Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

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?

2007-12-03T15:13:58Z

JonL: /* 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

I believe that all we can do is try. God did not tell us to do his part of the equation for Him, he told us to just do what He asked of us and that He would take care of the rest.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 10:13, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== 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.

We install huge, huge, speakers the size of a Hummer (That's grotesquely huge), all over the Persian/Arabian land and then...we pump out good ole' '''SOUL''' beats...Marvin Gaye, you know what I'm talking about?--[[User:Markos88|Markos88]] 22:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-11-14T23:02:18Z

JonL: /* Be Very Afraid */

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

*Your right. Come to think of it why would God do anything. What possible purpose could his existence serve. If God is pointless then what is the point of Conservapedia? What is the point of this article?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

-That's deep man.

:When the Bible says things like "knew that he feared God" I think it's using archaic language indicating [[respect]] - not "[[fear]]" in the sense of terror. But that's just my own [[Universalist]] interpretation of scripture. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

The word fear applys to different emotions. Firstly, we should fear the Lord in the sense of the word meaning to have reverential awe (after all he created the universe). Secondly, as his children, we have no reason to fear him (using the common definition of terror and fright) unless we pursue that is perverse and sinful. It's good to fear the Lord, not to be afraid of the Him (unless you're sinful.)[[user:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

*Perhaps you could provide a source for your definition of fear Dfailyxed13 as it sounds like total B.S.. I mean really, fear = reverential awe, what a contortion.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

We should fear the corruption which stems from the universe, but fear no god, for the power of the divinai will fall to the wrath of Sathience.

*Please explain what "corruption which stems from the universe" is supposed to mean. You might also define you pretend term or Sathience.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You better be afraid. God destroyed every living thing on the planet, save those in a boat, on a whim. God has shown a pattern of punishing those who displease him by killing their children, family and associates so do not fool yourself into thinking a righteous existence will save you.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You can think what you want, but I for one am very afraid of the great "I am". The Bible refers to God as a consuming fire, therefore I am afraid.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 18:01, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Correction- " I Am "........ I am afraid, but in a good way.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 18:02, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-11-14T23:01:22Z

JonL: /* Be Very Afraid */

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-10-10T17:37:29Z

JonL: /* I don't care, but... */

{{debate}}

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
*We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces] simply has superior training. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Yes''': One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:
*researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. [http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html Iowa University]

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets just remember Joan of Arc. Yeah, women should be in the military and we need to stop being so sexist.[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:03, 31 June 2007

To tell you the truth I don't care who is in the military as long as they get the job done. But if they can't, man or woman, they should not be there.

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2007-10-10T00:05:30Z

JonL: /* Worse */

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-10-04T16:47:03Z

JonL: /* Locked forever? */

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

The Chronicles of Narnia

2007-10-04T16:42:48Z

JonL: /* Narnia Feature Films */

[[Image:Narnia books.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
The '''Chronicles of Narnia''' are a series of seven books written by [[C.S. Lewis]]. These books were written as a fictional story with allegorical connections to the [[Bible]], and the Christian Faith. The Chronicles of Narnia were published yearly from 1950 to 1956. [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] can be seen as based on the [[Gospels]], [[The Magician's Nephew]] as similar to the book of [[Genesis]], and [[The Last Battle]] as drawn from the book of [[Revelations]].

C.S. Lewis originally wrote the stories in a non-chronological order. The books were reordered in recent years to accurately reflect the passage of time in the stories. Thus ''The Magician's Nephew'' now comes first. Debate continues over Chronological versus Canonlogical order in the series.

==Narnia Feature Films==
Walt Disney and Walden Media have begun producing film's based on these books. The first [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] was released on December 9, 2005 and was a box office blockbuster. The other books in the series are now scheduled to be made into movies.<ref> [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]], Directed by Andrew Adamson, Produced by Mark Johnson, Philip Steuer, 2005. </ref> [[Prince Caspian]] and [[Voyage of The Dawn Treader]] are currently in Production and Pre-Production respectively.

{{spoiler}}

I just wanted to say that I am not starting to go systamatically through the Cronicles of Narinia. I have recently finished with Prince Caspian. I look forward to reading the rest of the series, and Lord willing watching the new movie, Prince Caspian.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:42, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

==Book 1:[[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]==
This book is the first published of the seven Chronicles of Narnia(1950), written by Clive Staples Lewis, a noted Irish Christian writer. It introduces prominent characters to the series such as Aslan, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. The story begins with four children (Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy) being sent away to stay with an old professor, to keep them safe from the London Air Raids. The children find a magical wardrobe in an empty room, which leads into a magical world called Narnia. At that time, Narnia was under the spell and dominion of the White Witch, who had created a Hundred Year Winter. After Lucy's friend (Mr. Tumnus) is taken captive, the children set out to help the faun, and make right their coming into Narnia. After meeting up with friendly talking animals, and even the great lion Aslan, the children find they were sent into Narnia to fulfill a prophesy to free Narnia. It is no easy task and Aslan even gives his life to save Edmund from the justice of the Witch, after Edmund betrayed his family. In the end the four children are crowned Kings and Queens and Narnia enters the Golden Age. After many years, when they are adults in Narnia, they return to our world and find themselves children again.<ref> [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co, 1970.</ref>

==Book 2:[[Prince Caspian]]==
This book involves the return to Narnia by the four children from [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] and how they again have to free Narnia from tyranny. They appear at their former castle which is now a ruin and meet the Dwarf Trumpkin. Trumpkin (thimbles and thunderbolts!) retells the history of young Prince Caspian whose Uncle Miraz holds the usurped throne. Caspian flees Miraz, joins the good Narnian creatures and engages in a war with the massive armies of his uncle. The children and the dwarf rush to Caspian's aide and meet Aslan on the way. They conquer Miraz's forces and reinstate Caspian as true king of Narnia. The children return their own world. The older children, Peter and Susan, are told they will not return to Narnia. <ref> [[Prince Caspian]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1970.</ref>

==Book 3:[[The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]==
Lucy, Edmund and their cousin, Eustace, return to Narnia (or more specifically to the seas of Narnia.) They meet Caspian who is sailing on the ship, Dawn Treader. King Caspian is exploring new seas and searching for the seven Narnian lords whom his Uncle Miraz had forced to sail away into exile. Caspian hopes to sail to the world's end. They sail across the seas finding new lands, some Lords, and survive many dangers. They sail to the end of the world, leaving the mouse, Reepicheep. Aslan sends the children home, telling Edmund and Lucy they won't return. <ref> [[The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co.1970. </ref>

==Book 4:[[The Silver Chair]]==
Eustace and his school friend, Jill Pole, go to Narnia where Aslan gives them the task of finding Old Caspian's son, Prince Rillian. Aslan gives them specific instructions to follow so they might find the Prince. They, along with the marshwiggle, Puddleglum, search the lands sometimes following, sometimes forgetting Aslan's instructions. They eventually find the Prince underground and held prisoner. They free him and fight a battle with a dangerous serpent. They return to Narnia where Rillian arrives in time to see his father Caspian die. Aslan then sends the children home.<ref> [[The Silver Chair ]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1970.</ref>

==Book 5:[[The Horse and His Boy]]==
This story is set back in the time when the original 4 children (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) rule in Narnia as kings and queens. The setting is to the south of Narnia, Calormene, where we meet Shasta, a young boy who is treated as a slave by his 'father.' When he learns that the old man isn't really his father, he makes a daring escape with the talking war horse Bree. Later on he meets up and travels with Aravis, a young royal girl running from a forced marriage, and her talking mare, Hwin. They travel across the deserts of Calormene and end up racing to Narnia and their ally, Archenland, to warn them of a Calormene invasion. They arrive in time and conquer the invaders. To his surprise, Shasta finds he is a twin son of the king of Archenland, and marries Aravis "so as to go on (arguing and making up) more conveniently."<ref> [[The Horse and His Boy]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co.1970. p.216. </ref>

==Book 6:[[The Magician's Nephew]]==
This story goes back to the original creation of Narnia and how the White Witch first came (she is called Queen Jadis.) It includes two children, Digory and Polly, who are tricked into entering other worlds by Digory's Uncle Andrew. They release the witch from her own world and bring her (along with Uncle Andrew, a London cabby, and a horse) into what would become Narnia. Aslan creates Narnia and commands Digory to heal the hurt he has started. In the end, Aslan returns the children to England and gives Digory some medicine to heal his dying mother. <ref> [[The Magician's Nephew]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Co. 1970. </ref>

==Book 7:[[The Last Battle]]==
The end of Narnia comes in this book. A evil ape, Shift, convinces a gullible donkey, Puzzle, to dress up in a lion's suit and pretend to be the great lion Aslan. The beasts of Narnia are thus deceived and enslaved by Shift, allowing the Calormenes to invade Narnia. Tirian, the true king of Narnia, is imprisoned but is freed by Jill and Eustace, who help mount a last ditch attack on the ape and the Calormenes. They are outnumbered and the evil Calormene god, Tash, enters Narnia, and takes in a stable where Eustace, Jill and the King are thrown. Fortunately Tash is cast out by High King Peter, who has appeared with Edmund, Lucy, Diggory, and Polly (Susan no longer being a friend of Narnia) to witness Narnia's end. Aslan ends Narnia and leads all good creatures to a new Narnia, and out of the shadowlands. The children then learn that they all died in a railway accident and that they will remain there happily ever after. <ref> [[The Last Battle]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillam Publishing Co. 1970.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chronicles of Narnia, The}}
[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Narnia]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C.S. Lewis Society of California]
* [http://www.wheaton.edu/wadecenter/ Marion E. Wade Center, Wheaton College]
* [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051212/12lewis.htm "God’s Storyteller: The Curious Life and Prodigious Influence of C. S. Lewis, the Man Behind The Chronicles of Narnia, by Jay Tolson," by Jay Tolson]
* [http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/7sins.html "Narnia and the Seven Deadly Sins," by Don W. King]
* [http://personal.bgsu.edu/%7eedwards/baynes.html "The Woman Who Drew Narnia: Pauline Baynes," by Charlotte Cory]
* [http://www.cslewis.org/ C.S. Lewis Foundation]
* [http://cslewis.drzeus.net/ Into the Wardrobe]
* [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/newman200601030820.asp "Stay Out of Our Wardrobe! The Libertarian Narnia State," by R. Andrew Newman]
* [http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/ Chronicles of Narnia official films site]
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/mcdonald.php "The Childlike in George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis," by Don W. King]
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/view.php "The View from Other Worlds—Seeing Ourselves with God’s Eyes," by Luci Shaw]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-10-04T16:35:26Z

JonL: /* Locked forever? */

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-10-04T16:07:58Z

JonL: /* Locked forever? */