians, just like there are conservative Atheists.--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

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.

Personally, if there has to be a God, or pantheon of Gods, I'm banking on the Norse. The whole thing has the ring of revealed truth to me, it's definitely how Gods would behave if they existed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 22:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: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. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You know that all those prophecies were re-analyzed ''ex post'', right? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, why Christianity and not Judaism? According to the Catholics, Jews are all going to hell. Even religions with the same God are damning each other to the nether regions for all eternity. Most Christians I've asked this of tend to say they feel moved by the spirit, or some such. This always strikes me as a circular argument. Why do you believe, because the spirit moves me. Why doesn't it move me too, then? Because you don't believe. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::WOW, I'm just wondering if you are a Catholic? If you are, you are seriously misguided about the views of the Church, if not, the same rule applies. Catholics (myself included) DO NOT belive that all, cited from the Catechism

::::The Church and non-Christians

::::839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

::::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.

::::841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

::::842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

::::All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
::::843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

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

::::Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
::::845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

::::"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

::::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. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
::::847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

::::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
::::848 "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]

::::That is the true Catholic doctrine.The Christian faith has two lines of thought, either the Muslims are just like us or they are going to Hell. The Catholic church likes to take a middle ground. 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, but if you are not a Christian it does not mean God abandoned you. I think that those of other faiths who try to live their lives loving each other as themselves can be saved because God is forgiving. It seems that the Catholic Church backs that up with its statements. BUT NEVERTHELESS I AM NOT GOD, SALVATION IS HIS DECISION.

--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 00:05, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, please read this article [http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm] The statement is not mine so I will merely link to it. It shows an interesting insight into many teachings of the Quran. This is a post script but is has me baffled. PLEASE READ

:I've heard that claim, but do not personally believe it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::
::Good argument. With reasoning like that, nobody should believe it. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: 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)

:See, I think MountainDew's point here is very legitimate. It goes to my whole feelings on "creation science." If you believe creationism, but admit that it's just on faith, that's cool. Just when YECs push creationism into science, or the public sphere, and outside of the realm of private faith... that gets me angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. But personal faith is unassailable, because it's just that - personal.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:01, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point of disagreement. I'm still of the philosophy that if something makes sense - you can intelligently explain it. If it doesn't make sense, you shouldn't believe it. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 23:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

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

And you have to use good arguments. For instance, "the fact that the earth is young proves the Bible"... don't think so. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Fair, Rusty, I guess it's just that I adamantly believe that personal faith isn't my business until it encroaches on others' faith. It's informed by my understanding of the Establishment Clause, and founder's intent, et al. This also explains my entire presence on this site: I don't want to prove to people that creationism is WRONG - I just want them to admit that it's personal faith, nothing more, nothing less, and that that's okay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: There is no such thing as an article of faith or belief that doesn't affect other people. If a person believes something, it informs every decision they make. One might argue that some beliefs, such as Christianity, are beneficial or harmless, but not that one can practice Christianity without effect on those around you. If nothing else, it tends to affect the freedom of religion of any children they might have. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem being a Christian, but I don't feel a duty to evangilize. I think people's religions are a relative matter. Besides, I think that if God was truly just, he wouldn't damn people to hell because humans failed to convert them. 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]]

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2007-07-25T05:10:51Z

Charlesincharge:

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2007-07-25T04:51:49Z

Charlesincharge: