Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bird

2010-01-03T23:05:05Z

JohnD: feather reference

{{taxonomy
|kingdom=Animalia
|image=Grey_Wagtail.jpg
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Aves
}}
A '''Bird''' is a warm-blooded [[egg]]-laying [[vertebrate]] with [[wing]]s and [[feather]]s. For the most part, they fly.
[[Ostrich]]es, [[penguin]]s, and [[emu]]s are birds that don't fly, although penguins have sometimes been said to "fly" underwater. [[Robin]]s, [[sparrow]]s, [[cardinal (bird)|cardinal]]s, and [[eagle]]s are more typical flying birds.

== Physical characteristics ==
All birds have two legs and two wings (although in some flightless species such as the [[kiwi]], the wings are very small and serve little purpose). Birds also have a beak, although its shape, size and use varies enormously between species. Uniquely among vertabrates, birds have hollow [[bone]]s; this makes them very light for their size, facilitating flight. Living birds do not have teeth, although some extinct species had teeth. Birds' feathers can be any color, and the colors and pattern often vary between males and females of the same species, with males typically having the more garish and elaborate plumage; in some species such as [[peacock]]s and [[birds of paradise]] this is taken to striking extremes.

== Birds as dinosaurs ==
Almost all{{fact}} evolutionary biologists believe that birds are the only extant group of dinosaurs, a branch of the [[theropod]]s, which included ''[[Velociraptor]]'' and ''[[Deinonychus]]''. This view is disputed by [[creationism|creationists]], and also by a few prominent evolutionary [[biology|biologists]]. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that dinosaur species such as the ''[[Velociraptor]]'' and others possessed primitive feathers<ref>Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor Science 21 September 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5845, p. 1721 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5845/1721</ref>.

== Creationary view ==
[[Creationism|Creationists]] contend that birds being descendants of [[dinosaur]]s is unreasonable and is not scientifically supported with any evidence.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird Evolution], chapter 4 of Refuting Evolution.</ref><ref>McIntosh, Andy, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' 26(1):44–48, December 2003.</ref>

They also point out that God could have created some dinosaurs with feathers, and therefore that finding feathered dinosaurs does not prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds.<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2775 ''Scientific American'' admits creationists hit a sore spot] 13th March, 2003 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Creationary scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding birds being descendants of dinosaurs:

{{QuoteBox|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American], Creation Ministries International</ref>}}

Evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] in 1942 wrote:
{{QuoteBox|It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.<ref>Brown, Walt, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood]</ref>}}

[[Scientific American]] stated:
{{QuoteBox|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp ''Scientific American'' admits creationists hit a sore spot], Answers in Genesis.</ref><ref>Prum, Richard O., and Brush, Alan H., [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American'', March 2003.</ref>}}

Another evolutionist critical of the dinosaur/bird connection is Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the [[National Museum of Natural History]] at the [[Smithsonian Institution]], who said: {{QuoteBox|The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of [[cold fusion]].<ref>Olson, Storrs L., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3385/ Open letter], 1st November, 1999.</ref>}}

Since Olsen's open letter was published in 1999, however, numerous theropod fossils with clear evidence of feathers have been discovered<ref>Göhlich, U.B., and Chiappe, L.M. (2006). "A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago." Nature, 440: 329-332</ref>.

Creationist also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed.<ref>Menton, David N., [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" discovery?], Answers in Genesis.</ref>

== Evolutionary view ==
A very widely held hypothesis is that birds evolved from earlier theropod dinosaurs over 150 million years ago. The most-frequently claimed candidate for a [[transitional form]] is ''[[Archaeopteryx|Archaeopteryx lithographica]]'' which is from the late [[Jurassic]] (about 150 million years ago) of [[Germany]].
There are other claimed transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> also.

There are many papers in the peer-reviewed science literature, including leading journals such as ''Nature'' and ''Science'', that support the idea that birds are a sub-group of dinosaurs. For example:
{{QuoteBox|Several features, including a carinate sternum and reduced fibula, suggest that ''Mononychus olecranus'' is more closely related to modern birds than is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica''. The two skeletons are among the best preserved fossils known of a primitive bird, and emphasize the complexity of the morphological transformation from nonavialian theropods to modern birds. The occurrence of such a primitive bird in the Late Cretaceous reflects the paucity of Mesozoic bird fossils and suggests that the early radiation of avialians is only beginning to be sampled
<ref>''Nature'' 362, 623-626 ([[15 April]] [[1993]])</ref>}}

Since those words were written in 1993, however, many fossils of primitive birds and other theropods have been discovered, so it is no longer correct to consider the Late Mesozoic fossil evidence of this group as depauperate.

=== Taxonomy ===
The conventional [[Linnaean taxonomy]] places birds in the Class Aves within the Subphylum [[Vertebrate|Vertebrata]]. [[Reptilia]], the conventional Class of reptiles, includes [[crocodile]]s and relatives, [[lizard]]s and [[snake]]s, [[turtle]]s, and the [[tuatara]]. However, birds and other, extinct [[dinosaur]]s should be grouped as [[archosaur]]s, along with the extant crocodiles and the extinct [[pterosaur]]s. Hence the conventional classification does not reflect the current state of evolutionary biology.

[[Zoology|Zoologists]] continue to use Class Aves as the taxonomic group of birds but recognise that it is a sub-group of the Superorder Dinosauria, which in turn is a member of the group Archosauria, including crocodiles and pterosaurs. The higher classification of reptiles (including birds) is not fully resolved but a common view is that current evidence indicates that the archosaurs (including birds) are a sister group of the lepidosaurs, which include lizards, snakes, the tuatara, and the extinct [[mosasaur]]s and [[plesiosaur]]s.<ref>Benton, 2004. Vertebrate Paleontology</ref>

===Evolution of flight===

'''Cursorial Theory'''

Proposed in 1879 by [[fossil]] expert [[Samuel Williston]], the Cursorial Theory suggests that the ancestors of birds were ground-dwelling theropods that developed flight through leaping and jumping. Cursorial Theory is no longer popular among scientists, who generally favor the Arboreal "trees down" theory of flight, since taking off from the ground is energetically expensive, thus it is therefore considered unlikely that flapping flight evolved from the ground up.

However, proponents of the Cursorial theory point to the basilisk lizard, which possesses the ability to run on water for a short time to escape predators, yet also has the ability to climb with great agility. The ability to run bipedally is not evident from the basilisk anatomy alone, and this illustrates the plasticity of animal behavior. It is nearly impossible to determine an animal's behavior simply by looking at its anatomy, as animals are capable of behavior beyond what their anatomy would suggest.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Vertebrates]]

Talk:Bird

2010-01-03T22:33:07Z

JohnD: Both?

This article is a complete and utter disgrace.

Stand back from this, and ask yourselves what is going on here?
If this really is to be used as a resource, i.e. an encyclopaedia, then someone looking up the word 'bird', is looking to find out about birds, and not wanting to get into a discussion of whether or not birds descended from dinosaurs or not. This should have a typology of birds, in to different types, species etc, as well as discussing anatomical details, breeding habits and all sorts of stuff like that. Right at the end, perhaps there could be stuff about bird origins, but taking up 95% of the article, come on!
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 17:27, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:So far, this article has focussed on the supposition by evolutionists that birds and dinosaurs are related. If you can add some facts about birds which have nothing to do with the [[origins debate]], we'd all be happy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::then all the debate stuff should be moved to a page called "Bird-Dinosaur Controversy" or some such. It should not constitute the major part of an article on birds.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 17:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is the whole of the "Creationary view" section taken up with creationist critiques of the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis rather than positive evidence for the "creationary" version of the origin of birds? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:08, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
: Probably because nobody's yet written that part. Are you offering? Actually, I think the section is a bit inaccurate in that perhaps only the first quote is to do with dinosaur-to-bird evolution, and the other two are to do with bird evolution regardless of whether it was from dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
::No, not offering to write it. Because I don't take a "creationary view" of things, I'm really not qualified. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 10:52, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==I'm sorry, but...==
This article states that the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is not supported by ANY scientific data. I'm sorry, but this is plain and simply not true. There is burgeoning evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, though there are some aspects of their physiology that would suggest that birds evolved from thecodonts, the amphibious ancestors of dinosaurs. This is not a matter of liberalism, or conservatism, but a matter of highest scientific truth. Please understand that it is completely detestable to cloud truth, science, and progress due to petty bipartisan bickering. I feel obligated as a budding ornithologist to largely re-write the section of this article concerning the evolution of birds. {{unsigned|BirdEgal202}}
::The article does ''not'' state that there is no scientific data. It says that ''creationists contend that'' there is no scientific data. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:16, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, go ahead and rewrite. Bear in mind that the intro says, "It is commonly believed that birds have evolved from dinosaurs, although this view is disputed by both creationists and some evolutionists." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but the evolutionists who dispute the evolution of birds from dinosaurs believe that they descended from thecodonts. And creationism isn't really science, it doesn't use the scientific method, it's difficult to back up. {{unsigned|BirdEgal202}}
:Creationism is no less scientific than evolutionism. It uses the scientific method just as much, and is just as easy (or hard) to back up as evolution. It's better to refute an opposing view than simply dismiss it as not worthy of refutation.
:However, regardless of that, thanks for your addition to the article, although I will be editing it partly to remove the evolutionary view presented as truth.
:
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:16, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

That's just the thing. Everything I've written is true. I've presented cursorial theory as it is, a theory, and factual evidence that backs it up. For example, {{unsigned|BirdEgal202}}
:Didn't finish writing that?
:Yes, for the most part, you did present it as a theory. Most of my changes to your addition were simply for better wording. The one bit that I did delete outright, "Vertebrates consistently illustrate throughout their history that adaptive behavior probably evolves before anatomy in adapting to new niches and habitats.", was written as a fact yet presupposes the accuracy of the [[radiometric dating]] methods involved, which presupposes the naturalistic worldview.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out-of-date quotes ==

I've deleted a hugely out-of-date quote by Ernst Mayr (1942), inserted by Philip J. Rayment. "Missing links" in biological evolution are being discovered all the time and the evolution of different types feathers in theropod dinosaurs (including birds) has now become an excellent example of gradual evolution of complex structures. The same could apply to the "Open Letter" quote from Storrs Olsen, given the very rapid development in theropod paleontology in the last 10 years. Please keep up with the current scientific evidence, especially in such a fast-moving area as this. [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 06:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
: I've reinstated the quote, because it's not out of date at all. You are confusing Mayr's objection to how it ''could'' have happened with supposed evidence that it ''did'' happen. If Mayr was saying that there was no evidence, then you would have a point. But he was not saying that, and you've offered nothing to show that the particular point he was making is out of date.
: Storr's letter would only be out of date if he had retracted it, which is not a claim that you've made.
: The issue is not one of keeping up with the ''evidence'', but of keeping up with the prevailing opinions. Nobody has seen a dinosaur evolve into a bird, and nobody has produced a "finely-graded" (Darwin's words) sequence of fossils going from dinosaurs to birds. In other words, even if there really is one or more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, dinosaurs with feathers are not birds, but dinosaurs with feathers.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, Philip, but I must disagree. The quote from Mayr says "it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations" - and this is ridiculously out of date as a representation of evolutionary thinking. No evolutionary biologist's credulity is at all strained these days by the notion of random mutations leading to finely balanced systems. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:42, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Regarding PJR's comment, "Storr's letter would only be out of date if he had retracted it": that's incorrect. Science can (and very often does) go out-of-date even if the author of a hypothesis doesn't retract it. Or indeed, isn't alive to retract it. Lamarck, for one, whose theory of evolution was entirely reasonable based on the state of scientific knowledge at the time he lived but was, of course, entirely superseded by the Darwin-Wallace model of evolution by natural selection and by developments in genetics in the 20th century. Or Aristotle, whose theory of logic is arguably the basis of Western scientific thought but some of whose biological theories have, to put it mildly, not stood the test of time. Or many, many others, alive and dead, whose hypotheses have been disproved by new discoveries. [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 17:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:::And regarding PJR's comment that "nobody has produced a finely-graded sequence of fossils going from dinosaurs to birds": sorry, not true either. The series of links between non-bird theropods and birds is now very good. It has even been possible to map the evolution of five stages of feather evolution onto points of divergence among theropod lineages (inc. birds). [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 17:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: First of all, Humblpi's attempted refutation of my argument against JibBob61's reason for claiming that the Mayr quote was out of date does not actually refute my argument at all, but introduces a ''different'' reason for claiming that it's out of date.
:::: Second, he hasn't made his case. That is, he claims that Mayr's quote is out of date simply because ''today'' most evolutionists don't have that problem. But he hasn't shown that most evolutionists had that problem when Mayr said that. That is, perhaps Mayr was simply pointing out a problem that most evolutionists ignored, and that they are still ignoring today. If that is the case, the quote is just as relevant today as when he said it. Further, he hasn't actually shown that evolutionary biologists don't still have that problem. Although it's not talking about exactly the same thing, the much more recent quote from Scientific American would tend to suggest that the problem remains.
:::: Third, by restricting it to ''evolutionary'' biologists he is biasing the sample. There are many biologists that still agree with Mayr; they simply aren't ''evolutionary'' biologists. True, Mayr was an evolutionist, but he wasn't claiming that this was something that all evolutionists and only evolutionists believed, so the claim that current-day evolutionists collectively and only evolutionists believe that, is irrelevant.
:::: Storr's letter was talking about methodology, not evidence. True, methodology can change, and you are right that letters can go out of date without being retracted, but there's no evidence offered that it ''has'' gone out of date.
:::: Please point me to the finely-graded sequence of fossils from dinosaurs to birds. I suspect that it's really a case that rather than being no sequence at all, there is now a ''very'' coarse sequence, which to evolutionists struggling to find ''any'' evidence of a sequence is a major improvement, but still does not constitute a "finely-graded" sequence.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

== Before I spend any more time... ==

PJR's edits have destroyed the sense of what I added. I don't understand this over-reaction. Can someone please enlighten me as to what on earth creationism has to do with conservative politics? [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 10:02, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's an overreaction at all. And what does ''evolution'' have to do with conservative politics? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:27, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reverting ==

Well, that doesn't answer the question, does it. I've reverted the page to the way it was before I tried bringing the science up-to-date. Do what you like with it but just beware that this page, at the moment, is quite hopelessly out-of-date. A couple of points before I say cheerio, tatty-bye and farewell:
* A good article describing the '''''detailed''''' relationship - not at all a coarse sequence - between the evolution of theropod/bird anatomy and the evolution of feathers was in ''National Geographic'' in the last few years, probably sometime between 2004 and 2006 (possibly 2007). Anyone seriously interested in the one of the most exciting developments in biological evolution in recent years will be able to find it in a public library. Also plenty of material in peer-reviewed journals.
* It really doesn't matter whether a hypothesis was proposed by someone as eminent as Ernst Mayr - if it's disproved by the evidence, it's wrong. Any scientist with a decent amount of imagination will have proposed several hypotheses which have turned out the be wrong. In this case, the hypothesis that it strains one's credulity to understand how feathers could have evolved from simple structures is wrong, because it's disproved by the fossil evidence of feather evolution in last 20 years. This is one of very many 'missing links' in biological evolution which are constantly being filled. There was a good article about 'myths of evolution' in ''New Scientist'' recently (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html). [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 16:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

: I'm extremely sceptical of such a finely-graded sequence, especially if it's in ''National Geographic'', as it is a popular magazine and is unlikely to go into ''that much'' detail, and is the same publication panned by Storrs Olson as "highly biased". Nevertheless, if you can tell me the specific issue, I will try and have a look at it.
: According to your own comments, Mayr's "hypothesis" has not been disproved by the evidence. That it is very hard to believe something could have occurred is not disproven by showing that it has occurred: it can still be very hard to believe.
: As for "keeping up to date" (in your edit comment), it's wiser to keep a little (or lot) ''behind'' the claims, as so many turn out to be overstated if not outright wrong after further investigation. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? Or, more appropriately here, [[Archaeoraptor]]? I'm not saying that every claim about feathers on dinosaurs is fraudulent, but there's been sufficient fraudulent and mistaken claims that caution is warranted instead of immediately accepting the very latest claims at face value.
: I had seen the print copy of the New Scientist article, but not the expanded Internet version. But I reject that it is a "good article", with absolute nonsense being included, such as claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is flat and that the moon generates its own light. They should be ashamed of having published this rubbish.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

== And if they flew, they would be birds, surely? ==

Not if they were chickens. Or turkeys. Or penguins. Or bats. Or Rocky the Flying Squirrel.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Or many other things that fly and are not birds! [[User:CherryS|CherryS]] 22:54, 11 June 2008 (CDT)
:Chickens and turkeys ''are'' birds. I didn't say that if they are birds they would fly, but if they flew they would be birds. The latter does not exclude the possibility of non-flying birds. As for the rest, the comment was in the context of dinosaurs supposedly evolving into birds, and to the point where they might have flown. So if they had got to the point of flying whilst evolving ''into'' birds (not flying mammals, etc.), then they would surely have been considered birds. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::What about [[pterodactyl]]s? Are they not birds due to lack of feathers? If so, how are we defining birds? Did we know that all feathered dinosaurs were warm-blooded? [[User:CherryS|CherryS]] 19:02, 12 June 2008 (CDT)
::: What about them? Pterodactyls were neither dinosaurs nor birds. I'm defining birds the way birds are commonly defined these days. I don't see the relevance of the last question, but I'm not even sure that there ''were'' feathered dinosaurs, let alone knowing if they were warm-blooded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I was referring to the "definition" of birds as egg-laying feathered warm-blooded animals, all of which may or may not have been characteristics of some species commonly or scientifically referred to as "dinosaurs." This is why whether or not pterodactyls being warm-blooded or not may be relevant, since it is still not completely determined whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like reptiles or warm-blooded like birds. As for your first statement, if pterodactyls were neither birds nor dinosaurs, where do you think they fall? Palaeontology textbooks (which admittedly always take the evolutionist side) classify them in Dinosauria (though some books list Aves as a subset of Dinosauria). [[User:CherryS|CherryS]] 13:08 13 June 2008
:::: Correction, old paleontology textbooks think pterosaurs are dinosaurs, but most believe them now to be true reptiles that could fly. You learn something new every day! :) [[User:CherryS|CherryS]] 13:13 13 June 2008
::::: I think your discovery about pterodactyls removes most of your argument, but there's still a valid question hidden in there. That is, if the sequence is cold-blooded dinosaur --> add feathers --> add ability to fly --> add warm-bloodedness, then at what point are they considered "birds". And perhaps you are correct. Perhaps until they reach that last stage, they are not considered "birds". (Keep in mind that such definitions are man-made and somewhat arbitrary [[classification system]].<-- read that.) But a hundred or so years ago, you had the following definitions (loosely stated): Dinosaur = "large cold-blooded reptile". Bird = "warm-blooded feathered flying creature". That is, there was no provision for "warm-blooded reptile", "cold- or warm-blooded reptile with feathers", and "cold-blooded feathered flying creature". When scientists realised that some dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded, they didn't invent a new category, but expanded the definition of "dinosaur" to included warm-bloodedness. And when they started to imagine that dinosaurs evolved into birds, they expanded the definition again to include feathers. But why keep expanding the definition of "dinosaur"? Why not expand the definition of "bird"? Including "cold-bloodedness" in "bird" seems more reasonable (especially given that the precedent with dinosaurs is that blood temperature is not really a critical determining factor). So in the sequence above, they became "birds" not at the last step of acquiring warm-bloodedness, but at the second last step of gaining the ability to fly.
::::: Of course that's all based on that particular sequence. If (some?) dinosaurs were warm-blooded before acquiring feathers, it would seem that the sequence is wrong, and I suspect that there's likely biological reasons why it's better for flying creatures to be warm-blooded anyway.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Luke said some velociraptor skeletons have been found with imprints of feathers. Does he have a source for that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:43, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:I think this is the source you want
:[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5845/1721 Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor]
:--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 17:11, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Should the source go with [[bird]]s or [[velociraptor]]s? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::: How about both? That way all bases are covered. --[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 17:33, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Bird

2010-01-03T22:11:58Z

JohnD: Source

Talk:Robert L. Gibbs

2009-03-03T16:38:57Z

JohnD: Reply

== unsourced opinion ==

This article makes the serious allegation that Gibb is anti semite with no citation to back it up. Unless one is provided I think the article should be rewritten to remove the un sourced opinion.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 09:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:I provided sources that Liberal ideology is anti-semetic. And the very fact that Gibbs, as a liberal public figure, repeatedly and false accused Hanity of being anti-semetic makes it appropriate for an article about him. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:55, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::Please don't accuse me of making an unsourced opinion of something that I and others have worked hard to carefully document. Liberals and liberal Christians are well-known for Anti-Semetism. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:::So your source that Gibbs is anti-semetic is an article that you wrote that makes the assertion that all liberals are anti-semetic, based on a study done of "Christian Century" (a publication Gibbs has never been involved with as far as I'm aware) that concludes it is anti-semetic. I do not believe this is good enough. If an encyclopaedia article is to make a claim about Gibbs, it needs to provide a reliable source which shows Gibbs doing or say something anti-semetic.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::::No, my source is a well-referenced book written by an Israeli government official that carefully analyzes liberal policy and rhetoric and its results are that American liberalism (including much of American professors who discuss this topic) is anti-Semetic and often blame conservatives for what is in fact a liberal sin. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:14, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:::::No it isn't. Your source, provided in the article is [[Liberal Christianity#Liberal Christianity's Anti-Semitism]], an article which you wrote. This source then goes on to accuse all liberal Christians of being anti-Semites based on the book your mention above, (which incidently, isn't referenced properly in either article.)
:::::Anyway, I don't wish to edit war with you about this so I have done what we did last time and raised the issue with an Sysop. I hope this acceptable.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::::::I have not written that Gibbs is anti-Semitic as you claim I have done. What I have done and written is the fact that Gibbs is blaming a conservative [[Hannity]] for being Anti-Semitic and then added the historical context of what other high-profile liberals like himself have also done along with analysis of such high-profile liberal comments and their ideology surrounding the matter. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:32, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:::::::The claim Gibbs is a hypocrite for calling Hannity anti-Semitic, along with the other visible references to anti-Semitism on the page make the article read like you are accusing Gibbs of anti-Semitism. This may not be how you wished it to read, in which case I suggest you rewrite it with more care.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:38, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Robert L. Gibbs

2009-03-03T16:26:56Z

JohnD:

Talk:Robert L. Gibbs

2009-03-03T16:26:38Z

JohnD: Reply

== unsourced opinion ==

This article makes the serious allegation that Gibb is anti semite with no citation to back it up. Unless one is provided I think the article should be rewritten to remove the un sourced opinion.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 09:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:I provided sources that Liberal ideology is anti-semetic. And the very fact that Gibbs, as a liberal public figure, repeatedly and false accused Hanity of being anti-semetic makes it appropriate for an article about him. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:55, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::Please don't accuse me of making an unsourced opinion of something that I and others have worked hard to carefully document. Liberals and liberal Christians are well-known for Anti-Semetism. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:::So your source that Gibbs is anti-semetic is an article that you wrote that makes the assertion that all liberals are anti-semetic, based on a study done of "Christian Century" (a publication Gibbs has never been involved with as far as I'm aware) that concludes it is anti-semetic. I do not believe this is good enough. If an encyclopaedia article is to make a claim about Gibbs, it needs to provide a reliable source which shows Gibbs doing or say something anti-semetic.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::::No, my source is a well-referenced book written by an Israeli government official that carefully analyzes liberal policy and rhetoric and its results are that American liberalism (including much of American professors who discuss this topic) is anti-Semetic and often blame conservatives for what is in fact a liberal sin. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:14, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::::No it isn't. Your source, provided in the article is [[Liberal Christianity#Liberal Christianity's Anti-Semitism]], an article which you wrote. This source then goes on to accuse all liberal Christians of being anti-Semites based on the book your mention above, (which incidently, isn't referenced properly in either article.)
::::Anyway, I don't wish to edit war with you about this so I have done what we did last time and raised the issue with an Sysop. I hope this acceptable.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Robert L. Gibbs

2009-03-03T16:11:06Z

JohnD: Reply

Robert L. Gibbs

2009-03-03T14:08:23Z

JohnD: Remove libel

'''Robert L. Gibbs''' is the current Whitehouse Press Sectary. He is still most famous for accusing [[Sean Hannity]] of being Anti-Semetic, which became a viral video in the fall of 2008<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:Robert L. Gibbs

2009-03-03T14:06:03Z

JohnD: unsourced opinion

Eugene Klaaren

2009-01-12T22:05:54Z

JohnD: Move suggestion

{{move|Eugene Marion Klaaren}}
Eugene Marion Klaaren is a historian and professor of religion. He holds a B.A. from [[Hope College]], an M.A. from [[Emory University]], a B.D. from [[Western Theological Seminary]], and a Ph.D. from [[Harvard University]]. He is now an Emeritus Professor of [[Wesleyan University]]. His book ''Religious Origins of Modern Science: Belief in Creation in Seventeenth-Century Thought'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1977) remains "an important one. It is written in a scholarly and fairly dense style but is also accessible to non-specialists." <ref name=brooks> ''Science and Religion in the English Speaking World, 1600-1727 A Biliographic Guide to the Secondary Literature'', Richard S. Boorks & David K. Himrod, [[Scarecrow Press]], 2001, ISBN 0-8108-4011-1, pp. 249-250 </ref> His ''Religious Origins'' book is based on his Ph.D. Thesis: "Belief in creation and the rise of modern science a study in the representative natural philosophy and theology of Robert Boyle and other seventeenth century figures" (1970). <ref> [http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=no:024800835 WorldCat listing] </ref>

==Selected works==
*''Religious origins of modern science : belief in creation in seventeenth-century thought'' (1977)
*''Dooyeweerd's criticism of Kant'' (1960)

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
[http://www.wesleyan.edu/templates/dept/reli/skeleton_faculty.htt?function=f1&department=RELI&faculty=eklaaren Faculty Page]

[[Category:Historians]]

Hand

2009-01-12T00:24:26Z

JohnD: References

[[Image:Tst456yh.svg|right|thumb|Palm of left hand, showing position of skin creases and bones, and surface markings for the volar arches.]]
The human '''hand''' is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other [[primate]]s and also [[kangaroo]]s and [[squirrel]]s and [[chameleon]]s and a number of other animals.

The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Although the human hand is not nearly as strong as a that of a [[chimpanzee]], when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can build enormous skyscrapers or tiny electronic circuits.
== Anatomy ==

The human hand consists of 27 [[bones]] - two rows of carpals forming the wrist (consisting of the scaphoid, lunate, triquetral and pisiform proximally, and the trapezoid, trapezium, capitate and hamate distally), followed by five metacarpals forming the palm, and 3 phalanges for each finger (proximal, distal and intermediate) and 2 phalanges for the thumb. These bones provide the attachments for the tendons of the long muscles originating from the humerus and the radius and ulner bones of the forearm, as well as the short muscles of the hand.

The wrist is controlled by 4 muscles - the extensor carpi radialis and ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis and ulnaris. Attached to the carpal bones of the wrist, these muscles allow for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and circumduction. The fingers and thumb are also largely controlled by muscles arising in the forearm, their tendons passing under retinaculums (stong fibrous bands at joints, forming the carpal tunnel ) at the wrist to prevent them bow stringing during flexion and extension. Small muscles in the hand provide additional mobility to the digits, such as the interossei muscles, located between the metacarpals, which abduct and adduct the fingers, and the various muscles of the thenar eminence which provide the ability to oppose thumb and forefinger.

These muscles are innervated by the ulnar, radial and median nerves.<ref>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1285060-overview</ref>

== The Hand Throughout The Animal Kingdom ==
Structures in the human hand are remarkably similar throughout the mammal kingdom and even birds and reptiles. Most [[mammals]] have comparable bones, although significantly distorted (such as in a horse's [[hoof]]).<ref>http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-limbs.jpg</ref> Other than humans, the only other species with opposable thumbs are other primates, such as [[chimpanzees]].

The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Although the human hand is not nearly as strong as a that of a [[chimpanzee]], when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can do remarkable things.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Image:Hands.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A human left hand (back and palm).]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

Hand

2009-01-12T00:18:39Z

JohnD:

[[Image:Tst456yh.svg|right|thumb|Palm of left hand, showing position of skin creases and bones, and surface markings for the volar arches.]]
The human '''hand''' is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other [[primate]]s and also [[kangaroo]]s and [[squirrel]]s and [[chameleon]]s and a number of other animals.

The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Although the human hand is not nearly as strong as a that of a [[chimpanzee]], when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can build enormous skyscrapers or tiny electronic circuits.
== Anatomy ==

The human hand consists of 27 [[bones]] - two rows of carpals forming the wrist (consisting of the scaphoid, lunate, triquetral and pisiform proximally, and the trapezoid, trapezium, capitate and hamate distally), followed by five metacarpals forming the palm, and 3 phalanges for each finger (proximal, distal and intermediate) and 2 phalanges for the thumb. These bones provide the attachments for the tendons of the long muscles originating from the humerus and the radius and ulner bones of the forearm, as well as the short muscles of the hand.

The wrist is controlled by 4 muscles - the extensor carpi radialis and ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis and ulnaris. Attached to the carpal bones of the wrist, these muscles allow for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and circumduction. The fingers and thumb are also largely controlled by muscles arising in the forearm, their tendons passing under retinaculums (stong fibrous bands at joints, forming the carpal tunnel ) at the wrist to prevent them bow stringing during flexion and extension. Small muscles in the hand provide additional mobility to the digits, such as the interossei muscles, located between the metacarpals, which abduct and adduct the fingers, and the various muscles of the thenar eminence which provide the ability to oppose thumb and forefinger.

These muscles are innervated by the ulnar, radial and median nerves.<ref>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1285060-overview</ref>

== The Hand Throughout The Animal Kingdom ==
Structures in the human hand are remarkably similar throughout the mammal kingdom and even birds and reptiles. Most [[mammals]] have comparable bones, although significantly distorted (such as in a horse's [[hoof]]).<ref>http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-limbs.jpg</ref> Other than humans, the only other species with opposable thumbs are other primates, such as [[chimpanzees]].

The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Although the human hand is not nearly as strong as a that of a [[chimpanzee]], when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can do remarkable things.

[[Image:Hands.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A human left hand (back and palm).]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

User:Cockamamie

2009-01-12T00:01:53Z

JohnD: New page: {{Useful links}}

John Wayne Gacy

2009-01-11T21:12:10Z

JohnD: being member of democratic party != to being a serial killer.

{{RefAppeal}}
'''John Wayne Gacy''', (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was a 1970s [[serial killer]].
He was convicted and later executed for the [[rape]] and [[murder]] of 33 boys and young men, 28 of whom he buried in the crawl space under his house, between 1972 and his arrest in December 1978. He evaded detection for quite a long period of time by successfully presenting the outward appearance of an upstanding citizen, often helping out the neighbors, and volunteering his firm's time for neighbourhood projects. He was also the chaplain of the Jaycees. He became notorious as the "Killer [[Clown]]" because of the many block parties he attended, entertaining children while dressed up as a roly-poly "Pogo the Clown". Many parents who used his services have since expressed concern that they had doubts about what he may have been carrying in his clown's pocket. When confronted by the police, he began to confess immediately. There was no question that Gacy would be found guilty and a jury took barely an hour to come to that decision. He was sentenced to death, under new guidelines that would make sure the penalty was not "cruel and unusual" and therefore within constitutional bounds.

Gacy was a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party, eventually becoming a Democrat precinct captain<ref>http://www.webcitation.org/5c81hVxiU</ref>. In this capacity, he met and was photographed with Rosalynn Carter, wife of Democrat president [[Jimmy Carter]]. Carter posed for pictures with Gacy and autographed the photo "To John Gacy. Best Wishes. Rosalynn Carter".

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gacy, John Wayne}}
[[Category:Serial Killers]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

John Wayne Gacy

2009-01-11T21:11:15Z

JohnD: Undo revision 608115 by JohnD (Talk) Sorry, my mistake.

{{RefAppeal}}
'''John Wayne Gacy''', (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was a 1970s [[serial killer]] and [[Democratic Party]] political activist.

He was convicted and later executed for the [[rape]] and [[murder]] of 33 boys and young men, 28 of whom he buried in the crawl space under his house, between 1972 and his arrest in December 1978. He evaded detection for quite a long period of time by successfully presenting the outward appearance of an upstanding citizen, often helping out the neighbors, and volunteering his firm's time for neighbourhood projects. He was also the chaplain of the Jaycees. He became notorious as the "Killer [[Clown]]" because of the many block parties he attended, entertaining children while dressed up as a roly-poly "Pogo the Clown". Many parents who used his services have since expressed concern that they had doubts about what he may have been carrying in his clown's pocket. When confronted by the police, he began to confess immediately. There was no question that Gacy would be found guilty and a jury took barely an hour to come to that decision. He was sentenced to death, under new guidelines that would make sure the penalty was not "cruel and unusual" and therefore within constitutional bounds.

Gacy was a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party, eventually becoming a Democrat precinct captain<ref>http://www.webcitation.org/5c81hVxiU</ref>. In this capacity, he met and was photographed with Rosalynn Carter, wife of Democrat president [[Jimmy Carter]]. Carter posed for pictures with Gacy and autographed the photo "To John Gacy. Best Wishes. Rosalynn Carter".

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gacy, John Wayne}}
[[Category:Serial Killers]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

John Wayne Gacy

2009-01-11T21:10:31Z

JohnD: Undo revision 608097 by AmerICan (Talk)

{{RefAppeal}}
'''John Wayne Gacy''', (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was a 1970s [[serial killer]]. He was convicted and later executed for the [[rape]] and [[murder]] of 33 boys and young men, 28 of whom he buried in the crawl space under his house, between 1972 and his arrest in December 1978. He evaded detection for quite a long period of time by successfully presenting the outward appearance of an upstanding citizen, often helping out the neighbors, and volunteering his firm's time for neighbourhood projects. He was also the chaplain of the Jaycees. He became notorious as the "Killer [[Clown]]" because of the many block parties he attended, entertaining children while dressed up as a roly-poly "Pogo the Clown". Many parents who used his services have since expressed concern that they had doubts about what he may have been carrying in his clown's pocket. When confronted by the police, he began to confess immediately. There was no question that Gacy would be found guilty and a jury took barely an hour to come to that decision. He was sentenced to death, under new guidelines that would make sure the penalty was not "cruel and unusual" and therefore within constitutional bounds.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gacy, John Wayne}}
[[Category:Serial Killers]]

Talk:John Wayne Gacy

2009-01-11T21:10:01Z

JohnD: Democratic party activist.

== Democratic party activist. ==

This is already mentioned in the body text. I don't think it is worth putting in the first line. It makes it look like this is of equal note as him being a serial killer.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 16:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

John McCain

2009-01-11T20:54:16Z

JohnD: Undo revision 608070 by JeanLucY (Talk) Vandalism

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb|250px|'''Senator John McCain, R-Arizona''']] '''John Sidney McCain III''' (born in the U.S. [[Panama Canal]] Zone, August 29, 1936 ) <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m0003http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>, was the Republican candidate for President in 2008, is a prominent maverick politician and [[Vietnam War]] hero, and he is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] of [[Arizona]]. He has been an influential leader in American politics since 1986, when he ran for office attacking corruption, attacking [[pork barrel]] spending and working for [[campaign finance reform]]. He was defeated by [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, and lost to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 Presidential Election.

As a pilot for the [[United States Navy]] and former Prisoner-of-War ([[POW]]), he served in the military for 22 years.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain, a [[Baptist]],<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html</ref> has impressive credentials on issues of foreign policy and national security, which have propelled him in the forefront of national politics as both an outspoken voice for the United States military and as a Presidential contender for the Republican Party since 1993.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref><ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATIONWORLD/803050441/0/LOCAL1901 ''McCain clinches GOP nomination; Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 IndyStar.com</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref> If McCain had been elected President, he would have been the first President who was ever a POW of a foreign conflict.

==Early Life==
McCain's family has a long history of military service, including ancestors who fought as army soldiers in the Indian Wars, [[American Revolutionary War]], [[War of 1812]], for both the Union and the Confederate States of America during the [[American Civil War]], and in [[World War I]]. Both his father and grandfather were high-ranking United States Navy admirals. In addition, McCain's two sons are currently serving in the U.S. Navy.

In 1951, the McCain family moved to Northern [[Virginia]] and he attended Episcopal High School, a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria. McCain was on the wrestling team and went on to graduate in 1954. He later joined the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated in 1958.

==Military career==
[[Image:McCain 1965.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McCain photographed in 1965]]
McCain served heroically in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He spent two and a half years as a naval aviator in training at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas. By 1967, McCain was a veteran pilot aboard the ''USS Forrestal'' aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam. On 29 July 1967, while preparing to take off on a bombing run over North Vietnam, a missile accidentally fired from another plane, hitting the fuel tanks on McCain's aircraft and triggering explosions and a fire. McCain escaped from his plane by crawling onto the nose of the aircraft and diving on to the ship's deck which was ablaze from burning fuel. His attempt to rescue a fellow pilot whose flight suit was on fire was prevented when McCain was blown over by further explosions. When the fire was contained 24 hours later, 134 men had been killed and hundreds more injured. It was called the worst non-combat-related accident in U.S. naval history.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526451&in_page_id=1811 ''The coronation of the ultimate survivor, John McCain''] 5 March 2008 [[Daily Mail]]</ref>

===Prisoner-Of-War (1967 - 1973)===

On October 26, 1967, as McCain was flying over Hanoi's Thermal Power Plant during his 23rd bombing mission, he was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He had just released his bombs when [[A-4 Skyhawk|his plane]] was shot down by a [[surface-to-air missile]]. As he ejected, unconscious from the accident, he broke his knee and both arms and descended by parachute into a lake. When he floated ashore, Vietnamese locals spit and kicked him, nearly killing him. The police took him to Hoa Loa Prison where he was held in solitary captivity without medical attention or sufficient food. During brutal interrogations, he was asked for information in return for medical care. McCain refused, giving only his name and date of birth. When it was discovered that he was the son of a top U.S. Admiral, he was given medical care. Hospital personnel never believed he would survive, as he had large wounds and weighed a mere 100 lbs. He also had completely white hair, a product of accelerated aging under harsh conditions. Nonetheless, his health improved and McCain was held as a Prisoner-Of-War (POW) at the [[Hanoi Hilton]]. As a prisoner, guards tortured him with frequent beatings and painful contortions, breaking his teeth and bones. <ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref>

After months of beating sessions and intense interrogations, McCain was psychologically and physically weakened. At one point, he was forced to sign a statement which made claims exonerating his captors of inhumane treatment. The paper was intended for use as propaganda, but in all their subsequent attempts for promoting a "humane" image of the POW camp, McCain worked his hardest to thwart them. In 1971, four years from his capture, he was placed with 20 to 30 other Americans in better treatment. They were allowed to celebrate Christian holidays, including Christmas. McCain, who served as an impromptu chaplain, recalled that during their services, men cried; "They were tears of joy that for the first time... we were able to celebrate Christmas together."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> In light of his father's high military status, McCain was offered early release, which he adamantly refused in honor of the "First in, first out" clause of the POW Code of Conduct.

On March 14, 1973, after five and a half years of imprisonment, McCain was released alongside 106 other pilots under the Nixon administration. McCain received a heartfelt reception at the White House and was pronounced a war hero and eminent voice for the Vietnam War. Awards from the military followed, including the Legion of Merit, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, a [[Purple Heart]], the [[Distinguished Flying Cross]], and the Vietnamese Legion of Honor.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> McCain's severe war injuries prevent him today from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. <ref>http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml</ref>

===Return to the Navy (1973 - 1981)===

The Vietnam War and his military service remained strong in McCain's. He immediately wanted to rejoin the Navy, and spent years preparing with excruciating physical therapy and a year of study in the Naval War College, where he attacked the liberal anti-war movement for weakening the morale of his fellow POWs.<ref>Kirkpatrick, David D. "[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/14/america/15pows.php In '74 thesis, the seeds of McCain's war views.]" The New York Times (June 15, 2008) p. A1.]</ref> With his extensive experience in the Navy's Aviation division, he was selected to reform the flying fleet as Commanding Officer. John McCain quickly transformed his crew's personnel, which had been underfunded in the post-Vietnam era. Carl Smith, who served under McCain, stated, "He immediately began making changes. He fired people, and he replaced people at the top who he thought were not being as effective as he wanted them to be. He wanted real leadership. He wanted the squadron to come to life."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 57</ref> Many in his staff were disappointed to have him leave, and praised his work in promoting efficiency.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People.</ref>

During his assignment to the Senate as the Navy's liaison, 1977-81, McCain began to join the ranks of politicians. He transformed the position from a rather unimportant post into one of authority and respect{{fact}}, gaining allies in the Senate. The Senate liaison role provided a learning experience in national security policy and foreign affairs.

==Political career==
===Congressional (1982 - 1986)===

Prior to entering public service, McCain worked in [[Phoenix]] for his father-in-law's company, Hensley & Co, which was an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler and distributor. With nagging injuries and limited physical mobility, McCain realized he would never become a four-star general like his forefathers.<ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref> Some biographers argue that he shifted into politics so that he could achieve the equivalent in politics, leading to his Senatorial career. After gaining support from local business leaders, he ran for a congressional seat for Arizona's 1st congressional district as a Republican in 1982. His [[liberal]] opponents labeled him as a "carpetbagger". McCain responded to a voter making the charge of "carpetbagging" saying,

{{cquote|Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.}}

With the endorsements of local newspapers, McCain easily won the election. In 1983, he became President of the Republican freshman class of representatives. At the time, he largely supported Reagan's hard stance against the [[Soviet Union]], his tax cuts and matters on Indian Affairs. He did, however, break with the President on the decision to place a U.S. military presence in Lebanon, saying {{cquote|''I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon; I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave.''<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 100</ref>}} During his four years in [[Congress]], McCain and his wife Cindy had three children.

===Senatorial (1986 - Present)===
[[Image:Reagan mccain.jpg|left|thumb|300px|3/3/1987 President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greet John McCain in the Blue Room during a dinner for newly elected members of the 100th Congress]]
When Republican and [[conservative]] icon [[Barry Goldwater]] retired from the United States Senate in Arizona in 1986, Congressman McCain announced his candidacy for the seat. He easily won the election, defeating his Democratic opponent Richard Kimball by 20 percentage points. When entering the Senate, he became a member of the powerful Armed Services Committee and he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. During the 1988 Presidential Election, McCain was named chairman of Veterans for Bush. In 1991, Senator McCain became part of the "Keating Five" scandal, where McCain and four other Senators (all Democrats) were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain's involvement was minimal and was criticized for using "poor judgement".

===="Maverick" Image in the Senate====
John McCain has gained a reputation as a "maverick" for his sponsorship of many bills and leadership on almost every issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democratic [[Wisconsin]] Senator [[Russ Feingold]] on campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold bill banned "soft money". It passed and was signed into law on November 6th, 2002, by President Bush. In the 1990's, McCain gained attention for his strong opposition to pork barrel spending. He championed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to veto individual spending items. However, in 1998, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled the act unconstitutional.

Voteview.com rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).<ref>http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM</ref>

John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues. He voted with the Bush administration 95% of the time in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly's "Presidential Support Scores". <ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/512/ Politifact fact checks McCain's voting support</ref> Issues include making the Bush tax cuts permanent (even though he originally opposed and voted against them), energy independence, winning the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies.

In 2008, McCain asked for $0 in earmarks.<ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008_database 2008 ''Pig Book''], Council for Citizens Against Government Waste</ref>The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 100% in 2007 (88% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

==Presidential Politics==
===2000 Presidential Campaign===
McCain launched his first campaign for President in 2000, when he challenged then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican nomination. McCain's campaign was surprisingly strong. By ignoring the [[Iowa Caucus]], he was able to win the [[New Hampshire]] Primary by nineteen percentage points. He then won the [[Michigan]] Primary. However, he went on to lose [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of the 13 [[Super Tuesday]] states. McCain withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

After withdrawing, McCain announced that he supported the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the top of the South Carolina statehouse. During the primary he had stated he believed it was an issue for the state to decide, which was his true belief from a federal standpoint, but not his personal belief. He felt by withholding her personal belief that he had erred. He explained that he lived his life by being open and felt he should have been at that time and apologized for not speaking up sooner. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/19/mccain.sc/</ref>

===During Bush Presidency 2001 - 2008 ===
Following McCain's loss in the 2000 Presidential primary and reports of dirty tricks in [[South Carolina]]<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/ The anatomy of a smear campaign, March 21, 2004</ref><ref>http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2007/12/30/top-romney-advisor-tied-to-anonymous-attacks-of-previous-presidential-primary/ Top Romney advisor tied to anonymous attacks of previous presidential primary, December 30, 2007</ref>, McCain began to disagree with President Bush on many issues, such as tax cuts, climate change, and gun legislation. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], McCain wrote legislation that created the 9/11 Commission, while he and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings co-sponsored the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that federalized airport security. In May 2005, McCain led the so-called "[[Gang of 14]]" in the Senate, which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances". McCain also co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (see below under political record for details). In addition to bipartisan work in the Senate, it was during this period that McCain was courted by the Senate Democrats, and considered switching parties.<ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html</ref>

===2008 Presidential Campaign===

{{main|John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign}}

[[Image:McCain_nomination.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain accepting his party's presidential nomination, 09/04/08]] McCain announced his run for President in early 2007 at New Hampshire, a state which had boosted his floundering 2000 run for President. From the onset, he ran on an unwavering support for the Iraq War and a close tie to President Bush, stemming from his shift during the 2004 election. The Republican Party was highly splintered among political groups, with strong constituents of the Christian social conservatives (Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee), anti-immigration activists (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo), and the blockbuster fundraisers, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who appeared to be media favorites upon entry. McCain was not seen as a viable candidate by many Republicans because of his strong support for immigration reform and distaste for political fund-raising. Mitt Romney, for instance, had raised $23 million in the first three months of 2007, for instance, three times that of Sen. McCain.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref>

Christian conservatives overwhelmingly backed Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, rejecting McCain from longstanding offense he had struck during his 2000 run. John McCain had called politically-charged leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" for their part in a smear campaign during the South Carolina Primary. Many Christians were angered by these remarks, and fumed that they would field a Third Party candidate if McCain was chosen as the nominee. McCain had shown unfavorable views on abortion and religious initiatives in the past, and many Republican voters were worried that he could not be a reliably conservative candidate. <ref>Luo, Michael. "Evangelicals see Dilemma in GOP Field." July 8, 2007. New York Times.</ref>

Sen. McCain's unwavering support for victory in Iraq was made into a hot-button issue by many politicians following stories of insurgent violence erupting during early 2007. People began to fear the worst in Iraq, and the idea of a timetable for withdrawal became a major issue. At this time, conservative Republicans also feared McCain's position on immigration reform, and booed him loudly at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. A news story by the New York Times was a major blow to the campaign, which reported that a scandalous affair between McCain and a lobbyist had taken place. It was found to be completely false, but the story severely hurt his political advances.

When news had spread that McCain's campaign bankrupted and "imploded" in the summer of 2007, the Republican nomination began a period of quick shifting; other candidates began to soar in the polls, detracting McCain's support. Rudy Giuliani, who collected a strong following based on his leadership as "America's Mayor", began to court evangelical Christians who felt uneasy about McCain, gaining the endorsement of televangelist Pat Robertson. However, as his less-than-flattering personal life and liberal positions on social issues became apparent, he quickly lost momentum to Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref> Fred Thompson, who entered late in the race, quickly withdrew because of lackadaisical popularity and poor fund-raising efforts. Huckabee remained popular in the Southern United States, but failed to win major contests among independents and Democrat voters.

Romney had the edge in early races, but couldn't deliver a knockout blow. McCain's poll numbers slowly increased and benefited as the field narrowed. After McCain defeated top contender Mitt Romney by a large margin on Super Tuesday in delegate-rich states like New York, California, and Arizona,<ref>Scott Neuman and Howard Berkes. "Mitt Romney Drops Out of GOP Presidential Race." Feb. 7, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18772382</ref> Mitt Romney withdrew with some protest, leaving McCain the clear front-runner.<ref>Bumiller, Elisabeth, Kirkpatrick, David. "Romney Is Out; McCain Emerges as G.O.P. Choice." Feb. 8, 2008. New York Times.</ref> Although McCain's proportion of the vote was not much higher than Romney's, he won most of the 'winner take all' states giving him a much higher proportion of the delegate count. Without Romney's well-financed opposition, McCain easily clinched the necessary delegate lead of 1,191 in March after a spirited yet short-lived fight from Mike Huckabee.<ref>NPR.org. "Election 2008: Huckabee, Romney Stay in Race for GOP Nomination." Feb. 6, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18739137</ref>

McCain had won the nomination and could focus on the [[2008 United States Presidential Election]].

==Domestic Policy==
[[Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain discusses his opinions with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press", 2005]]

===Balanced Budget===
McCain has emphasized reducing government spending over tax cuts. He is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending and has pledged to veto any bill with pork as President. Congressional experience has enabled John McCain to identify items that are unnecessary. McCain is fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money and created a simple method to detect spending abuses. <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9] , http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9, U.S. Senate Pork Barrel Spending</ref>

* An appropriation that is not properly authorized by the Senate and not requested by the Administration.
* An unauthorized and unrequested, locality-specific or facility-specific earmark (including those funds that are above the Administration request).
* A budget add-on that would be subject to a budget point of order.
* The transfer or disposal of federal property or items under terms that circumvent existing law.
* New items added in conference that were never considered in either bill in either House.

===Economy===
Upon his party gaining the White House in 2001, McCain opposed a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years, but switched his position around 2006, and voted to renew it twice. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, [[IRS]] revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4 percent increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58 to 66 percent of GDP. Defense spending increased 61 percent, and non-defense by 23 percent during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Congress and the White House has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage since the administration of President [[Lyndon Johnson]], but McCain has opposed every earmark put forward in the Democratic and Republican congresses, even ones Bush supported. Part of the huge spending increases are directly traceable to the economic repercussions of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the economic downturn in its aftermath, and increased defense and Homeland Security spending. However, this appears likely to be eclipsed by the spending plans of [[Barack Obama]], who pledged on 6 December 2008 to invest "record amounts of money" in infrastructure, a plan which some members of Congress are estimating at $400 to $700 billion.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us Obama Pledges Public Works on a Vast Scale], New York Times, 6 December 2008</ref>.

McCain's policies have caused general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007, although the [[NASDAQ]] is still down considerably from the levels it was at before the Dot-com bubble burst. Corporations showed profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class benefited from the Bush economy, as unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> McCain supported a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included McCain's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

===Earmarks===
John McCain staunchly opposes [[earmarks]] as wasteful spending. In his 28 years in federal government, McCain has never requested an earmark.

===Education===
McCain supports [[school vouchers]] and [[charter school]]s. His voting record shows support for reducing the federal government's role in [[education]]. He voted for school vouchers for Washington, D.C., education savings accounts, and against $5 billion for grants to local educational agencies. McCain sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 and again in 1999, which allowed parents to open tax-free saving accounts for their children's school supplies. McCain also co-sponsored the Child Nutrition Act, which would provide [[federal funding]] for at-risk children. He has publicly stated he supports [[intelligent design]] teaching in schools.<ref>http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069 "On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools...McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind."</ref>

===Health Care===
McCain's record and stated positions on [[health care]] are based on true conservative principles. He is against socialized health care and health coverage mandates. McCain supports tax credits for personal health savings accounts and enhancing competition in the health care industry to improve quality and lower costs. He also supports allowing citizens to purchase out-of-state health insurance. In an October 2007 statement, McCain said: "In health care, we believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care. We do not believe in coercion and the use of state power to mandate care, coverage or costs." McCain is a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. <ref>[http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/healthcare.htm Pro Healthcare]</ref>

===Energy===
John McCain has stated "ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans. However, we cannot take the wrong direction and cut off trade for American goods."<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm], McCain Economic Plan</ref> “America’s most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power — so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy,” McCain said in Houston, TX, June 16, 2008. He proposes to remove federal obstacles to offshore drilling. Among his major initiatives is the removal of the 27-year old federal moratorium on states’ abilities to explore and drill for oil and natural gas.<ref>[http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/17/mccain-slaps-obama-on-energy-calls-for-more-drilling/], McCain slaps Obama on energy, June 17th, 2008</ref> In addition, he wants the states to receive incentives and royalties to drill. The current ban on offshore drilling covers an estimated 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters."We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, in the form of gasoline, in the form of threats of inflation and indeed indications of inflation, and we must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain] , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain , AP McCain urges end to ban on offshore drilling , June 16, 2008</ref> He indicated, though, that the end of the ban on offshore drilling would have mostly psychological effects in the short term. At a town hall meeting, McCain stated, "I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."
He would support incentives for building new nuclear power plants. <ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/24/1163504.aspx</ref> John McCain wants more nuclear reactors to increase America's energy independence. He is calling for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Also, McCain wants to increase federal funds for clean coal technology by 2 billion dollars to reduce dependence on foreign oil. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1] , http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1 , AP McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors, June 18, 2008</ref>
McCain supports increasing ethanol imports and more production of hybrid vehicles. He is co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He has consistently voted for preserving the budget for ANWR but against drilling for [[oil]] in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] (ANWR), because of environmental concerns. Conservationists differ from conservatives that 2000 acres for oil drilling is not enough to impact [[polar bears]] in the region.

===Environment===
McCain's position on [[global warming]] issues has put him at odds with conservatives. His [[environment]]al proposals are mostly sound modern thinking by someone that understands the enormity of the problem. McCain says that we can go green as a nation without bankrupting America. Per his website, Senator McCain "wants to leave a better future for our children."
On January 2007, McCain said, "we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed." On October 30, 2003, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which was defeated. McCain is a member of, and was endorsed by, the Republicans for Environmental Protection organization. His conservative stances include voting to confirm Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior and he is in favor of renewable energy such as solar, hydro, and wind. "Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better, and one day they will change our economy forever."

===Immigration===
John McCain says that he will secure the borders first and many [[immigration]] issue are still needed but will have to come later. In 2007, McCain worked to provide border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Conservatives wanted nothing to do with the proposal and in June 2007, Congress' efforts collapsed. McCain said of the outcome,"I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm] , http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm, AP McCain emphasizes border security, November 4, 2007</ref> "..I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first" says McCain

On Jan. 5, regarding the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Senator McCain announced that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "a liar, is lying." The senator stated "I do not support, nor would I ever support, any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally, nor would I ever and I never have supported [[Social Security]] benefits for people who are in this country illegally. Any assertion to the contrary is absolutely false." During the comprehensive immigration reform debate, Senator McCain voted to table an amendment that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security who "are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity."<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00130</ref> Senator McCain stated in a May 29, 2003 interview, "Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens." Arguing amnesty is not a free pass or a reward for law breaking, McCain stated, "Well, because amnesty, according to the dictionary, is forgiveness. The proposal that we had- would require fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some. It would require others to go back to the country of their origin" <ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm] , Ontheissues.com, John McCain on Immigration</ref> At the [[Republican]] debate at the Reagan Library, McCain stated he supports the deportation of 2 million illegals who have committed crimes in the USA.

Conversely, in a June 2008 meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago, McCain indicated he would push legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected. According to one attendee, Rosanna Pulido, head of the Illinois [[Minuteman Project]], ""He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics..." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/mccain-discusses-immigrat_n_108297.html McCain Discusses Immigration With Hispanic Leaders</ref> <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-06-19-4020801806_x.htm McCain Meets With Hispanic Leaders</ref> Pulido further stated, "He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another, I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus."<ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/title----mcca-1.html McCain Double-Talk on Immigration?</ref> Due to his support, members of the Minuteman Project, participating in the Minuteman Project Caravan, traveled to Washington, D.C. to register their disapproval. They made an entry into McCain's Guest Log Book asking him to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law. After making the entry, the group was forced to leave by a senior staffer for Senator McCain or be reported to the police. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1643181/posts Minuteman Project Thrown Out of McCain's Office</ref>

Senator McCain's position on illegal immigration has arguably resulted in the most criticisms from conservatives. On May 12, 2005, McCain joined Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]) as co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. The bill would legalize and eventually grant citizenship to the estimated 12–20 million [[illegal alien]]s in the United States and have them immediately start collecting social security and other government benefits. The bill never came for a vote on the Senate floor. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 are two additional compromises based on the original McCain-Kennedy bill. McCain has consistently voted for visas for skilled workers. McCain voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and has said border security should be a bigger priority then the illegal aliens who are currently here.

===Global Trade===
McCain has actively supported reducing barriers to trade and has shown leadership in the [[Senate]] on Free Trade Agreements (FTA). Senator McCain supports both pending FTAs for Columbia and [[South Korea]]. <ref>[http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/p/McCain_Trade.htm], John McCain and Trade</ref> He voted for and defends the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

===Social Security===
McCain is a strong supporter of private [[Social Security]] accounts.

===Tax Reform===
In 2001, McCain gained attention as one of only two Republicans who voted against President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed accelerating the cuts in 2003, saying, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." He has now changed his stance, by voting to make the tax cuts permanent, and says he would do the same as President. In 2002, Senator McCain was one of only two Republicans to twice vote against the permanent repeal of the Death Tax. He has also refused to sign a pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. However, many of McCain's votes has shown support for lower taxes, such as eliminating the marriage penalty, a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes and he introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase.

==Foreign Policy==

===National Security===

McCain urges the Senate to pass FISA. “For months, House Democrats, the [[ACLU]], and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws. Today, the House passed a compromise bill to end this impasse. While I would have preferred to see the Senate bill enacted, which I voted for earlier this year, I am pleased Congressional leaders and the Administration were able to reach an agreement to reform our current surveillance law and not let FISA expire in August. I hope [[Senate]] Democrats will allow this matter to quickly be considered by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature. I will support this measure and hope that politics will be put aside in favor of this vital national security matter.” <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a7f9dc6c-da0e-459d-dd6c-91e20a46e1e5] , McCAIN URGES SENATE PASSAGE OF FISA
, June 20, 2008</ref> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established in 1978.

McCain has voted in support of the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] as well as National Missile Defense. However, he has joined [[liberal]]s in support of immediately closing [[Guantanamo Bay]], and moving all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. On October 3, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The bill was passed and signed by President [[George W. Bush]]. McCain has recently criticized the practice of [[waterboarding]], saying "they should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." McCain voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from water boarding prisoners.

===Afghanistan===
After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] McCain was a strong advocate for military action in [[Afghanistan]], saying:

''We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties it occasions. They are to'' ''blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical problems confronting our friends and us. We can help'' ''repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must destroy the people who started it.'' <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001375</ref>

McCain is currently calling for 15,000 additional troops to address the situation in Afghanistan, similar to his victorious 2007 troop surge in Iraq.

===Iran===
McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about [[Iran]]ian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." He tried to ban Iran from playing in the 2006 World Cup, citing Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]'s [[Holocaust]] denials.

===Iraq===
[[Image:610x.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, 03/17/08]] McCain voted with the majority [[Republican]] Party and 29 Democrats of the Senate in favor of the 2002 "[[Iraq War]] Resolution" authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq and overthrow the [[Saddam Hussein]] regime. In 1998, McCain voted in favor of HR 4655 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by then President Clinton. <ref>[http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm], http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm, HR4655 Public Law: 105-338, October 31, 1998</ref> HR 4655 declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. McCain went on to became a critic of the management of the war, arguing that there wasn't enough troop strength in the area. However, he never became a defeatist advocating surrender. McCain publicly stated that he had "no confidence" in then-Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]]. However, he refused to call for his resignation, saying that "the President picks his team, and the president has the right to stay with that team if he wants to." McCain became one of the strongest leading advocates in the Senate for the 2007 troop surge, which increased the number of American troops by 20,500, deployed to provide security to [[Baghdad]] and Al Anbar Province. On February 4, he criticized a non-binding resolution opposing the troop buildup, calling it a reckless "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. Commanders and in the military. Additionally, he voted against all measures aimed at withdrawal of U.S. forces and voted against cutting off of war funds. McCain rightly believes that Congress should not micromanage the war and to give the military everything they ask for to successfully complete the mission. He has mentioned in a town hall forum that staying the course in Iraq for 'a hundred years' would not bother him if no American soldier's were losing their lives. This became an issue for Democratic political strategy. The DNC lead by chairman [[Howard Dean]] repeatedly tried to use false statements in justifying attacking McCain.<ref>[http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html, Washington post Fact Checker, April 2, 2008</ref> What McCain said is very different from what the liberal media and the DNC were reporting. Asked in Derry, NH of the willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, he said "Make it 100" and

{{QuoteBox|"That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."}}

===Russia===
Senator McCain has strongly criticized [[Russia]]n President [[Vladimir Putin]]. During a primary debate he sad, ""He bullies his neighbors and he wants to get a control of the energy supply of Western Europe. This is a dangerous person. And he has to understand that there's a cost to some of his actions." In 2005 McCain and [[Connecticut]] senator [[Joe Lieberman]] drafted a resolution banning Russia from attending the Group of 8 (G8) international forum. McCain is also a strong supporter of ballistic national missile defenses.

===Cuba===
McCain forcefully supports the [[Cuban embargo]] and believes it should be maintained until certain specific political freedoms are restored to the country. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1222106556-zea3cQG12OakFI9P97dogQ</ref>

==Social Issues==
===Abortion===
{{QuoteBox|"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."}}

Sen. John McCain has more than a twenty year anti-[[abortion]] record, first in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], then in the U.S. Senate. McCain voted 11 times on anti-abortion and other [[pro-life]] issues in the House. Senator McCain has voted 119 times on anti-abortion and other pro-life measures in the Senate. <ref>[http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf], http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf</ref>

McCain's record in the Senate on abortion is pro-life. He voted for the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. McCain has also voted against government funding of birth control and sex education.<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00214 Voted Nay on an amendment to authorize grants to carry out programs to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies</ref> <ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00075 Vote against allocation of $100m for prevention of unintended pregnancies </ref><ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/quiet-campaign-against-contraception Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast that he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.</ref> During his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on [[Roe v. Wade]], "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021908.html McCain's "</ref> He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

John McCain:
* Voted against a [[Roe v. Wade]] resolution
* Co-sponsored and voted for the Federal Abortion Ban
* Supported H.R.1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
* Voted for four anti-abortion U.S. Supreme Court judges
* Voted for six anti-abortion lower court judges
* Supported H.R.3913, to prohibit federal funds for abortion services in any case
* Voted to make it a federal crime for anyone but a parent to cross state lines for abortion termination
* Voted in favor of a national network of parental notification.

====Quotations====
“I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” <ref>Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 24, 2007.</ref>

*"I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years…."<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*"My record is clear, and I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little… misleading…. As you know I don’t support Roe v. Wade…. I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states"<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*“I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I’m very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen.” McCain explained further that he “will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts” to fill future court vacancies.<ref>[http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539], Letter from Sen. John McCain to Pro‐Life Community Janary 23, 2008</ref>

===Gun Control===
McCain's record on [[gun control]] is mixed. He co-sponsored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. This act would reduce the number of gun shows, require gun-owners to purchase trigger locks, and allow federal agents to arrest those who violate federal gun laws. However, McCain has frequently voted in support of the Second Amendment, such as voting against background checks at gun shows and voting in support of prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In August of 1999, McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. However, he still voted against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the efforts to renew it, as well as the Brady Bill.

A top official of the [[National Rifle Association]] said McCain has been a reliable ally of gun owners despite divisions with the powerful lobbying group on some issues. NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press "...We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners." <ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, May 14, 2008</ref> The Republican presidential nominee has voted against a ban on assault-type weapons with restrictions which were objected.

===Same-sex marriage===
In the speech on the Senate floor July 13th, 2004, McCain stated “Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman." <ref>http://www.friendsofmccain.com/news/dspnews.cfm?id=143</ref> John McCain revealed his decision based on super majority requirements and the current political realities within Congress. “By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard’s amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won’t change, Mr. President, unless public opinion changes significantly. The [[Founders]], wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can’t be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution’s enduring success that I have just made." Further, he explained his approach to the amendment's ultimate success “If a constitution is to be amended, Mr. President, it should be a state constitution." McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court effectively created a ruling to grant same-sex partners equal rights to [[Marriage]] and to be recognized by the state. A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

===Evolution===
Senator John McCain's position on evolution is nuanced:

{{QuoteBox|"I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view, I happen to [[believe in evolution]]. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? '''Probably not'''." [http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/]}}

==Personal life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980 after 15 years, of which he spent five in captivity. McCain publicly acknowledges the responsibility for the breakup as his, stating in a 2008 interview with Pastor Rick Warren that "My greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage". .<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rules021299.htm</ref> His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley, to whom he has been married for 28 years. His son John Sidney IV is a Midshipman at the [[United States Naval Academy]], Annapolis, and his son James is a non-commissioned officer in the [[United States Marine Corps]], who is serving in [[Iraq]] as part of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Also, the McCains adopted a ten-week old baby girl in 1993, who they named Bridget, from [[Mother Teresa]]'s orphanage in [[Bangladesh]].<ref>[http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=3183 Bridget McCain Biography] Rightpundits.com</ref> <ref>[http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/109022008.htm Bridget vs Sonia: McCain vs Rajiv Gandhi] News Analysis India</ref>
Cindy McCain was in the country as part of the American Voluntary Medical Team <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-041408-cindy-mccain-bio,1,2151434.story Bio of Cindy McCain]</ref> in response to the 1991 [[Bangladesh]] cyclone.
===McCain's family===
*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John (''"Jack"'') Sidney IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*Parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta Wright McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==
* ''Faith of My Fathers'' (Random House; 1999) ISBN 0-3755-0191-6
* ''Odysseus in America'' (Scribner; 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
* ''Worth Fighting For: A Memoir'' (Diane Publ. Co; 2002) ISBN 0-7567-6759-8
* ''Medal of Honor'' (Artisan; 2003) ISBN 1-5796-5240-9
* ''Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life'' (Random House; 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3
* ''Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember'' (Random House; 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0
* ''Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them'' (Twelve; 2007) ISBN 0-4466-9911-X

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about John McCain from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[White House]]
*[[Cindy McCain]], spouse of John McCain
*[[Roberta McCain]], mother of John McCain

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4&eurl=http://evangelicalsformccain.org/meetthesenator.htm ''John McCain: Courageous Service''] - Streaming video documentary hosted at YouTube, including footage of McCain's time as a POW and the Forrestal incident.
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://evangelicalsformccain.org/index.htm Evangelicals for McCain] - Christians, Families and Patriots for John McCain
*[http://studentsformccain08.blogspot.com/ Students for McCain 2008]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 Voting record]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}

[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]

Talk:Henry Février

2009-01-09T20:43:14Z

JohnD: Plagerism

== Plagerism ==

This article is copied wholesale from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Février wikipedia]. I believe should be rewritten or deleted as per the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]].--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 15:43, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS

2009-01-07T21:09:16Z

JohnD: fixing formatting

The '''scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS''' largely hinges on whether [[HIV]] is the cause. In the 1990s, some doctors published research calling into question Dr. [[Gallo]]'s hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis is [[cell stress]].

{{quotation|Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS. <ref>http://www.duesberg.com/</ref>}}

Duesberg's theories are not widely accepted by the scientific communities. In 1994 Jon Cohen conducted a review for Science magazine in which he interviewed researchers on both sides of the issue and analysed Duesberg's publications. He concluded that
{{quotation|...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;266/5191/1642?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Peter+Duesberg&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT.pdf</ref>.}}

==Sources saying the cause is HIV==

==Sources saying the cause is not HIV==
*[http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/cause/index.htm#Agents What Really Causes AIDS] - Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, Ph.D., a Toxicologist with 5 letters to the editor published by ''The British Medical Journal''
*[http://rethinkingaids.com/ Rethinking AIDS] - The connection between HIV and AIDS is invented by pharmaceutical companies in an effort to make enormous profits selling drugs (see [[HPV Vaccine]])
[[category:Scientific controversies]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS

2009-01-07T21:08:00Z

JohnD: Added response to Duesberg's views

The '''scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS''' largely hinges on whether [[HIV]] is the cause. In the 1990s, some doctors published research calling into question Dr. [[Gallo]]'s hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis is [[cell stress]].

{{quotation|Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS. <ref>http://www.duesberg.com/</ref>

Duesberg's theories are not widely accepted by the scientific communities. In 1994 Jon Cohen conducted a review for Science magazine in which he interviewed researchers on both sides of the issue and analysed Duesberg's publications. He concluded that
<blockquote>
...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;266/5191/1642?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Peter+Duesberg&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT.pdf</ref>.
</blockquote>

==Sources saying the cause is HIV==

==Sources saying the cause is not HIV==
*[http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/cause/index.htm#Agents What Really Causes AIDS] - Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, Ph.D., a Toxicologist with 5 letters to the editor published by ''The British Medical Journal''
*[http://rethinkingaids.com/ Rethinking AIDS] - The connection between HIV and AIDS is invented by pharmaceutical companies in an effort to make enormous profits selling drugs (see [[HPV Vaccine]])
[[category:Scientific controversies]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Jesus Christ

2009-01-07T20:52:21Z

JohnD: Undo revision 604790 by Emily1958 (Talk)Vandal

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of [[God]] and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from [[God]] and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===The Pre-existance of Jesus before His incarnation===
Though it is commonly thought that Jesus had his beginning with His birth or with His conception in the womb of Mary, and that personality begins with birth and develops with age, the Person of Jesus on earth was one and the same Person as was the Son of God in the presence of the Father before the incarnation. That is why the transition of His becoming a man on earth is considered such a great act of humility and self forgetfulness - to have left it all, for us, for which He will always be honored and extolled.

Though he was in the form of God , He did not cling to this equality with God, but empried himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are, and being found as a man, he was even humbler yet, even to accepting death, even on a cross. But God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all other names, so that all beings, in the heavens, and on the earth, and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus, and that every tongue should acclaim, Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

=== Infancy ===
The [[Gospels]] tell us that Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young virgin named [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], by the [[Holy Spirit]].<ref>http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/</ref> [[Gospel of Luke|Luke's account]] of the gospel relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). A survey of the [[Roman Empire]] was ordered by [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], which caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a [[manger]] for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi" ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests) who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]])<ref>Note: This has led to the incorrect assumption that there were only three Magi, whereas the actual number is not given.</ref> after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home was the town of [[Nazareth]] in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel.

====The Infancy and the Massacre of the Innocents====

Within sight of the southern suburbs of Modern Jerusalem,towards the eastern desert, is a conical hill, Herodium, made conical by the work of Herod the King. Herodium served as his fortress in the time of war and as royal residence for himself and visiting dignitaries in the time of peace. Mazada by the dead sea served him in the same way. From this bastion were sent by him his soldiers to slay all the children under the age of two of Bethlehem, in full view of Herodium looking south. This was in hopes that in the slaughter of all, he would also slay the child, indicated by the star and the Magi, as his rival to the throne and power. And so, escaping, Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus to Egypt until it was time, at the death of Herod, for him to make exodus back into the Holy Land and Nazareth. "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" The fury and the hatred for one child, thus saw the slaying of so many of the innocents of Bethlehem whose only guilt was that they were under 2. And so, we know now the Massacre of the Innocents

Beyond this slaughter of so many and hatred for the One who had come, the Book of the Revelation, Chapter 12 would see another and ancient hatred, whether understood or not, one that works behind all other slaying, behind the slaying of all infants, within and without the womb - hatred for the very Son of God, and hatred for all his seed that bear His image, hatred for the Image of God borne by the Son of God, and hatred for God Himself.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precints..

and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which woud try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fullfilment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharasees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''

It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?"Luke 24: 30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Rev. 3:20.

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what Hie commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.

On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]].

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]].

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shephards. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Athough it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Annointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Annointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often annointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has annointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "annointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Annointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

Talk:Reproducibility

2009-01-07T20:38:34Z

JohnD: Trying to think of examples

Hi Ed. I was interested in this
<blockquote>
However, in many significant historical instances, mainstream scientists have refused to consider new finding or theories. This has lead to decades of delay before they were accepted.
</blockquote>
I was trying to think of some examples, maybe [[quantum mechanics]]? Do you have any better ones? Thanks.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 15:38, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Flowering plant

2009-01-05T19:19:07Z

JohnD: opps

A '''flowering plant,''' or '''angiosperm,''' is any of the [[baraminology|kind]] of [[plant]] that produces [[seed]]s using [[flower]]s.

[[Category:Plants]]
[[Category:Botany]]

Flowering plant

2009-01-05T19:18:44Z

JohnD: I think this scans better, but I will stand to be corrected.

A '''flowering plant,''' or '''angiosperm,''' is any of the [[baraminology|kinds]] of [[plant]] that produces [[seed]]s using [[flower]]s.

[[Category:Plants]]
[[Category:Botany]]

Jesus Christ

2009-01-05T19:04:44Z

JohnD: Undo revision 602969 by SAdewe (Talk)

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of [[God]] and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from [[God]] and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

=== Infancy ===
The [[Gospels]] tell us that Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young virgin named [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], by the [[Holy Spirit]].<ref>http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/</ref> [[Gospel of Luke|Luke's account]] of the gospel relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). A survey of the [[Roman Empire]] was ordered by [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], which caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a [[manger]] for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi" ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests) who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]])<ref>Note: This has led to the incorrect assumption that there were only three Magi, whereas the actual number is not given.</ref> after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home was the town of [[Nazareth]] in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel.

====The Infancy and the Massacre of the Innocents====

Within sight of the southern suburbs of Modern Jerusalem,towards the eastern desert, is a conical hill, Herodium, made conical by the work of Herod the King. Herodium served as his fortress in the time of war and as royal residence for himself and visiting dignitaries in the time of peace. Mazada by the dead sea served him in the same way. From this bastion were sent by him his soldiers to slay all the children under the age of two of Bethlehem, in full view of Herodium looking south. This was in hopes that in the slaughter of all, he would also slay the child, indicated by the star and the Magi, as his rival to the throne and power. And so, escaping, Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus to Egypt until it was time, at the death of Herod, for him to make exodus back into the Holy Land and Nazareth. "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" The fury and the hatred for one child, thus saw the slaying of so many of the innocents of Bethlehem whose only guilt was that they were under 2. And so, we know now the Massacre of the Innocents

Beyond this slaughter of so many and hatred for the One who had come, the Book of the Revelation, Chapter 12 would see another and ancient hatred, whether understood or not, one that works behind all other slaying, behind the slaying of all infants, within and without the womb - hatred for the very Son of God, and hatred for all his seed that bear His image, hatred for the Image of God borne by the Son of God, and hatred for God Himself.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precints..

and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which woud try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fullfilment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharasees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''

It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?"Luke 24: 30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Rev. 3:20.

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what Hie commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.

On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]].

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]].

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shephards. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Athough it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Annointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Annointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often annointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has annointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "annointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Annointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

George W. Bush

2009-01-05T19:02:45Z

JohnD: Undo revision 602978 by SAdewe (Talk)Editorializing

{{President
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|seq=43
|term_start=January 20, 2001
|term_end=January 20, 2009
|party=Republican
|vp=Dick Cheney
|previous=Bill Clinton
|next=Barack Obama
|birth_date=July 6, 1946
|birth_place=New Haven, Connecticut
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Laura Bush]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
}}

'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1995-2000) and has served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] when [[liberal]] Democratic contender [[Al Gore]], who initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 Presidential election]] Bush won re-election, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000.<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> [[Leftist]] Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] conceded defeat the day after the election.

==Early Life==
George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html</ref> He attended [[Yale University]] were he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and [[Harvard]] Business School, and later served in the Texas Air [[National Guard]]. Growing up in politics, his father [[George H. W. Bush]] had been a member of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], American Ambassador to the [[United Nations]], Director of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]](CIA) and [[Vice President]] of the Untied States under President [[Ronald Reagan]]. In 1988, George W. Bush worked for his fathers successful Presidential campaign. Afterwords Bush purchased the Texas Rangers [[baseball]] franchise.

==Governor of Texas==
Bush declared his candidacy for Governor of Texas in 1994. He defeated incumbent [[Democrat]] Governor [[Ann Richards]] 53.5 percent to 45.9 percent. Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. <ref>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40078/tsl-40078.html</ref> He supported and signed legislation emphasizing local control of [[school]]s, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Bush was easily reelected Governor in 1998.

==Presidency (2001-2009)==

'''Original National Security Team'''

<gallery>
Image:Cheney-100.jpg|Vice President Dick Cheney
Image:Colin_Powell.jpg|Secretary of State Colin Powell
Image:ASecDefRumsfeld01.jpg|Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Image:Bncjcfjuh.jpg|U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
Image:John Ashcroft.jpg‎|Attorney General John Ashcroft
Image:TomRidge.jpg‎|Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
</gallery>

===Administration and Cabinet===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| George W. Bush
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Vice President]]
| [[Richard Cheney]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Colin Powell]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Condoleezza Rice]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Paul O'Neill]]
| 2001-2002
|-
|
| [[John Snow]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Henry Paulson]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Donald Rumsfeld]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Robert Gates]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John Ashcroft]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Alberto Gonzales]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Michael Mukasey]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of the Interior
| [[Gale Norton]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Dirk Kempthorne]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Agriculture
| [[Ann Veneman]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Mike Johanns]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Ed Schafer]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Commerce
| [[Donald Evans]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Carlos Gutierrez]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Labor
| [[Elaine Chao]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| Secretary of Health and Human Services
| [[Tommy Thompson]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Education
| [[Rod Paige]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Margaret Spellings]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
| [[Mel Martinez]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Alphonso Jackson]]
| 2003-2008
|-
|
| [[Steve Preston]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Transportation
| [[Norman Mineta]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Mary Peters]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Energy
| [[Spencer Abraham]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Samuel Bodman]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Veterans Affairs
| [[Anthony Principi]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Jim Nicholson]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[James Peake]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of Homeland Security
| [[Tom Ridge]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Chertoff]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Chief of Staff
| [[Andrew Card]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Joshua Bolten]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
| [[Christine Todd Whitman]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Stephen Johnson]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of Management and Budget
| [[Mitch Daniels]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| Joshua Bolten
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Rob Portman]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Jim Nussle]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
| [[John Walters]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| United States Trade Representative
| [[Robert Zoellick]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Rob Portman
| 2005-2006
|-
|
| Susan Schwab
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[CIA]] Director
| [[George Tenet]]
| 2001-2004
|-
|
| [[John E. McLaughlin]]
| 2004
|-
|
| [[Porter J. Goss]]
| 2004-2006
|-
|
| [[Michael Hayden]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| FBI Director
| [[Louis Freeh]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Thomas J. Pickard]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Robert S. Mueller]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| National Security Advisor
| Condoleezza Rice
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Stephen Hadley
| 2005-2009
|-
| White House Counsel
| Alberto R. Gonzales
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Harriet Miers]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Fred Fielding]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| White House Press Secretary
| [[Ari Fleischer]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Scott McClellan]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Tony Snow]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Dana Perino]]
| 2007-2009
|-
|}

===Response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks===
The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks resulted in George W. Bush becoming a self-described war time President. On that morning President Bush had traveled to Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, [[Florida]] to promote his [[education]]al agenda, when 19 Islamic terrorists connected with [[al-Qaeda]] hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of them crashed into the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]], the third in the [[Pentagon]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] and the fourth in Somerset County, [[Pennsylvania]], after passengers of the flight successfully stopped the hijackers from hitting Washington D.C., possibly the [[White House]] or [[Capital]]. As a resulted over 3,000 Americans were killed, and over 6,000 injured, the largest terrorist attack in American history. After [[White House]] Chief of Staff [[Andrew Card]] had whispered in the President's ear that the United States was under attack, President Bush addressed the public in the Booker school's media center, saying a brief four paragraph statement that "Terrorism against our nation will not stand. This will not stand." Which was a formation that Presidnet George H. W. Bush used in August 1990 after [[Iraq]] invaded [[Kuwait]]. President Bush would later say that "This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. . . . I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, talk with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Although the attacks may have been an attempt from al-Qaeda to divide the United States, they were unsuccessful. Across the nation Americans had donated blood and raised money for reconstruction in New York City. Within weeks Americans had raised over one billion dollars in money. <ref>The American Vision from National Geographic, pg. 1033 </ref> On September 14th President Bush declared a national emergency. [[CIA]] Director [[George Tenent]] and the FBI identified the attacks from al-Qaeda and [[Osama Bin Laden]] in [[Afghanistan]]. As President Bush and [[Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] began to build an international coalition with over 90 countries to support the United States global [[War on Terrorism]], [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] began to redeploy troops and aircraft's to the [[middle east]]. On September 24th, President Bush issued an executive order freezing all funding to financial assets to individuals and groups suspected of terrorism, and over 80 other nations soon followed. Bush then established the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate federal agencies working to prevent terrorism. The President appointed [[Pennsylvania]] [[Governor]] [[Tom Ridge]] to the office. In October President Bush signed into law the U.S. [[Patriot Act]], which allowed authorities to obtain a signal nationwide search warrant that could be used anywhere on suspected terrorists. It also made it easier to wiretap terrorists and track their [[email]]. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—[[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]] has been captured.

On October 5th, a new [[anthrax]] scare from terrorists began. Anthrax - a deadly bacteria had been sent in the mail to news organizations in New York City and Washington, D.C. and [[Senate]] Majority Leader [[Tom Daschle]]'s office. The FBI investigated the anthrax attacks, although no suspects were identified.

===War in Afghanistan===
On October 7th, 2001, President George W. Bush ordered to bomb targets to al-Qaeda's camps and the [[Taliban]]'s [[military]] forces in Afghanistan. "We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail, freedom will prevail", President Bush explained. The attack quickly shattered the [[Taliban]]'s defenses, and by early December the Taliban regime had collapsed. The United States and it's allies then helped Afghanistan create a new [[government]]. By March 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda members were beginning to regroup again in the mountain's of the [[Pakistan]] border. President Bush responded by launching Operation Anaconda, where al-Qaeda troops were defeated. Today Afghanistan has a democratically elected [[President]], a national assembly, and a market [[economy]]. More than six million children now attend Afghan schools, compared, to fewer than one million in 2001.

===2002-2003 build up of the War in Iraq===
In his infamous January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush declared an "Axis of Evil" made up of [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[North Korea]], countries that posed a grave treat to the world and were suspected of supporting terrorism. Considering it a more dangerous and urgent treat then North Korea, President Bush began putting pressure on Iraq throughout 2002 for a regime [[change]]. Iraq's dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Iraq. Considering that Iraq may had been building Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) and was a treat to the United States and it's allies, On September 12, 2002 President Bush tried to gain U.N. support for a U.S. led invasion of Iraq and asked for a resolution that Iraq gave up it's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution that demanded Saddam Hussein declare all of it's WMD's, stop supporting terrorism and oppressing his people, Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. The United States, [[Great Britain]] and about 30 other countries began to prepare for war.

===Aftermath of the Invasion===
[[Image:20031127_dsc2048-515h.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with troops and serves Thanksgiving Dinner at the Bob Hope Dining Facility, Baghdad International Airport, Iraq,, Thursday, November 27, 2003. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] On March 23rd, 2003, U.S. led coalition forces began an attack on Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army dissolved and coalition forces quickly took control of the country. However, sectarian violence worsened through [[bomb]]ings and sniper attacks. On Thanksgiving 2003 President Bush and U.S. National Security Adviser [[Condoleezza Rice]] visited troops in Iraq to boost moral. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003 while little evidence had shown that he had obtained Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On January 30, 2005 Iraq had it's first general election since the liberation. They voted for a 275-member Iraqi National Assembly which later drafted a constitution. In December Iraq elected a permanent 275-member Council of Representatives. There were low levels of violence during the voting. In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

===2007 Troop Surge===

[[Image:20061228-1_p122706pm-0144-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with National Security team, from left to right, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006, at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Paul Morse]]
On January 23, 2007 President Bush ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

<blockquote>
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out.
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/603653/the_iraq_war_troop_surge_one_year_later.html</ref>

The surge was opposed by a majority of the United States Congress. However, it has resulted in significantly reduced sectarian violence. According to U.S. Central Command [[General]] [[David Petraeus]], violence in Iraq by December 2008 was at a 5 year low. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B86G720081209</ref>

===Humanitarian aid===
President Bush has worked to stop the spread of the [[HIV/AIDS]] epidemic in [[Africa]]. In the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) $15 billion dollars over five years (2003–2008) was spent on fighting global HIV/AIDS and improving treatment.

===Economy===

Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

[[Image:20080919-2_p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush stands with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, left, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, right, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as he delivers a statement on the economy Friday, Sept. 19, 2008, in the Rose Garden. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] Since the tax cuts, [[IRS]] revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4 percent increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58 to 66 percent of GDP. Defense spending increased 61 percent, and non-defense by 23 percent during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Bush has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage of any president since [[Lyndon Johnson]]. However, this appears likely to be eclipsed by the spending plans of [[Barack Obama]], who pledged on 6 December 2008 to invest "record amounts of money" in infrastructure, a plan which some members of Congress are estimating at $400 to $700 billion.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us Obama Pledges Public Works on a Vast Scale], New York Times, 6 December 2008</ref>.

Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007, although the [[NASDAQ]] is still down considerably from the levels it was at before the Dot-com bubble burst. Corporations showed profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class benefited from the Bush economy, as unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

===Supreme Court Appointments===

After the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge [[John Roberts]] to fill the vacancy. He was confirmed on September 29, 2005 by a 78-22 vote. To replace the retiring Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] Bush nominated Judge [[Samuel Alito]], after his original nomination of Chief White House Council [[Harriet Miers]] was withdrawn because of widespread opposition due to lack of experience. After an unsuccessful filibuster attempt from [[Senate]] [[liberal]]s, Alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote and was sworn in on January 31, 2006. <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181091</ref>

===Involvement in the 2008 Presidential election===
In March 2008, Bush endorsed his one-time rival [[John McCain]] as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, due to the President's declining popularity in polls, McCain appeared to distance himself from Mr. Bush on the campaign trail. At the same time, [[Democratic]] candidiate [[Barack Obama]] tried to portray a McCain presidency as four more years of George W. Bush. The President spoke by videolink at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]], while his wife Laura appeared on stage with McCain's wife [[Cindy McCain|Cindy]].
[[Image:George Laura Bush2008.jpg|thumb|left|300px|President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush pose for their last official holiday portrait, Dec. 7, 2008, in the Blue Room of the White House.]]

==Future Plans==
John McCain lost the election to Senator Obama, and President Bush met with the new president-elect to discuss the presidential transition between his administration and Obama's, which he promised would be efficient and without problems. George W. Bush's term ends at noon on January 20, 2009, at which point President-elect Obama will be inaugurated. In an interview with ABC's [[Charles Gibson]] in December 2008, Bush said his retirement plans included moving back to his home state of Texas and writing a book. He also wants to build an institute at the Southern Methodist University to serve as a non-partisan public policy forum, to debate issues and run volunteer projects from.

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to [[Laura Bush|Laura Welch Bush]], a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of [[leukemia]].

==Faith==

George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a [[Bible]] I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref> Bush's faith led him to veto a bill which would have provided for [[federal funding]] of immoral embryonic stem cell research.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on 12/8/08, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that [[God]] sent his only son.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6418908</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=347242</ref>
He added:
{{cquote|<big><big>'''''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.'''''</big>}}

==Polls==
When President George W. Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and [[liberal bias|biased]] -- reporting on the [[Iraq War]] and misrepresentation of his policies).<ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, George had an approval rating of only 24%. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref> The same poll gave the Democratic controlled Congress an approval rating of only 11%). <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews]</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
{{USPresidents}}

Alberto R. Gonzales

2009-01-05T19:00:54Z

JohnD: Undo revision 602971 by SAdewe (Talk)

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:480px-Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg|225px|250px|Alberto R. Gonzales]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: Indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Alberto Gonzales 80th Attorney General of the United States
|-
!Life
|August 4, 1955 -  
|-
!Term
|February 3, 2005 - September 17, 2007
|-
|}

'''Alberto R. Gonzales''' (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th [[Attorney General]] of the United States, succeeding [[John Ashcroft]]. He is a graduate of [[Rice University]], and a former member of [[Lovett College]]. Gonzales was one of the best students in his graduating class, considered one of the school's brightest and most intellectually capable students.

==Early Life==
Alberto Gonzales was born in San Antonio, [[Texas]], and raised in Humble, near Houston. He was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a construction worker. An honors student at MacArthur High School, Gonzales enlisted in the [[United States Air Force]] in 1973, for a four year term of enlistment, serving two years at Fort Yukon, Alaska and two years as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to [[Rice University]] (Houston, Texas), where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979. He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from [[Harvard]] Law School in 1982. He and his wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.

==Legal Career==
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush. During this time Gonzales was very involved in charities and community service. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was chosen as one of Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association. On November 10, 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to replace United States Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] for President Bush's second term. The nomination was approved with a 60-36 vote. He was sworn in on February 14, 2005.

==Achievements==
* Led Project Safe Neighborhoods to help eliminate violence in inner cities.<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/May/06_ag_262.html</ref>
* Was instrumental in passing the [[Military Commissions Act]]

==Controversy==
Alberto Gonzales was involved in a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made, though some Justice Department officials initially made this claim in Congressional testimony).<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html</ref> Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the [[President of the United States]] and the firings were therefore legal, the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] media insists on calling it a scandal. In fact, Alberto Gonzales "tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale." <ref>http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day24/archive/2007/03/23/alberto-gonzales-raw-deal.aspx</ref>

==Trivia==
* Albert Gonzales was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
* His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.

==External links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html Alberto R. Gonzales] The White House.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzales, Alberto R.}}
[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category: United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category: Attorneys]]

Faith

2009-01-05T18:59:50Z

JohnD: Undo revision 602967 by SAdewe (Talk) Parody?

[[Image:Faith.jpg|right]]
'''Faith''' is a confidence or trust in the achievement of [[God]]'s will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers.

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a causal role by the believer in an outcome<ref>For example, the Biblical [[Peter]]'s walking on water based on his faith.</ref> or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

Faith plays a central role in overcoming [[addiction]]. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on [[television]], or standing up to a [[bully]].

Lack of faith includes fear, anxiety, depression and lack of confidence. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior.

A classic statement of faith in the [[Bible]] was by the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] centurion of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:5-10;&version=49; Matthew 8:5-10], who expressed his confidence that [[Jesus]] could cure his beloved servant from a distance without even seeing him. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized the importance and value of faith to his disciples.

Faith is expressed in [[Greek]] using the term ''pistis'', and in [[Latin]] using the term ''fides''. Faith is mentioned in 229 verses in the [[New Testament]] ([[KJV]]), but only twice in the much larger [[Old Testament]] ([[KJV]]).<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com</ref> In attempt to convert [[Jews]] to [[Christianity]], [[Paul]] described [[Abraham]]'s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son [[Isaac]] to [[God]] as an act of faith, though the [[Old Testament]] did not describe it with that term.

Faith is strengthened by prayer ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%2020;&version=9; Jude 20]). For those who strengthen their faith, [[Jesus]] promised "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."<ref>John 14:12 (NIV).</ref>
==Biblical examples==

Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11. It states: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (NIV).</ref>

[[Paul]] indicated that faith itself is a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit

As discussed above, a potential reference to faith is [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped.
Genesis 22:12
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 

==Martin Luther on Faith==

Luther in his Table Talk papers writes this thought provoking and rather difficult passage on faith:

"This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that he is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that he seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and is more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith."

==Faith as a virtue==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|right|210px|The 'walking on water' episode, which both showed and tested St Peter's faith (painting by Konrad Witz).]]
[[St Paul]] identified faith, [[hope]] and [[love]] (or [[charity]]) as the three greatest [[virtue]]s that are central to Christianity, and this idea is repeated and elaborated upon throughout Christian tradition. Faith is put first because it provides the foundation upon which the other two are built: a faithful heart and mind cause one to have hope, and hope causes one to have love for God and one's fellow man.

In [[Dante]]'s [[Divine Comedy]], [[St Peter]] is most identified with faith. This is appropriate, since he was the 'rock' on which the Church was built, just as a Christian life must be rooted in faith. Peter's great faith is shown in Matthew 14:28-31, when he is briefly able to walk on water until doubt enters his mind.
{{clear}}

== Uniqueness to Christianity ==
Christianity is unique among religions in that its followers are defined by faith rather than by adherence to a prescribed code. St Paul makes this distinction clear in Galatians 3:24-25:
{{cquote|The law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come, when we should be justified through faith; and now that faith has come, the tutor's charge is at an end.}}
That is to say, whereas [[Judaism]] required (and still requires) its followers to obey the law, Christianity begins with faith, and any moral or ethical decisions must follow from that. In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'.

==Other Definitions and Religions==

Outside of [[Christianity]], faith is misused as a synonym for "belief". The [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary, for example, includes this definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith</ref>

Alternatively, faith often refers to a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or evidence.

In the [[Koran]], the concept of submission to [[Allah]] is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.

Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone, specifically [[Christ]]. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]]. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], as it entails an active role for the believer himself for advancing good.

The literary critic Harold Bloom distinguishes Christianity from the other two dominant monotheistic religions in his book Agon by contrasting them with Gnosticism:

"Gnosticism polemically is decidedly not a faith, whether in the Christian sense, pisits, a believing that something was, is, and will be so; or in the Hebraic sense, emunah, a trusting in the Covenant. If religion is a binding, then Gnosticism is an unbinding, but not for the sake of things or persons merely as they are. Gnostic freedom is a freedom for knowledge, knowledge of what in the self, not in the psyche or soul, is Godlike, and knowledge of God beyond the cosmos. But also it is a freedom to be known, to be known by God, by what is alien to everything created, by what is alien to and beyond the stars and the cosmic system and our earth."

Faith is emphasized in Christianity but is unrecognized by the worldview of [[Philosophical Skepticism|philosophical skepticism]].

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:religion]]
[[Category:philosophy]]

== External links ==
* Holding, James Patrick, [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html Fallacious Faith]
*[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/finding-faith-in-christ/video/finding-faith-in-christ Finding Faith in Christ], video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''

Talk:Faith

2009-01-05T18:58:33Z

JohnD:

== Reversion ==

I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.

::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."

::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)

******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.”

Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:

3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982

So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.

The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none

In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==Unlocking Faith==

I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== Faith is NOT unique ==

To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.

However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.

Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.

I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.

:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive. However, I agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding "faith" in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later "proofs" that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit", they never saw any "substance" of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]]
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]
*[[David]]
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets

All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith.

Incidentally, the word "faith" is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no "faith" within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Tautology! ==

Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

== Main Page ==

Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:Romans 10:17:
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Bad, bad, bad==
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.

==Alternate version==

'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith.

Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.

==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==

I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: See [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

There is only one area of science in which "faith" is required. That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on. However, this "faith" is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws. If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window. A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.

To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected. Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.

== Faith in Literature ==

I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.

[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Multiple definitions of faith ==

All: Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in. I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word "faith" to the article. Specifically:
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- "Believing without evidence," and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.

Any objections? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof. It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)

=="Faith is a uniquely Christian concept"==

So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Kierkegaard ==

I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His "leap to faith" discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]

== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==

Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Arrogance ==

That Christianity is the only religion with the concept of faith in it is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever heard. We can start by discussing the opening statement.

"Faith is a uniquely Christian concept referring to a confidence or trust in a greater good as provided by the Lord."

First, this statement claims that faith in anything is a Christian concept that was invented by the Christians. It claims that no other religion or philosophy has or have ever had any sort of faith in a greater good.

This implies that my own great personal faith in humanity as a whole is non-existant. I have no faith in humanity's capability of rational thinking, nor any faith in realizing my own and others potential to do good. Beliefs that are not rooted in any religious faith but instead by observation of humanity's history and characters that have done both terrible and wonderful things.

My own and others faith that are outside the Christian belief system are simply to be discarded as something that is irrellevant.

(as a side note please pardon any spelling mistakes, I'm Norwegian and thus realize that coming to this English speaking site might seem a bit odd, but it seems that you might need some foreign opinions on this site from time to time) Posted by: [[User:Toby|toby]]

==Rename the article==

This article seems to about [[Christian faith]], so it should be moved there. It is not really an article about [[religious faith]] in general. Moreover, an article on [[faith]] which includes the ideas of Ungtss above would be good. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Seconding this motion. 15:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Faith is a Christian concept, and "Christian faith" is a silly redundancy. It would be like saying "Christian Easter."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It's not a uniquely Christian concept, though. People can have faith in something without being religious, or they can have faith in non-Christian religions. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Even if we were to change the name (which I do not prefer), there is a problem with that name. "Christian faith" can be used to refer to ''Christianity'' as a religious system, when this article is mostly about ''Faith in Christianity'' (what it means to have a practical trust in God, and specifically Christ). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Lack of the Lord in entry ==

Faith is a concept introduced by Jesus, yet there is no reference to Him or His teachings on it in the entire first page. There are references to the Greek (which Jesus may not have used); there is reference to faith in support by chair (an example unlike ones used by Jesus); and there is a lack of emphasis on how faith is a uniquely Christian concept. For those reasons, I respectfully think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=474174|version] is better. (Also, I think the phrase "about God" in the first sentence must be an unintentional error.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, that faith did not start with Jesus' earthly ministry, it is the same kind of faith presented in the Old Testament. It is more defined in the New, but it's not a ''new'' concept. Obviously we need to include more, but I don't think how it is right now is worse.
:About the "about God," what do you find wrong with it? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 22:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament, but hundreds in the New. Added to that is the fact the Old Testament is much longer than the New, and the straightforward conclusion is that faith is a new concept introduced by Christianity.
:: I don't understand the "about God" reference. How does faith in, say, Peter's ability to walk on water or in the healing of the Roman soldier's servant knowledge "about God"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Wait, so - at no point did the Jews have faith in God? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To your objection: ''There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament''. I went to BibleGateway and found the word faith, faithful, or faithless a total of [http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=faith&version1=49&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no 96 times]. It is simply incorrect to say that the OT does not make a big deal about faith. Sure, it's not as much as the NT, but I already explained that. Also, remember the word "believe" is connected directly in the Greek to the word "faith." They are synonymous. "Then he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)
:::For your question: ''I don't understand the "about God" reference''. I would recommend that you listen to this lecture by Dr. Dallas Willard, entitled ''[http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/07/how-people-perish-for-lack-of-knowledge/ How People Perish for Lack of Knowledge]''. Other than that, are you talking about us (in modern day) reading those accounts and receiving knowledge of God? Or are you talking about Peter stepping out on the water and faith and having knowledge of God?
:::I'll take the Peter one... Say you are Peter, and you are in the boat. What impulse do you think would compel you to get out of that boat, when there is a fierce storm going on? I mean Peter has got to be used to this type of weather by now, so if he is having trouble, why would he have any desire to put himself in danger? But Peter knows something. (1) He has seen what Christ can do, (2) Christ is Himself outside the boat and calling him (and by the way, Jesus is not sinking, so it can't be too bad). Those two bits of ''knowledge'' on the part of Peter are able to help him overcome the uncertainty of the wind and the waves. But then when Peter takes his eyes off of Jesus (stops trusting in Him), he starts sinking. Peter then starts trusting in himself. Peter starts focusing on the uncertainties of whether he could really make it or not, rater than the certainty that there was standing on the water with him (Jesus).
:::Don't know if that made sense, but maybe :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 22:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I checked your Gateway link: the term "faith" appears only 4 times in the lengthy Old Testament, and 237 times in the brief New Testament. The Old Testament references have a different meaning from the New Testament meaning. The references to "faithful" and "faithless" have different meanings.
:::: I don't see how the faith by the soldier that his servant will be healed is knowledge "about God." The example of the chair seems, by the way, far removed from the New Testament examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''You are correct about the number on BibleGateway'''. I should have been looking closer at the meanings. However, I still maintain the Old Testament has a very clear conception of what faith is, and it does not change in the New. For example, in Exodus 4:8, God is sending Moses to Egypt, and God says this interesting statement: "If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign." Notice that God is providing a "sign" for them to believe. And if they don't trust the first "sign," then they might trust the last one. In terms of what I am talking about, that "sign" is ''knowledge about God''. It is something that God is doing to show humanity who He is.
:::::'''Faith of the soldier'''. The Centurion would have at least heard of Jesus, since Capernaum was Jesus' hometown (or at least homebase) I think. And this soldier may have even seen Jesus perform miracles before on other people. That is sufficient knowledge of what Christ (God) could do. I mean this Centurion definitely recognizes Jesus' divine authority (imho) as he calls Jesus "Lord", and says statements like, "I am not worthy for You to come under my roof," and "just say the word, and my servant will be healed." Not things you say about someone you barely know or have barely heard of... The point is that this centurion did indeed have a ''knowledge'' of Christ which caused faith in his heart.
:::::'''The chair example being far removed from scripture'''. That chair example is simply a popular way to conceptualize what saving faith is. If I just stood next to a chair and acknowledged that the chair could indeed support me, but I never sat down in the chair... is that really true faith in the chair? No. It's not faith until you not only ''acknowledge'' that the chair can hold you up, but you sit down in it. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I need to take a break now from this discussion, but so that you're not left waiting for a response, I observe that the nature of the examples of faith in the New Testament all have substantial significance relating to life or death, and none of them are trivialities like the chair example that seem to demean the significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Ok, and don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed at all to using biblical examples :-). So if that's what you want to stick to, that's fine by me. And I was planning on putting more in, but I always thought for me personally that the chair analogy was somewhat helpful. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Uniqueness==
"Some other religions have concepts that liberals pretend are similar to Christian "faith", but examining these claims invariably shows that no other religion has the same concept. "

That's clearly wrong. Judaism at the very least has a very similar meaning of ''Faith''. Islam does too as far as I recall. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Abraham ==

I was wondering if the line on Abraham in the "Biblical examples" section might give credence to those that think the other Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism and Islam) have the gift of Faith, rather than just belief.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:36, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== mundane or secular faith ==
What I mean here is a belief that certain things will happen without being in a position to explain them in detail. example: I have enough faith in my ability to build a shed for my gardening tools. example: I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. 
This may be using faith as a firmly held belief, without it being faith in a deity. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 15:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't allow dilution or [[placement bias]] here. Keep the good stuff first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

"Faith" has always been a Christian concept. We're not going to allow revisionism here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:OK - I've just put back the two new sections I wrote, on faith's place among the three theological virtues, and on its uniqueness to Christianity as explained in Galatians. Hope that's all right.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:: OK, thanks. Looks good, except this comment by your edit is certainly a highly provocative one: "In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::It's not intended to be provocative, or to say that Islam has much in common with Judaism ''overall''. Just that from a point of view of faith versus law, Christianity is based on faith, whereas both Islam and Judaism are based on submitting to a code of law.

:::Obviously, remove or change it if you don't agree.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Uniquely Christian==
I'm not sure I would agree that faith is uniquely Christian, but even if that's true you may want to invest in a thesaurus. It looks kind of silly to use the same phrase that many times in an article.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 13:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:World of Warcraft

2009-01-04T19:16:00Z

JohnD:

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]] XXI June 2007

:It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in ''The New York Times.'' If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" ''plus'' "Blizzard" in ''The New York Times'' since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear ''news'' articles ''about'' the game. Here are a few:

:*December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
:*February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
:*August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
:*December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
:*May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
:*September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
:*January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

:Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9435326/The-Virtual-World-of-Online-Gaming The Virtual World of Online Gaming], and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Article overboard! '''Way''' overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit
:::It may be a bit overboard, but it has a huge following, especially among age groups that Andy is most gearing the use of Conservapedia for. It makes sense to give them the type of information that they want that will get them interested if it gets them to spend time looking at Conservapedia and using it as a resource. In other words in this one we may want to go beyond a dry encyclopedia article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Right now it looks like we've removed most of the random terminology that one could easily gain off of the official website. It gives a concise description of what the basic premise of the game is, notes it's popularity, and brings up some criticisms of the game. What type of information beyond this do you think would be relevant? I'm happy to make whatever changes might be needed, but like I said before, we just need a good direction as to what type of information we're trying to relate here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: I agree we need a general understanding, but looking at the edit history, the recent direction is not one that has been agreed upon and was not the reason the article was unlocked. It appears this game is being cut some slack in giving more information than is usually desired, but then it is in a unique position of having an immense following of dedicated players and curious onlookers and may be a way to attract more attention to Conservapedia from groups that otherwise wouldn't be drawn to using our website. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Article locked ==

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:Elamdri|Elamdri]], so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

I think it may be wise to engage in concensus discussion before making major changes. While I'm sure all changes are being made in good faith, it's going against the reasons the Sysop stated he unprotected the article. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Well, first off, he hasn't stated any reasons that I can see why he unprotected it, only because it was requested. "If it stays relatively good, I see no reason it should be protected" doesn't really offer any insight as to 1) what was wrong in the first place and 2) what he'd like to see out of the article. Furthermore, I would argue that while this is a popular video game, CP is not a website that is going to attract your curious video game enthusiast. They are more than likely going to seek out official video game websites, or perhaps a wiki specifically focused on the game (ie www.wowwiki.com). I believe providing a more concise explination of the game and cultural issues surrounding it is more appropriate for this encyclopedia. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, but Elamdri himself put in many of the additions that were removed, and it is unlikely that's what he wanted. ;-) I'm not saying either that we're going to suddenly get 8.5 million game players, but the first rule of selling is to get them in, and the second is to sell your product -- give them something they want. We did a fine job on the Longbow article, but chances are more people passing through here are going to be curious to see what is said about World of WarCraft than that ancient weapon. (Although actually, in this case, there may be some overlap.) Personally, I've never played the game, but having played other role playing games in the past, I was curious when I read about it. If I'm a new person, that makes me more inclined to think favorably about Conservapedia and use it more, or at least think about it. Peace to you my friend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I protected the World of Warcraft article because we had a rash of vandal attacks against it a while back. Rather than revert it every time, unofficial CP policy is to revert the vandalism and protect until the vandal gets bored/blocked. Then if we find the article to be a high profile target, we keep the article locked, unless a reasonable request comes along, which Funnny provided. As for the terminology and game content that was cut and re-added, I'm not particularly attached to it so much as to get upset about someone removing it, although asking would be nice ;). Personally, I feel wiki's that aren't confined to one one area, like wowwiki, are going to end up growing out of their britches so to speak. Our articles might start out small and concise, but I see no problems with them developing to be all inclusive.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deleted Incorrect Info ==

I've deleted the claim about 'levelling to 70 taking weeks', as, to put it simply, it's wrong. The evidence presented backing it up is a single reference in passing on a website discussing World of Warcraft in general, claiming that getting to 70 would take 960 hours of playing. On my own character, I have 21 days measured by the game's own playing meter, which would be only 504 hours, yet I am level 70, so this is obviously incorrect. Not only that, there is a well-known guide, Joana's Levelling Guide, which gives a video of a character getting from level 1 to level 60 in 4 days 20 hours of playing (116 hours), and this was before a recent patch which actually reduced the amount of experience you need to get from level 1 to 60. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 17:56, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Hearsay ==

In reference to the controversy section of your article: All information present is hearsay. You even say that in the article. You claim to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia" and yet you include open hearsay in you articles. This does not make sense. Expect change. {{unsigned|IslamWarrior}}

== Trim-down ==

While above editors suggest keeping the information because it is relevant to Conservapedias target age group, it should be understood that all of this information would most likely already be known by the reader (due to experience in the game, reading the official website, or being told by their friends). Instead of having a section with several sentences for each race, class, and profession, I think it would be beneficial to congeal these sections into a few paragraphs each. I could draft an alternate version if instructed how, or just edit this article directly. Regardless of these specific issues, the article itself needs work. Is it acceptable if I rework these sections into more coherent prose? --[[User:JamzJohnson|JamzJohnson]] 23:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Disagree, someone reading this article may not know anything about the game, and as such it would be helpful to keep information about race, class, and profession, if anything it is prefered that the article be expanded not shortened -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:10, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
:Respectfully, I believe you may have misinterpreted my proposal (though it may be my fault for phrasing my suggestion poorly). I do not wish to erase relevant information - I merely wish to "clean it up" in a fashion that would make it both more informative and shorter. There is plenty of superfluous information, and even the relevant information flows through the article in a hard-to-follow pattern. I merely wish to make it more understandable, not less informative. [[User:JamzJohnson|JamzJohnson]] 21:02, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::If you feel you can make positive improvements then do so, but please keep in mind the discussion that occurred above. Personally in skimming it right now I didn't see anything jump out at me that told me the article had difficulty, but it remains to be seen how your version would look. Of course, if your changes are not kept don't take it personally. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:52, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== Too many minutiae?==
I don't deny their usefulness in describing the game, but should maybe the "classes" and "professions" be cut down somewhat? In this article the definitions of alchemy, blacksmithing, etc, are pretty close to their everyday English definitions, and don't need to take up 50% of the article space. This article should say something like "so-and-so professions exist" rather than "this is how to play as so-and-so professions". Could we maybe edit it down to a bulleted list? (In the meantime, I will try to find some more sources to beef up the "criticisms" section.) --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 17:11, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Criticism would be hard to research, since the game's mechanics are so widely liked. Adding to the controversy couldn't hurt, though. [[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 07:44, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Liberal Lies==

I don't think this section is very encylopedic. It contains no references and seems to be all conjecture and opinion. I think it should be removed.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 14:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:World of Warcraft

2009-01-04T19:14:32Z

JohnD: /* Liberal */ new section

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]] XXI June 2007

:It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in ''The New York Times.'' If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" ''plus'' "Blizzard" in ''The New York Times'' since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear ''news'' articles ''about'' the game. Here are a few:

:*December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
:*February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
:*August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
:*December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
:*May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
:*September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
:*January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

:Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9435326/The-Virtual-World-of-Online-Gaming The Virtual World of Online Gaming], and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Article overboard! '''Way''' overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit
:::It may be a bit overboard, but it has a huge following, especially among age groups that Andy is most gearing the use of Conservapedia for. It makes sense to give them the type of information that they want that will get them interested if it gets them to spend time looking at Conservapedia and using it as a resource. In other words in this one we may want to go beyond a dry encyclopedia article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Right now it looks like we've removed most of the random terminology that one could easily gain off of the official website. It gives a concise description of what the basic premise of the game is, notes it's popularity, and brings up some criticisms of the game. What type of information beyond this do you think would be relevant? I'm happy to make whatever changes might be needed, but like I said before, we just need a good direction as to what type of information we're trying to relate here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: I agree we need a general understanding, but looking at the edit history, the recent direction is not one that has been agreed upon and was not the reason the article was unlocked. It appears this game is being cut some slack in giving more information than is usually desired, but then it is in a unique position of having an immense following of dedicated players and curious onlookers and may be a way to attract more attention to Conservapedia from groups that otherwise wouldn't be drawn to using our website. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Article locked ==

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:Elamdri|Elamdri]], so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

I think it may be wise to engage in concensus discussion before making major changes. While I'm sure all changes are being made in good faith, it's going against the reasons the Sysop stated he unprotected the article. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Well, first off, he hasn't stated any reasons that I can see why he unprotected it, only because it was requested. "If it stays relatively good, I see no reason it should be protected" doesn't really offer any insight as to 1) what was wrong in the first place and 2) what he'd like to see out of the article. Furthermore, I would argue that while this is a popular video game, CP is not a website that is going to attract your curious video game enthusiast. They are more than likely going to seek out official video game websites, or perhaps a wiki specifically focused on the game (ie www.wowwiki.com). I believe providing a more concise explination of the game and cultural issues surrounding it is more appropriate for this encyclopedia. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, but Elamdri himself put in many of the additions that were removed, and it is unlikely that's what he wanted. ;-) I'm not saying either that we're going to suddenly get 8.5 million game players, but the first rule of selling is to get them in, and the second is to sell your product -- give them something they want. We did a fine job on the Longbow article, but chances are more people passing through here are going to be curious to see what is said about World of WarCraft than that ancient weapon. (Although actually, in this case, there may be some overlap.) Personally, I've never played the game, but having played other role playing games in the past, I was curious when I read about it. If I'm a new person, that makes me more inclined to think favorably about Conservapedia and use it more, or at least think about it. Peace to you my friend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I protected the World of Warcraft article because we had a rash of vandal attacks against it a while back. Rather than revert it every time, unofficial CP policy is to revert the vandalism and protect until the vandal gets bored/blocked. Then if we find the article to be a high profile target, we keep the article locked, unless a reasonable request comes along, which Funnny provided. As for the terminology and game content that was cut and re-added, I'm not particularly attached to it so much as to get upset about someone removing it, although asking would be nice ;). Personally, I feel wiki's that aren't confined to one one area, like wowwiki, are going to end up growing out of their britches so to speak. Our articles might start out small and concise, but I see no problems with them developing to be all inclusive.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deleted Incorrect Info ==

I've deleted the claim about 'levelling to 70 taking weeks', as, to put it simply, it's wrong. The evidence presented backing it up is a single reference in passing on a website discussing World of Warcraft in general, claiming that getting to 70 would take 960 hours of playing. On my own character, I have 21 days measured by the game's own playing meter, which would be only 504 hours, yet I am level 70, so this is obviously incorrect. Not only that, there is a well-known guide, Joana's Levelling Guide, which gives a video of a character getting from level 1 to level 60 in 4 days 20 hours of playing (116 hours), and this was before a recent patch which actually reduced the amount of experience you need to get from level 1 to 60. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 17:56, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Hearsay ==

In reference to the controversy section of your article: All information present is hearsay. You even say that in the article. You claim to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia" and yet you include open hearsay in you articles. This does not make sense. Expect change. {{unsigned|IslamWarrior}}

== Trim-down ==

While above editors suggest keeping the information because it is relevant to Conservapedias target age group, it should be understood that all of this information would most likely already be known by the reader (due to experience in the game, reading the official website, or being told by their friends). Instead of having a section with several sentences for each race, class, and profession, I think it would be beneficial to congeal these sections into a few paragraphs each. I could draft an alternate version if instructed how, or just edit this article directly. Regardless of these specific issues, the article itself needs work. Is it acceptable if I rework these sections into more coherent prose? --[[User:JamzJohnson|JamzJohnson]] 23:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Disagree, someone reading this article may not know anything about the game, and as such it would be helpful to keep information about race, class, and profession, if anything it is prefered that the article be expanded not shortened -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:10, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
:Respectfully, I believe you may have misinterpreted my proposal (though it may be my fault for phrasing my suggestion poorly). I do not wish to erase relevant information - I merely wish to "clean it up" in a fashion that would make it both more informative and shorter. There is plenty of superfluous information, and even the relevant information flows through the article in a hard-to-follow pattern. I merely wish to make it more understandable, not less informative. [[User:JamzJohnson|JamzJohnson]] 21:02, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::If you feel you can make positive improvements then do so, but please keep in mind the discussion that occurred above. Personally in skimming it right now I didn't see anything jump out at me that told me the article had difficulty, but it remains to be seen how your version would look. Of course, if your changes are not kept don't take it personally. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:52, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== Too many minutiae?==
I don't deny their usefulness in describing the game, but should maybe the "classes" and "professions" be cut down somewhat? In this article the definitions of alchemy, blacksmithing, etc, are pretty close to their everyday English definitions, and don't need to take up 50% of the article space. This article should say something like "so-and-so professions exist" rather than "this is how to play as so-and-so professions". Could we maybe edit it down to a bulleted list? (In the meantime, I will try to find some more sources to beef up the "criticisms" section.) --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 17:11, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Criticism would be hard to research, since the game's mechanics are so widely liked. Adding to the controversy couldn't hurt, though. [[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 07:44, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

I don't think this section is very encylopedic. It contains no references and seems to be all conjecture and opinion. I think it should be removed.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 14:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:MarkJ

2009-01-04T18:55:37Z

JohnD: New page: {{Welcome}} --~~~~

{{Welcome}}
--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 13:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative

2009-01-04T18:32:18Z

JohnD: fixed italics

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|thumb|George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism, except on immigration, public schools, government spending, and financial bailouts.]]
A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values. A conservative would likely agree with the statement in [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<ref>In addition, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

== Conservatives in the United States ==

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by adherence to limited government, public morality and free enterprise. Specifically, conservatives tend to adhere to the following principles:

* Return of prayer in school
* Prohibition of abortion
* Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
* Support of laws against pornography
* The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as long as such possession does not threaten national security
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
** Seeing rehabilitation as adversarial towards deterrence and punishment, and favoring deterrence and punishment over rehabilitation.
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
* Generally opposed to the United Nations
* Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Support tightening of border security
* Respect for our military... past and present
* Literal interpretation of the [[Bible]] and rejection of [[evolutionism]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
* Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
* A strong national defense

About every 20-60 years a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:

*[[George Washington]]
*[[James Monroe]]
*[[Grover Cleveland]]
*[[William Howard Taft]]
*[[Warren G. Harding]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so.

== Conservative News Organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[Fox News]], [[WorldNetDaily]], [[NewsMax]], [[Accuracy In Media]], and [[Cybercast News Service]].

== Conservative Magazines and Blogs ==
Two well known conservative magazines in the United States are The Weekly Standard and the [[National Review]].

Some of the more notable [[Conservative political blogs|conservative political blogs]] are Power Line, Captain's Quarters, the blog of [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, the Heritage Policy Weblog, Humanevents, Townhall, and the Conservative Caucus blog.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.

However, neoconservatives generally support government power and are indifferent to liberty and equality.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of [[Western Goals]]. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterised by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterised it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support amongst the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830 (Second Edition)'', 2008 </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in the [[U.K.]] than in the [[U.S.]]{{fact}}, and religious issues thereby play less of a role in [[England]]. Religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, UK Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than [[internationalist]] outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

In the United Kingdom the broadcast media is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media, except for the mid-market ''Daily Mail'' and ''Daily Express'' and the up market ''Daily Telegraph'' is exclusively liberal in tone.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Politics]]

{{Conservatism}}

Conservative

2009-01-04T18:29:43Z

JohnD: Added the other couple of conservative papers

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|thumb|George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism, except on immigration, public schools, government spending, and financial bailouts.]]
A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values. A conservative would likely agree with the statement in [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<ref>In addition, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

== Conservatives in the United States ==

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by adherence to limited government, public morality and free enterprise. Specifically, conservatives tend to adhere to the following principles:

* Return of prayer in school
* Prohibition of abortion
* Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
* Support of laws against pornography
* The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as long as such possession does not threaten national security
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
** Seeing rehabilitation as adversarial towards deterrence and punishment, and favoring deterrence and punishment over rehabilitation.
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
* Generally opposed to the United Nations
* Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Support tightening of border security
* Respect for our military... past and present
* Literal interpretation of the [[Bible]] and rejection of [[evolutionism]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
* Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
* A strong national defense

About every 20-60 years a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:

*[[George Washington]]
*[[James Monroe]]
*[[Grover Cleveland]]
*[[William Howard Taft]]
*[[Warren G. Harding]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so.

== Conservative News Organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[Fox News]], [[WorldNetDaily]], [[NewsMax]], [[Accuracy In Media]], and [[Cybercast News Service]].

== Conservative Magazines and Blogs ==
Two well known conservative magazines in the United States are The Weekly Standard and the [[National Review]].

Some of the more notable [[Conservative political blogs|conservative political blogs]] are Power Line, Captain's Quarters, the blog of [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, the Heritage Policy Weblog, Humanevents, Townhall, and the Conservative Caucus blog.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.

However, neoconservatives generally support government power and are indifferent to liberty and equality.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of [[Western Goals]]. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterised by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterised it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support amongst the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830 (Second Edition)'', 2008 </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in the [[U.K.]] than in the [[U.S.]]{{fact}}, and religious issues thereby play less of a role in [[England]]. Religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, UK Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than [[internationalist]] outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

In the United Kingdom the broadcast media is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media, except for the mid-market ''Daily Mail'' and ''Daily Express'' and the up market ''Daily Telegraph' is exclusively liberal in tone.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Politics]]

{{Conservatism}}

Talk:Conservative

2009-01-04T18:25:43Z

JohnD: /* UK newspapers */ new section

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
****Interesting, it seems you therefore support affirmative action towards those who hold conservative views. The article on this very site about the subject is extremely critical of affirmative action, and yet here it is being basically said that the conservative view is unable to compete in a marketplace of free ideas. Very disapointing! - Colduck77
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

These people are absolutely right, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. In the 1860's and up until the 20th Century and about the New Deal era, the Republicans were America's liberal party.

Come on guys, Lincoln is well known as a Liberal; By his deeds and his words... We all know the greatest speeches were written by Liberals! *Cough* Seriously though, I know you guys want to claim all of histories great characters to your side of the fence (Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln (You'd probably make a stab for Roosevelt and Truman if you had the chance) but give credit where credit is due - Lincoln was a Liberal. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== The nature of the page ==

It would seem to me that the nature of the page seems to be more in relation to the actual ideology of conservatism than of conservatives in general. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to have the introduction rewritten appropriately, and then move this page to an article entitled "Conservatism" (with the appropriate redirection, of course)? [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 21:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Neoconservative? ==

This description sounds more like what a neolibertarian would be. Neoconservatives would support increased government spending (especially on the military) and an interventionist foreign policy based on spreading democracy throughout the world (especially the Middle East). Neolibertarians also support an interventionist foreign policy, though as libertarians, they would support limited government and would be "amoral."

I think there should be "paleoconservative" (Pat Buchanan, etc.), "neoconservative" (Bush, etc.), and "mainstream conservative" (a mix of both ideologies, e.g. Reagan). The same should apply to the article on libertarianism - "paleolibertarian," "neolibertarian," "anarcho-capitalist," (party) "Libertarian," etc.

What do you think? --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 22:21, 3 December 2007 (EST)

:Where did this word, "paleoconservative," originate? I am beginning to feel uneasy about it without a source. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 6 December 2007 (EST)

[[The Nation]], 20 October, 1984, according to Lexis-Nexis.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::Ahh, ''The Nation.'' Thank you. Now I have a starting point. If this checks out, we may have sufficient cause to nip this in the bud. Pat Buchanan, as far as I'm aware, does not refer to himself as a "paleoconservative," although I could be wrong. This type of liberal labeling and use of pejoritives may have gone too far already in Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:32, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== "Moral Virtue" ==

I believe that the phrase "moral virtue" is too vague for this article. I am a liberal democrat, and also believe I am morally virtuous, although not in the view of the US Republican party. Is there a perhaps more fair way of saying this? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 15:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Category Addition ==

Can a sysop add "Category: Political ideologies" to this article? Thanks!

== Fox News ==

Fox News is listed on this page as conservative, but I'm not sure if that's correct. I think such an assertion just feeds into the liberal
accusations that Fox is biased (in contrast to the supposedly fair but obviously left-leaning major networks). I would prefer to refer to Fox news as "balanced" or "moderate" rather than "conservative." What do others think? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 15:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== UK newspapers ==

Although I agree about the broadcast media (mainly the bbc) I do not believe what you have added about the print media is correct, or supported by the source given. The most popular broadsheet, the telegraph, is a supporter of the conservative party, as is the Times and the Daily Express. From the source provided
<blockquote>
The Times, the UK’s oldest national newspaper, is not the most popular - that accolade falls to the Daily Telegraph, known affectionately as the Daily Torygraph because of the staunch support to the Conservative Party.
</blockquote>
--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 13:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Christian Demyer Franken syndrome

2009-01-04T16:49:04Z

JohnD: cat

'''Christian Demyer Franken syndrome''' is an extremely rare disease, affecting less than 1 person in every 2000<ref>http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/christian_demyer_franken_syndrome/prevalence.htm</ref>. It causes mental retardation and skeletal abnormalities<ref>http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/christian_demyer_franken_syndrome/intro.htm</ref>.
==References==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Diseases]]

Christian Demyer Franken syndrome

2009-01-04T16:47:51Z

JohnD: New page: '''Christian Demyer Franken syndrome''' is an extremely rare disease, affecting less than 1 person in every 2000<ref>http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/christian_demyer_franken_syndrome/preva...

Talk:Franken Syndrome

2009-01-04T16:42:33Z

JohnD: I thought you might find this interesting.

Interestingly, there is a real disease called [http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/GARD/Disease.aspx?PageID=4&diseaseID=1315 Christian Demyer Franken syndrome].--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)

User:JohnD

2009-01-04T15:59:03Z

JohnD: It's all true

Hello. My name is John. Today I have eaten to many Chocolates. When I have time I will work out how to put one of those fancy user boxes on this page.

Xbox 360

2009-01-04T15:53:16Z

JohnD: cat

{{stub}}

The '''Xbox 360''' is a games console produced by the [[Microsoft]] coporation. It was first released in 2005. It was a successor to the moderately successful Xbox console. According to Microsoft, as of September 2008 over 22 million units had been sold and over 1000 games released for the console<ref>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/microsoft-q1-revenue-up-9-per-cent</ref>.
==References==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Electronics]]
[[Category:Video Games]]

Xbox 360

2009-01-04T15:51:07Z

JohnD: New page: {{stub}} The '''Xbox 360''' is a games console produced by the Microsoft coporation. It was first released in 2005. It was a successor to the moderately successful Xbox console. Accor...

User talk:JohnD

2009-01-04T15:06:21Z

JohnD: sig

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)}}

Use the article's talk page, not an edit comment, for stuff like this:

:It is widely accepted that homosexuals were targeted during the holocuast. The second sentance even admitts there were gay people in the camp, and that they indentified as such.

Okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:31, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Avoid nonsense about [[nanotechnology]] and help me with [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]. If you know something, contribute. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:48, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==Nanotechnology==

Thanks for your edits as well. I don't work in the field, but have a great interest in it from both a real-world and science-fiction perspective. I like to contribute to the fact-based articles on CP since my viewpoint is not in the mainstream, and this is a topic I'm looking forward to expanding over time. Have a great Thanksgiving! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:41, 26 November 2008 (EST)

==Contentious Edits==
If you are going to make an edit that is contentious, maybe discuss it on the talk-page first. I have spoken to Rick too. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 09:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:I appreciate your concern. I did try to dicuss it on the talk page, but Rick stopped replying. I would like to propose this compromise. Since you are a sysop and someone I respect, I would like you to make the finally decision regarding the article. I personally do not think it is fair to accusse someone of hate speech without providing any proof, but whatever decision you make I will respect. Thanks for you help.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 09:56, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::One of us was reading the other's mind I think. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 10:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::That must be one of your new sysop powers:) For what it's worth, I think Andy made a very wise choice promoting you.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 10:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:JohnD

2009-01-04T15:05:11Z

JohnD:

User talk:JohnD

2009-01-04T14:56:24Z

JohnD: reply and request

Joseph B. Tamney

2009-01-04T14:49:25Z

JohnD: Undo revision 601754 by RickD (Talk). Ok I read the article. I didn't find a quote there either.

Joseph B. Tamney is a [[liberal]] sociology professor. He is an opponent against [[Conservative Christianity]]. He has harshly criticized [[Stanford University]]-trained psychologist [[Paul C. Vitz]] and the conservative [[attorney]] [[Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow|Constance Cumbey]]<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=8yfIgQz3bL8C ''The Resilience of Christianity in the Modern World''], Joseph B. Tamney, SUNY Press, 1992, ISBN 0791408213, 9780791408216, 178 pages. pp. 107 and 113 </ref>. He has also harshly criticized the Roman Catholic church as anti-Marxist<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=8yfIgQz3bL8C ''The Resilience of Christianity in the Modern World''], Joseph B. Tamney, SUNY Press, 1992, ISBN 0791408213, 9780791408216, 178 pages. pp. 47-68 </ref> and unsympathetic towards South American radical priests. In his latest book ''The Resilience of Conservative Religion'' (2002), he puts Christian conservatives into the same religious category as one of the most radical and most hatefilled Muslim figures of the late 20th century: [[Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini]].

==External links==
* [http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/itemConference/2008BeijingSummit/summitSpeaker/tamney.html A Biography]
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=c1_1aonU55gC ''The Resilience of Conservative Religion''] (Preview of his 2002 book)

{{reflist}}

Joseph B. Tamney

2009-01-04T14:44:32Z

JohnD: If you are going to accuse someone of hate speech then you are going to have to provide an example.

Talk:Joseph B. Tamney

2009-01-04T14:14:19Z

JohnD: Reply

== Hate speech ==

Removing the 'probably' is good, but a statement like that should really be backed up by a citation. Also what suddenly made you change mind from thinking he was probably a proponent to being certain?--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 09:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:Reading his latest book (2002). And these are cited. Stop the liberal double-talk. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 09:09, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::Really, because as of ten minutes ago you didn't seem as certain? I don't have a copy of the book to hand, so maybe you could provide a quote of his hate speech? I think it would be a good thing include in the article. And what exactly do you mean by double-talk? Perhaps you could create an article about it?--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 09:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Joseph B. Tamney

2009-01-04T14:06:07Z

JohnD: Hate speech

Joseph B. Tamney

2009-01-04T13:58:30Z

JohnD: Speculation

'''Joseph B. Tamney''' is a [[liberal]] sociology professor. He has harshly criticized [[Stanford University]]-trained psychologist [[Paul C. Vitz]] and the conservative [[attorney]] [[Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow|Constance Cumbey]]<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=8yfIgQz3bL8C ''The Resilience of Christianity in the Modern World''], Joseph B. Tamney, SUNY Press, 1992, ISBN 0791408213, 9780791408216, 178 pages. pp. 107 and 113 </ref>. He has also harshly criticized the Roman Catholic church as anti-Marxist<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=8yfIgQz3bL8C ''The Resilience of Christianity in the Modern World''], Joseph B. Tamney, SUNY Press, 1992, ISBN 0791408213, 9780791408216, 178 pages. pp. 47-68 </ref> and unsympathetic towards South American radical priests.

==External links==
* [http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/itemConference/2008BeijingSummit/summitSpeaker/tamney.html A Biography]
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=c1_1aonU55gC ''The Resilience of Conservative Religion''] (Preview of his 2002 book)

{{reflist}}