|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{Wikiproject Religion}} | | {{Wikiproject Religion}} |
| | | | |
| − | I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]
| + | For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:God/Archive 1|1]]. |
| | | | |
| − | Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | <!-------- NEW DISCUSSIONS BELOW THIS LINE ---------> |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==Neutrality==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
| |
| − | ::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007
| |
| − | Opacic, that may be difficult seeing as 'He' Doesn't.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
| |
| − | ::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
| |
| − | Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The bible is proof that god exists; it has historical accounts of people meeting god. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:10, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The problem is that quite a few people do not consider the Bible a reliable source. In e.g. the New Testament, the Gospels are written by anonymous people decades after the death of Jesus, and the origine of the Old Testament and the rest of the Tanakh remains unknown. If we do, however, regard the Bible as a historical source, even then, it can't be used as decisive proof of anything. Even modern sources can't, because you will have to consider their reliability. And then what about all the other sources contradicting it? What about e.g. the Qur'an? It is actually a much more reliable source since we know its author to be the creator of the religion, Muhammed. Or what about the Iliad? Do those texts also prove their respective religions and the existence of their gods? Or should we have to be a little more critical when reading sources than to consider the words of the Bible decisive proof?--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::Thank you! people act as if the bible was handed down by god... it wasn't so now the statement reads: prove the bible is true. now what?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
| |
| − | "However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Note==
| |
| − | Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :you are correct Judaism created both Christianity and Islam and both preach pretty much the same message. and yes it does paint Islam in a satanic light but good luck trying to change it to more factual information without getting banned.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Errors==
| |
| − | I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Omnibenevolence==
| |
| − | Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==Conservapedia is not open==
| |
| − | | |
| − | How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Conservatives==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Attributes of God==
| |
| − | These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | "not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The argument against God's benevolence is severely flawed. It assumes that suffering serves no useful purpose and that a human society where God prohibits all suffering will necessarily be better than having suffering.
| |
| − | :Even reading the Book of Job won't be enough. You're going to need a doctorate or two in religious philosophy, etc., before you can seriously debate the Problem of Evil. --[[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Bad sentence ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Well, I dont believe in god.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Capitalization Concerns ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
| |
| − | Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
| |
| − | <ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
| |
| − | :Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
| |
| − | ::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==other views of god==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<small><--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]</small>
| |
| − | :Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | {{cquote|James <sup>2:19</sup> You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
| |
| − | It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==God's Evidence==
| |
| − | I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | ::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::He can certainly make it clearer. Every action we can observe today has an explanation independent of God, and the Bible is old enough that many believe it to be of dubious credibility in terms of the literal, physical events that took place. Consistent, verifiable, clear violations of the laws of physics (especially connected with a religious setting) would do much to convince many unbelievers. Nonetheless, God does not intervene in that way, and this is an important aspect of His character. [[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
| |
| − | ::::: Sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery in there. Why does its age undermine its credibility? (Or are you suggesting that that's the view of many people, but not your view?) If there were ''consistent'' and ''verifiable'' (by means of repeatable tests) "violations" of the laws of physics, then surely those "violations" would indicate that we have the laws of physics wrong? And that they aren't really "violations" at all? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Breach of commandments? ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."
| |
| − | | |
| − | I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being
| |
| − | | |
| − | "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."
| |
| − | | |
| − | How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | : By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::On what basis do you claim that the bible is reliable? I see nothing in either [[Bible]] nor [[:Category:Bible]] which attempts to explain the bible's supposed reliability. If you're going to call the Bible a reliable source I think you should justify it. --[[User:Tigerthink|Tigerthink]] 20:42, 1 January 2009 (EST)
| |
| − | ::: You didn't look hard enough. In [[:Category:Bible]] there is an entry for [[Biblical accuracy]], which does just what you ask for: an attempt to explain the Bible's reliability. Admittedly, it's not much more than a stub, so "attempt" is an apt term, but it is at least an attempt. Probably a few other articles in that category also provide some evidence of reliability, but I haven't checked further. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 January 2009 (EST)
| |
| − | :::Of course the Bible is reliable! How can you get more reliable than God's own word?[[User:Petertatchell23|Petertatchell23]] 10:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)
| |
| − | I think his point was that the Bible wasn't proven to be written by God as a primary source. As a very old collection, the bible may be subject to inaccuracy or exaggeration of "God's own word." This is just a point, I'm not illustrating my own beliefs. [[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 20:20 14 May 2009
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Suggestion ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Add to the start of the article:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::<small>''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''</small>
| |
| − | | |
| − | :My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | :: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Question ==
| |
| − | Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | : My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
| |
| − | :Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1
| |
| − | | |
| − | * If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
| |
| − | :Not intervening is not the same as not seeing
| |
| − | | |
| − | * If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
| |
| − | :Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?
| |
| − | | |
| − | * If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
| |
| − | :Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
| |
| − | :Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Science states that is what occurs; it is a paradox. But when a paradox comes from science, which is limited, it is accepted. When it comes from God, who is not limited, it is fought.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The same reason parents will ask their children questions that they already know the answer to. It has more to do with the children than the parents doesn't it?
| |
| − | | |
| − | If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away,
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Free will
| |
| − | | |
| − | ... and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Free will
| |
| − | | |
| − | Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I would disagree that the ability to create a nonsense argument means that omnipotence is impossible. By the same logic there is no such thing as infinity (a much easier argument), but infinity must exist for current secular positions on where our universe came from.
| |
| − | | |
| − | What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Yes he did. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | It is not a paradox. You are simply not adding velocities correctly. At very high speeds, special relativity tends to be counter-intuitive. 90%c+90%c does not equal 180%c. It comes over 99%c, but not quite at the speed of light. Counter-intuitive in numbers, but it is also faulty to think that winning a game of chance with 1% to win can have the chance be raised in a linear fashion because 1/100 + 1/100 = 2/100 or 1/50, as 100 tries will not guarantee you a win, although 1/100 multiplied by 100 equals 100%.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Free will is your answer for almost half of these. But is it truly free? Science shows that serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, etc. can influence behaviors such as aggression and addiction. Doesn't he know what neurons are activating in our brain?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Could you provide an example of a contradiction proving infinity wrong? Because if A leads to B, and B isn't true, how can A be true. You would disagree, but could you tell me why?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Yes, Elijah killed the prophets of Baal, that tore their hair out in an attempt to stir their god. They clearly believed in Baal, but there was no mercy nonetheless. So isn't he a jealous god, in every sense of the word? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 9 October 2008
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == Nav box ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Could a sysop either unlock the article or add <nowiki>{{DivineComedy}}</nowiki> at the end? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | : Unlocked for one week (will automatically relock, I presume—I wanted to try that out). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
| |
