Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Homosexuality and the Bible

2008-08-13T23:10:39Z

Renaissancefan98: New page: Why don't you include material from groups like Dignity USA,Soulforce,and the MCC,this thing on homosexuality and the bible is completly one-sided.

Why don't you include material from groups like Dignity USA,Soulforce,and the MCC,this thing on homosexuality and the bible is completly one-sided.

Homosexuality and the Bible

2008-08-13T23:10:11Z

Renaissancefan98:

[[Image:FacProfilemontoya.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|[[Alex D. Montoya]]]]
In respect to '''homosexuality and the Bible''', sound [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and [[Bible Exposition|Bible exposition]] demonstrates that the Bible condemns [[homosexuality]].<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599(1993): 327-340]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492]</ref><ref>[http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, Guenther Haas, Redeemer College]</ref><ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000) 155-168 HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref> In addition, [[Christianity|Christian]] apologist [[JP Holding]] refutes various arguments that assert that the [[Bible]] does not condemn homosexuality.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html</ref><ref>http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html</ref> In his essay which examines [[Bible]] passages regarding homosexuality, Pastor and Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at [[The Master's Seminary]] [[Alex D. Montoya]] states that "The Christian needs to befriend and witness to the
homosexual with such love, compassion, and wisdom that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref>
== Biblical Statements Regarding Homosexuality ==
[[Image:Moses.jpg|thumb|150px|right|The prophet [[Moses]] authored the book of [[Leviticus]].]]
Homosexuality is condemned in the [[Bible]]. Below are some Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[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.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9](NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|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, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."
*[[Jude]] 1:6-7 (NASB) - And [[angel]]s who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

==Homosexuality and the Bible and the City of Sodom==
The Bible mentions [[Sodom]] in variety of biblical books. The prevalent view among evangelical Christians is that Sodom was destroyed as a result of prevalent homosexuality, however, this is open to debate, based upon traditional Jewish interpretation of the event, and the fact that many undesirable practices, many vastly more reprehensible, were likely engaged in in the general region.
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]
[[Christian Apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Phil Fernandes]] states the following regarding the judgment of Sodom by [[God]]:
{{Cquote|The Bible tells us of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. Though homosexuality was not the only vice of these cities, the Bible makes it clear that this sin was one of the main reasons why God judged them. [[Genesis]] 19:1-11 speaks of the men of Sodom gathering at Lot's house and calling out to [[Lot]], saying, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with" (Genesis 19:5). Lot's two visitors were actually angels who manifested themselves as men. Lot's carnal attempt to rescue his visitors was his offer to provide the men of Sodom with his two virgin daughters (Genesis 19:8). But, the men of Sodom rejected Lot's offer. Finally, the angels miraculously struck the immoral men with blindness (Genesis 19:11). Jude, commenting on the destruction of Sodom and [[Gomorrah]], wrote, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/Biblical-Perspective-of-Homosexuality.html</ref>}}

==Ex-Homosexuals and the Bible==
The [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] wrote of the existence [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] in the early [[Christianity|Christian]] church in a letter of his to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] church. ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9-11;&version=49; I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)])
==Bible, Homosexuality, and Sound Health Practices==
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]].
==The Bible and the origin of homosexuality==
While secular people may debate over whether [[homosexuality and choice|people choose to become homosexuals]], the first chapter of the [[Epistle to the Romans]]<ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom001.html?q=romans%201#top Romans chapter 1 (KJV)]</ref> makes clear the origin of homosexuality. According to that chapter, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Rom. 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Rom. 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:26-32).
==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Bible]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/homosexual.htm Homosexuality: A Christian perspective] An evangelical approach.

Why don't you include material from groups like Dignity USA,Soulforce,and the MCC,this thing on homosexuality and the bible is completly one-sided.

Talk:Arguments Against Homosexuality

2008-05-25T06:08:51Z

Renaissancefan98:

Go nuts, Ed! ;) Can this have an explicit rejection of violence and intimidation too, please? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:What, and risk violating NPOV? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did some research and there is more public demand for "Arguments against homosexuality" than for "opposition to homosexuality". I renamed the article and added some material. I have no opposition to an "opposition to homosexuality" article but I think it would be better to have an article entitled "Views on Homosexuality" first as there is a public demand for that as well based on my research. I do think that the more we serve the public interest in terms of supplying relevant and accurate information that they want the more we will be rewarded vis a vis web traffic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)

The viewpoints seem to be totally one sided(the belief that being gay is wrong),Because why don't you include material from groups like PFLAG to make the article more balanced?

Edited for typo.

Talk:Arguments Against Homosexuality

2008-05-25T05:34:08Z

Renaissancefan98:

Go nuts, Ed! ;) Can this have an explicit rejection of violence and intimidation too, please? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:What, and risk violating NPOV? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did some research and there is more public demand for "Arguments against homosexuality" than for "opposition to homosexuality". I renamed the article and added some material. I have no opposition to an "opposition to homosexuality" article but I think it would be better to have an article entitled "Views on Homosexuality" first as there is a public demand for that as well based on my research. I do think that the more we serve the public interest in terms of supplying relevant and accurate information that they want the more we will be rewarded vis a vis web traffic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)

The viewpoints seem to be totally onesided(the belief that being gay is wrong),Because why don't you include material from groups like PFLAG to make the article more balanced?

Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage

2008-05-24T19:57:21Z

Renaissancefan98:

== This page ==
Andy just restored this page with the comment "''31 revisions restored: many pages link to this, so I don't think it should be deleted. Am I missing something?''".

No, you are correct. This page is the destination of many redirects.

If a page is deleted that we don't want recreated (offensive title, etc.), then the page is turned into a protected redirect to this article. This is because:
* If the offending page is simply deleted, there is nothing stopping someone else recreating it.
* If the offending page is simply emptied and protected, it will show up on the Random Page link, lists of uncategorised pages, etc. Making the page a redirect prevents these problems.
* If the offending page is made a redirect and ''not'' protected, there is again nothing stopping someone else recreating it.

NOTES:
* Instead of simply deleting the offending page's content and making it a redirect, if the content was particularly offensive, it is best to delete the page itself, then create a new one of the same name as a redirect to this page.
* If the title of the page is acceptable but the content is not, then deleting the page and ''not'' recreating/redirecting is better, as that then allows someone to recreate the page with legitimate content.
* If ''this'' page (not this talk page, but [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]) (or any page) is deleted and restored, as has happened at least twice now, the protection is lost and has to be reapplied.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

==Perhaps==
'''Conservapedia:Deletedpage''' could be created in it's own namespace that doesn't show up in random page searches?
#Create a namespace (DELETES or whatever)
#Move Conservapedia:Deletedpage there
#Protect same.
#Tickle Mediawiki so DELETES doesn't show up in the database.
[[User_talk:U2| U2]] 00:35, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't pages that link to Conservapedia:Deletedpage does show up in random page searches. Do you think they do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::I have seen them, but some pages don't link, they have a different template so maybe they are the ones. This one [http://www.conservapedia.com/Semen] is deleted but doesn't redirect. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:46, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed by inserting #REDIRECT <<double-brackets here>>Conservapedia:Deletedpage<<double-brackets here>> . Thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It does now I see! [I wrote that prior to Andy's message above.] Yes, that one was done the old way (even though only done recently), where the page was protected and had a notice, but not redirected to this page. I don't think any redirect page shows up with the Random Page link (and that makes sense). And I think that only mainspace pages show up with the Random Page link, so this page, being in Conservapedia namespace, wouldn't show up that way either. But I could be corrected on that.
:::In reply to U2, I think this solution that we have works well enough that it's not worth the bother of doing what you suggest. Of course, that's just my opinion.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:59, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
* I want you to know that I cannot make heads or tails of the above. Seems nothing has changed, eh? You wipe the contents, save it, protect it, edit it to add the redirect: conservapedia:deletedpage. Right? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:44, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, that's about right, but I thought it needed explaining here, as this page itself keeps getting [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Conservapedia%3ADeletedpage deleted]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! Because oftentimes, if one isn't paying enough attention, one is re-directed without noticing, and instead of wiping the pages contents, one deletes the deleted page! :P --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:51, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
*Another thought! If you or Ed fixed the bloody thing so that couldn't happen, it would be much better! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:: Now that you've reminded me about the accidental deletion, I recall you saying that. But I'm sure at least one time was not account that, but because the deleter didn't realise what the page was for. I don't know how the accidental deletion could be stopped from happening, though. But the other problem is remembering to reprotect it after restoring it. It was because of it not being reprotected after deletion that a vandal got to it recently. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

*Now I am even more confused, as Andy deleted a page, didn't use a redriect but only used text:

<blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''

'''Click on the logo to return to the Main Page'''</div>
</blockquote>

Why not the redirect? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:11, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think that the ones without the redirect are the ones that show up when one clicks random page. I prefer the redirect. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:The one that Bohdan queried above was the same, but Andy's now changed it to a redirect, so my guess is simply using the old way out of habit (assuming it's something done recently). You didn't say where this happened. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::*So we really should be using the redirect? Its easier to type. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

*Andy just used the text tonight! [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&action=history]] My head is really beginning to ache! And Bohdan, that IM, supposedly mine, isn't. Turn on your AIM ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:I'll stick with my answer above. Here's a timeline (my timezone):
:* 14:40 Andy uses a text version of deleted page (as you mentioned)
:* 14:49 Bohdan posts (above) an example of one that doesn't redirect.
:* 14:50 Andy changes Bohdan's example text-only one to a redirect.
:* 14:54 Andy posts (above) that he's done that change to Bohdan's example page.
:So Andy's last instance was of using a redirect. He used the text-only version ''before'' this discussion brought the issue to his attention.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well, okay, however what the last version is, is:

<blockquote>
Current revision (20:40, 20 July 2007) (edit) (undo)
Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback]

Line 1: Line 1:
- {{Deletedpage}} + <div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''

'''Click on the logo to return to the Main Page'''</div>
</blockquote>
Just text, no redirect. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, that one is. The timeline above refers to two different pages; the one that Andy altered at 14:40, and the other which Bhodan raised and which Andy altered at 14:50. See Bohdan's link above. You have quoted the last version of the page you linked to; I'm quoting a different one that Andy changed ten minutes later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:22, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

==Why?==
Can someone please explain why this page was deleted in the first place? And please don't tell me the non-existence of vulvas is your right as an American. ;-p [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:Which page?
:There are quite a few pages that have been deleted for which we don't want those pages/topics recreated, so they are recreated as protected redirects to this page.
:One reason is that we consider some topics inappropriate for a family-friendly encyclopaedia.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::Maybe we could use such a page to help parents teach their kids about sexuality? It needn't be family unfriendly, you know. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 12:19, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Is it because you guys/gals saw the CSI episode and think that makes you people a expert on the Furry Fandom, because you people should know that they also portray all Asians as kungfu stars.

Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage

2008-05-24T19:53:39Z

Renaissancefan98:

== This page ==
Andy just restored this page with the comment "''31 revisions restored: many pages link to this, so I don't think it should be deleted. Am I missing something?''".

No, you are correct. This page is the destination of many redirects.

If a page is deleted that we don't want recreated (offensive title, etc.), then the page is turned into a protected redirect to this article. This is because:
* If the offending page is simply deleted, there is nothing stopping someone else recreating it.
* If the offending page is simply emptied and protected, it will show up on the Random Page link, lists of uncategorised pages, etc. Making the page a redirect prevents these problems.
* If the offending page is made a redirect and ''not'' protected, there is again nothing stopping someone else recreating it.

NOTES:
* Instead of simply deleting the offending page's content and making it a redirect, if the content was particularly offensive, it is best to delete the page itself, then create a new one of the same name as a redirect to this page.
* If the title of the page is acceptable but the content is not, then deleting the page and ''not'' recreating/redirecting is better, as that then allows someone to recreate the page with legitimate content.
* If ''this'' page (not this talk page, but [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]) (or any page) is deleted and restored, as has happened at least twice now, the protection is lost and has to be reapplied.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

==Perhaps==
'''Conservapedia:Deletedpage''' could be created in it's own namespace that doesn't show up in random page searches?
#Create a namespace (DELETES or whatever)
#Move Conservapedia:Deletedpage there
#Protect same.
#Tickle Mediawiki so DELETES doesn't show up in the database.
[[User_talk:U2| U2]] 00:35, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't pages that link to Conservapedia:Deletedpage does show up in random page searches. Do you think they do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::I have seen them, but some pages don't link, they have a different template so maybe they are the ones. This one [http://www.conservapedia.com/Semen] is deleted but doesn't redirect. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:46, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:Fixed by inserting #REDIRECT <<double-brackets here>>Conservapedia:Deletedpage<<double-brackets here>> . Thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It does now I see! [I wrote that prior to Andy's message above.] Yes, that one was done the old way (even though only done recently), where the page was protected and had a notice, but not redirected to this page. I don't think any redirect page shows up with the Random Page link (and that makes sense). And I think that only mainspace pages show up with the Random Page link, so this page, being in Conservapedia namespace, wouldn't show up that way either. But I could be corrected on that.
:::In reply to U2, I think this solution that we have works well enough that it's not worth the bother of doing what you suggest. Of course, that's just my opinion.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:59, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
* I want you to know that I cannot make heads or tails of the above. Seems nothing has changed, eh? You wipe the contents, save it, protect it, edit it to add the redirect: conservapedia:deletedpage. Right? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:44, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, that's about right, but I thought it needed explaining here, as this page itself keeps getting [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Conservapedia%3ADeletedpage deleted]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! Because oftentimes, if one isn't paying enough attention, one is re-directed without noticing, and instead of wiping the pages contents, one deletes the deleted page! :P --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:51, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
*Another thought! If you or Ed fixed the bloody thing so that couldn't happen, it would be much better! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:53, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:: Now that you've reminded me about the accidental deletion, I recall you saying that. But I'm sure at least one time was not account that, but because the deleter didn't realise what the page was for. I don't know how the accidental deletion could be stopped from happening, though. But the other problem is remembering to reprotect it after restoring it. It was because of it not being reprotected after deletion that a vandal got to it recently. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

*Now I am even more confused, as Andy deleted a page, didn't use a redriect but only used text:

<blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''

'''Click on the logo to return to the Main Page'''</div>
</blockquote>

Why not the redirect? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:11, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think that the ones without the redirect are the ones that show up when one clicks random page. I prefer the redirect. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:The one that Bohdan queried above was the same, but Andy's now changed it to a redirect, so my guess is simply using the old way out of habit (assuming it's something done recently). You didn't say where this happened. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
::*So we really should be using the redirect? Its easier to type. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

*Andy just used the text tonight! [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&action=history]] My head is really beginning to ache! And Bohdan, that IM, supposedly mine, isn't. Turn on your AIM ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:I'll stick with my answer above. Here's a timeline (my timezone):
:* 14:40 Andy uses a text version of deleted page (as you mentioned)
:* 14:49 Bohdan posts (above) an example of one that doesn't redirect.
:* 14:50 Andy changes Bohdan's example text-only one to a redirect.
:* 14:54 Andy posts (above) that he's done that change to Bohdan's example page.
:So Andy's last instance was of using a redirect. He used the text-only version ''before'' this discussion brought the issue to his attention.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well, okay, however what the last version is, is:

<blockquote>
Current revision (20:40, 20 July 2007) (edit) (undo)
Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback]

Line 1: Line 1:
- {{Deletedpage}} + <div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''

'''Click on the logo to return to the Main Page'''</div>
</blockquote>
Just text, no redirect. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, that one is. The timeline above refers to two different pages; the one that Andy altered at 14:40, and the other which Bhodan raised and which Andy altered at 14:50. See Bohdan's link above. You have quoted the last version of the page you linked to; I'm quoting a different one that Andy changed ten minutes later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:22, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

==Why?==
Can someone please explain why this page was deleted in the first place? And please don't tell me the non-existence of vulvas is your right as an American. ;-p [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:Which page?
:There are quite a few pages that have been deleted for which we don't want those pages/topics recreated, so they are recreated as protected redirects to this page.
:One reason is that we consider some topics inappropriate for a family-friendly encyclopaedia.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::Maybe we could use such a page to help parents teach their kids about sexuality? It needn't be family unfriendly, you know. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 12:19, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Is it because you guys/gals saw the CSI episode and think that portrayal of the Furry Fandom is accurate, because you people should know that they also portray all Asians as kungfu stars.