Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Sloppy writing

2008-04-10T14:01:08Z

ArcturusM: Even if you disagree with the last part, it's valid; also, the recat and copy editing were needed. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and discuss first

'''Sloppy writing''' has no place in an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written, and even discussions about improving articles require a certain level of academic rigor. (Debates are okay, but should be conducted on the pages of our [[Debate Topics]].)

==Unclear references==
Sloppy writing includes referring to something, but not describing it. This is especially bad in an introductory sentence or paragraph. A typical instance (from an Amazon book review):

{{cquote|It mentions how civilizations, species, indigenous people and cultures are being destroyed by greed and materialism, by most of us ...}}

The phrase "mentions how" promises to give specific examples of this destruction. But the writer has used the phrase merely as a synonym for "makes the claim". This is a misuse of language, and it's a common rhetorical device used in debates and polemics. It has no place in an encyclopedia.

==Arguing without explaining==
When we allude to things that illustrate a point, we must mention at least one of those things. Otherwise, it's better to retreat a bit and merely state that X claimed Y.

If we say that X showed that Y is true, we are duty bound to explain, summarize or even quote verbatim the argument X gave.

If an advocate makes a point without giving arguments or examples, it may be wise to point out this fact. For instance, when criticizing the [[Patriot Act]], opponents generally say that it will "violate [[civil rights]]" but they do not mention which civil rights they mean. This is about as useful as calling a bill "stupid".

==Opinion dumping==
In addition, the creation of uncategorized mainspace stub articles which express an opinion on a subject covered by other articles is extremely poor wiki-planning.

[[Category:Conservapedia Administration]]

Conservapedia talk:Sloppy writing

2008-04-10T13:59:11Z

ArcturusM:

==Examples==
Some that really need help:
*[[Permission]] (seriously?)
*[[Biological evolution]] (should be a redirect to Evolution)
*[[Inerrancy of the Bible]] (should be a redirect to Bible)
Sorry, but it's true.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 09:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Also, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sloppy_writing&curid=63151&diff=428058&oldid=428055 this], don't you agree that relentless creation of stubs, when they could easily be edits to existing articles, is poor writing?-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 09:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Sloppy writing

2008-04-10T13:56:09Z

ArcturusM: New page: ==Examples== Some that really need help: *Permission (seriously?) *Biological evolution (should be a redirect to Evolution) *Inerrancy of the Bible (should be a redirect to Bib...

Conservapedia:Sloppy writing

2008-04-10T13:54:43Z

ArcturusM: cleared this up

Ulysses (Tennyson)

2008-04-10T05:48:36Z

ArcturusM: wikilink something to do tomorrow

==Analysis==
In his seminal poem ''Ulysses'', Alfred Lord Tennyson describes an aged hero who, beset in his youth by countless troubles, finds he cannot now live in comfort and peace, but instead must seek adventure. Curiously, the adventure that Tennyson's Ulysses seeks may not be the blood of war; rather, the text seems to suggest that Tennyson's Ulysses seeks to pass beyond the farthest reaches of human ''though'' ("My mariners, Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me"), reflecting the [[Victorian Age|Victorian]] concern with pushing the limits of human knowledge.

There has been a great deal of analysis and inspection of the poem, speculating on the nature under which it is being given. Some have suggested that Ulysses is dying near the end of the poem, for example, whereas others hold to the face values, in which the hero is giving a speech to his son before setting off on a final journey with his sailors. Some support for the former theory might be found in the fact that during the events of the ''Odyssey'', all of Ulysses' men perished at one time or another leading up to the moment at which he first begins narrating the poem (which begins ''[[in media res]]''), when he is shipwrecked naked and alone.

==Text==
By [[Alfred Lord Tennyson]]. Written 1833; published 1842. Text reproduced as part of the [[public domain]], but credit must be given to Tennyson, [[poet laureate]] of [[England]].

:It little profits that an idle king,
:By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
:Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
:Unequal laws unto a savage race,
:That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
:I cannot rest from travel; I will drink
:Life to the lees. All times I have enjoy'd
:Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
:That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
:Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
:Vext the dim sea. I am become a name;
:For always roaming with a hungry heart
:Much have I seen and known,-- cities of men
:And manners, climates, councils, governments,
:Myself not least, but honor'd of them all,--
:And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
:Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
:I am a part of all that I have met;
:Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
:Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades
:For ever and for ever when I move.
:How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
:To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!
:As tho' to breathe were life! Life piled on life
:Were all too little, and of one to me
:Little remains; but every hour is saved
:From that eternal silence, something more,
:A bringer of new things; and vile it were
:For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
:And this gray spirit yearning in desire
:To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
:Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

:This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
:to whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,--
:Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
:This labor, by slow prudence to make mild
:A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
:Subdue them to the useful and the good.
:Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
:Of common duties, decent not to fail
:In offices of tenderness, and pay
:Meet adoration to my household gods,
:When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

:There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail;
:There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
:Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me,--
:That ever with a frolic welcome took
:The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
:Free hearts, free foreheads,-- you and I are old;
:Old age hath yet his honor and his toil.
:Death closes all; but something ere the end,
:Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
:Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.

:The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
:The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
:Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends.
:'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
:Push off, and sitting well in order smite
:The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
:To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
:Of all the western stars, until I die.

:It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
:It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
:And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
:Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
:We are not now that strength which in old days
:Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,--
:One equal temper of heroic hearts,
:Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
:To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

[[category:mythology]]
[[category:poetry]]
[[category:Trojan War]]

Monomyth

2008-04-10T05:28:39Z

ArcturusM: <3 Monomyth

The '''monomyth'' is a theoretical "first myth" common to all human beings throughout the world, perhaps stemming from [[Jung]]ian archetypical knowledge. The term was first coined and the theory made famous by American literary critic and author [[Joseph Campbell]] in his books ''The Hero with a Thousand Faces'' and ''The Masks of God'', wherein he mapped out the typical monomythic passage in several elaborate stages through which the prototypical ur-hero would pass. They include "The Call," the "Apotheosis," and the "Return." This approach to literary analysis is part of the overall theory known as [[neoconstruction]]ism, and has proven extremely attractive to a variety of people, including filmmaker [[George Lucas]], who was strongly influenced by the notion of the monomyth.
==See Also==
*[[King Arthur]]
*[[Star Wars]]
[[category:Mythology]]

Monomyth

2008-04-10T05:27:58Z

ArcturusM:

Homer

2008-04-10T05:18:47Z

ArcturusM:

'''Homer''' (8th century B.C.) was a [[Greece|Greek]] poet and the author of the [[Iliad]] and the [[Odyssey]]. He was also supposedly blind. His name, in Greek, means "hostage", so there is some thought he may have been taken by the Greeks as a hostage during war. Little is known about his life beyond such speculations, but his poems have been recognized as two of the greatest epics in Western culture for thousands of years. There has often been speculation that Homer did not originally exist, with the poems having perhaps come into being over years of collaboration by multiple poets. Scholars point to seemingly dramatic changes of pace and wording from one section to another in the poems. Nonetheless, a strong cultural tradition has grown up around the assumption of Homer's existence and the recognition of the essentially impossibility of determining the truth.

The Homeric epics became foundational elements of late [[Greek]] and [[Hellenism|Hellenistic]] culture, as well as informing [[Rome|Roman]] notions of morality and history. The epics, together, taught the importance of ''[[arete]]'' - noble, virtuous warfare, without excess and with respect for one's fatherland - along with defining mankind's relation with the [[polytheism|gods]] in the Greek [[cosmology]], along with various other cultural notions. As an example of their importance, [[Alexander the Great]] is said to have slept with the two epics either under his pillow, or at his side.<ref>Plutarch, ''Vitae Parallae'', Life of Alexander.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Poets]]
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]

Ulysses (Tennyson)

2008-04-10T05:17:53Z

ArcturusM: /* Text */

==Analysis==
In his seminal poem ''Ulysses'', Alfred Lord Tennyson describes an aged hero who, beset in his youth by countless troubles, finds he cannot now live in comfort and peace, but instead must seek adventure. Curiously, the adventure that Tennyson's Ulysses seeks may not be the blood of war; rather, the text seems to suggest that Tennyson's Ulysses seeks to pass beyond the farthest reaches of human ''though'' (My mariners, Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me), reflecting the [[Victorian Age|Victorian]] concern with pushing the limits of human knowledge.

==Text==
By [[Alfred Lord Tennyson]]. Written 1833; published 1842. Text reproduced as part of the [[public domain]], but credit must be given to Tennyson, [[poet laureate]] of [[England]].

:It little profits that an idle king,
:By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
:Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
:Unequal laws unto a savage race,
:That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
:I cannot rest from travel; I will drink
:Life to the lees. All times I have enjoy'd
:Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
:That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
:Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
:Vext the dim sea. I am become a name;
:For always roaming with a hungry heart
:Much have I seen and known,-- cities of men
:And manners, climates, councils, governments,
:Myself not least, but honor'd of them all,--
:And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
:Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
:I am a part of all that I have met;
:Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
:Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades
:For ever and for ever when I move.
:How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
:To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!
:As tho' to breathe were life! Life piled on life
:Were all too little, and of one to me
:Little remains; but every hour is saved
:From that eternal silence, something more,
:A bringer of new things; and vile it were
:For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
:And this gray spirit yearning in desire
:To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
:Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

:This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
:to whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,--
:Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
:This labor, by slow prudence to make mild
:A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
:Subdue them to the useful and the good.
:Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
:Of common duties, decent not to fail
:In offices of tenderness, and pay
:Meet adoration to my household gods,
:When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

:There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail;
:There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
:Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me,--
:That ever with a frolic welcome took
:The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
:Free hearts, free foreheads,-- you and I are old;
:Old age hath yet his honor and his toil.
:Death closes all; but something ere the end,
:Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
:Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.

:The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
:The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
:Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends.
:'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
:Push off, and sitting well in order smite
:The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
:To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
:Of all the western stars, until I die.

:It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
:It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
:And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
:Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
:We are not now that strength which in old days
:Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,--
:One equal temper of heroic hearts,
:Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
:To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

[[category:mythology]]
[[category:poetry]]
[[category:Trojan War]]

Ulysses (Tennyson)

2008-04-10T05:16:27Z

ArcturusM: New page: ==Analysis== In his seminal poem ''Ulysses'', Alfred Lord Tennyson describes an aged hero who, beset in his youth by countless troubles, finds he cannot now live in comfort and peace, but ...

==Analysis==
In his seminal poem ''Ulysses'', Alfred Lord Tennyson describes an aged hero who, beset in his youth by countless troubles, finds he cannot now live in comfort and peace, but instead must seek adventure. Curiously, the adventure that Tennyson's Ulysses seeks may not be the blood of war; rather, the text seems to suggest that Tennyson's Ulysses seeks to pass beyond the farthest reaches of human ''though'' (My mariners, Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me), reflecting the [[Victorian Age|Victorian]] concern with pushing the limits of human knowledge.

==Text==
By [[Alfred Lord Tennyson]].

:It little profits that an idle king,
:By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
:Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
:Unequal laws unto a savage race,
:That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
:I cannot rest from travel; I will drink
:Life to the lees. All times I have enjoy'd
:Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
:That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
:Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
:Vext the dim sea. I am become a name;
:For always roaming with a hungry heart
:Much have I seen and known,-- cities of men
:And manners, climates, councils, governments,
:Myself not least, but honor'd of them all,--
:And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
:Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
:I am a part of all that I have met;
:Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
:Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades
:For ever and for ever when I move.
:How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
:To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!
:As tho' to breathe were life! Life piled on life
:Were all too little, and of one to me
:Little remains; but every hour is saved
:From that eternal silence, something more,
:A bringer of new things; and vile it were
:For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
:And this gray spirit yearning in desire
:To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
:Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

:This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
:to whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,--
:Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
:This labor, by slow prudence to make mild
:A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
:Subdue them to the useful and the good.
:Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
:Of common duties, decent not to fail
:In offices of tenderness, and pay
:Meet adoration to my household gods,
:When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

:There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail;
:There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
:Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me,--
:That ever with a frolic welcome took
:The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
:Free hearts, free foreheads,-- you and I are old;
:Old age hath yet his honor and his toil.
:Death closes all; but something ere the end,
:Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
:Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.

:The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
:The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
:Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends.
:'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
:Push off, and sitting well in order smite
:The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
:To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
:Of all the western stars, until I die.

:It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
"It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
:And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
:Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
:We are not now that strength which in old days
:Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,--
:One equal temper of heroic hearts,
:Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
:To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

[[category:mythology]]
[[category:poetry]]
[[category:Trojan War]]

Odysseus

2008-04-10T05:11:55Z

ArcturusM:

'''Odysseus''' (or, Ulysses) is the hero of [[the Odyssey]], an [[epic poem]] by the [[Greece|Greek]] [[poet]] [[Homer]]. Allegedly [[blind]], Homer is said to have put to paper, perhaps through an intermediary, the ancient epic poem, which had been previously passed along only by [[oral tradition]].

In the Odyssey, a companion to [[the Iliad]], Ulysses attempts to return to his [[island]] kingdom of [[Ithaca]], where his wife [[Penelope]] and his son [[Telemachus]] have stayed waiting for him. Unfortunately, Ulysses has incurred the wrath of the God of the Sea, [[Neptune]], and his ship is buffeted on the seas into various confrontations with [[myth|mythical]] monsters.

==Inspirations of Modern Works of Art==
Odysseus, under his [[Latin]] name Ulysses, has at various times served as the inspiration for other works of art, including a poem by [[Alfred Lord Tennyson]]<ref>See main article, [[Ulysses (Tennyson)]].</ref> (made famous for its ending line, in perfect [[iambic pentameter]] - "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield"), and a novel by [[James Joyce]] (received initially as literary [[pornography]]).

==References==
<references/>
[[category:Mythology]]

{{Nb mythology iliad}}

Homer

2008-04-10T05:11:10Z

ArcturusM:

Talk:Ulysses

2008-04-10T05:04:22Z

ArcturusM:

It would seem more proper to title the article "Odysseus," and redirect Ulysses there. That was the original Greek name; "Ulysses" is the Latin equivalent.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 01:00, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:There's already an article at Odysseus, although the article that Arcturus created seems to be better quality. Perhaps merge his content over there, changing the name as appropriate, and retain the template that's already there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:01, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::Makes sense. I'll merge (or rather, replace), then this page can be redirected there.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 01:02, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::Whoa, already done. Quick work, good job.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 01:03, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks!-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 01:04, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Odysseus

2008-04-10T05:03:54Z

ArcturusM:

'''Odysseus''' (or, Ulysses) is the hero of [[the Odyssey]], an [[epic poem]] by the [[Greece|Greek]] [[poet]] [[Homer]]. Allegedly [[blind]], Homer is said to have put to paper, perhaps through an intermediary, the ancient epic poem, which had been previously passed along only by [[oral tradition]].

In the Odyssey, a companion to [[the Iliad]], Ulysses attempts to return to his [[island]] kingdom of [[Ithaca]], where his wife [[Penelope]] and his son [[Telemachus]] have stayed waiting for him. Unfortunately, Ulysses has incurred the wrath of the God of the Sea, [[Neptune]], and his ship is buffeted on the seas into various confrontations with [[myth|mythical]] monsters.

==Inspirations of Modern Works of Art==
Odysseus, under his [[Latin]] name Ulysses, has at various times served as the inspiration for other works of art, including a poem by [[Alfred Lord Tennyson]] (made famous for its ending line, in perfect [[iambic pentameter]] - "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield"), and a novel by [[James Joyce]] (received initially as literary [[pornography]]).

[[category:Mythology]]

{{Nb mythology iliad}}

Odysseus

2008-04-10T05:02:20Z

ArcturusM:

'''Ulysses''' (or, Odysseus) is the hero of [[the Odyssey]], an [[epic poem]] by the [[Greece|Greek]] [[poet]] [[Homer]]. Allegedly [[blind]], Homer is said to have put to paper, perhaps through an intermediary, the ancient epic poem, which had been previously passed along only by [[oral tradition]].

In the Odyssey, a companion to [[the Iliad]], Ulysses attempts to return to his [[island]] kingdom of [[Ithaca]], where his wife [[Penelope]] and his son [[Telemachus]] have stayed waiting for him. Unfortunately, Ulysses has incurred the wrath of the God of the Sea, [[Neptune]], and his ship is buffeted on the seas into various confrontations with [[myth|mythical]] monsters.

Ulysses has at various times served as the inspiration for other works of art, including a poem by [[Alfred Lord Tennyson]], and a novel by [[James Joyce]].

[[category:Mythology]]

{{Nb mythology iliad}}

Ulysses

2008-04-10T05:02:08Z

ArcturusM: Thanks for talk page comments; redirecting

#REDIRECT[[Odysseus]]

Fitna

2008-04-10T04:59:25Z

ArcturusM: New page: In Islamic apocalyptic writings (eschatology), a '''fitna''' is a time of tribulation and great civil unrest. The term may have common usage, however, to desc...

In [[Islam|Islamic]] [[apocalypse|apocalyptic]] writings ([[eschatology]]), a '''fitna''' is a time of tribulation and great civil unrest. The term may have common usage, however, to describe merely a [[civil war]] within the [[Dar al-Islam]], with no apocalyptic assumptions.

Also, ''Fitna'' may refer to a short [[polemic|polemical]] film by [[Dutch]] [[parliament|parliamentarian]] Geert Wilders, designed to inflame anti-Islamic sentiment by juxtaposing key phrases from the [[Koran]] with the dramatic real world events - such as the [[September 11th]] attacks - which Wilders argues are the inevitable consequences of the phrases. Wilders deliberately ended his film with a picture of the Koran, followed by the sound of pages ripping. The reader is meant to assume that Wilders has torn the Koran in two, an unspeakable act of violence to any devout [[Muslim]], but a disclaimer shortly follows, in which Wilders explains that this did not actually happen.

[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:Islam]]

Ulysses

2008-04-10T04:42:18Z

ArcturusM: New page: '''Ulysses''' (or, Odysseus) is the hero of the Odyssey, an epic poem by the Greek poet Homer. Allegedly blind, Homer is said to have put to paper, perhaps ...

Statement

2008-04-10T04:21:55Z

ArcturusM: Wanted page; from what links here it seemed clear that these were the meanings

A '''statement''' may refer to sworn testimony given before a [[judge]], as a [[deposition]]. It may alternately refer to a recitation of [[debit|debits]] and [[credit|credits]] over a given period of [[time]], such as a [[balance sheet]].

[[category:Law]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Life after death

2008-04-10T04:20:19Z

ArcturusM: redirecting to the more common term

#REDIRECT[[Afterlife]]

Sam

2008-04-10T04:20:06Z

ArcturusM: wanted page; from the links it's clear that this was the intended target

#REDIRECT[[Samwise Gamgee]]

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-04-10T04:18:22Z

ArcturusM: /* Inspired Word of God or Not */

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

:The style is actually very Johannine, and the message it transmits is actually central to understanding Christ throughout the entire New Testament! What is Yeshua actually saying? He isn't saying that it is wrong to make moral judgements, and in fact at John 7:24 He says quite clearly: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." So why does He speak of those present needing to be without sin? Because they were complicit in setting a trap for Him, using this woman as bait. "[They] said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." The Jews no longer had the right to execute, as this had been removed by the Romans in AD 30. So if He said that she should be executed, they would accuse Him of sedition against the Romans, and if He ordered her to be released, they would accuse Him of breaking Mosaic law. A very cleverly sprung trap. But Yeshua is the AUTHOR of the Law, and He knows full well that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:22;&version=31; Deut. 22:22]). Yeshua understands the set-up, as would contemporary readers. We don't even know if adultery ''had'' been committed, that the woman herself isn't part of the trap. But He makes it quite clear that He sees their conspiracy, which is why He won't codemn nor pardon as they want Him to, but instead asks all present to examine their own parts, their own guilt in this. He even puts them on the spot to go ahead and do what they are asking Him to do.

:Does He give license to sin with His words to the throng and the woman? Of course not - ''He gives forgiveness, the central tenet of the Christian religion, as only He can!'' He is willing to pay the penalty for her sins Himself - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. '''But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense''' — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. '''He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world'''." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1-2;&version=31; 1 John 2:1-2]).

:Does this passage appear in ''all'' early manuscripts? No. Does that mean it was an addition? Or more likely a deliberate ommission? The early church fathers accepted it and quoted it, and Ambrose and Augustine were both quite sure that it was an ommission not an addition. Why ommit it? Because its message of forgiveness, of G-d accepting that we can sin but reform, didn't sit comfortably with those who wanted a religion which gave more latitude to condemn than forgive. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: [[Atheism]] and much of [[liberal]] ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adulteress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adulteress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adulteress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: It makes no sense for a scholar (a liberal one?) to insist that the story was added later but is still true. John did not release his Gospel until longer after all the other Apostles, and likely all the eyewitnesses, had died. There is no basis for asserting that the fraudulently added story is still true, and many reasons to conclude it is not true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that someone that argues that the account does not belong in the Bible is a liberal?

According to a Samuel P. Tregelles in 1854:
{{QuoteBox|Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel [one of the places it is found in some manuscripts—PJR], as one of the "many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong.}}
Bruce Metzger:
{{QuoteBox|...the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.}}
Raymond E. Brown:
{{QuoteBox|However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). ... From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.}}
These are from [http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html here]. What reasons do you have for asserting that it is ''not'' true?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently the above three quoted individuals like the story, but that's no justification for giving in to a hoax. The story has unmistakable [[liberal]] overtones and that is a "reason for doubting that it contains a true narration." Details of the story (like Jesus writing, or crediting an inherent value to age, or obtaining 100% acceptance of his teaching) are non-existent or even disproved by authentic portions of the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not aware that Bruce Metzger was a [[conservative]], though he may have rejected [[professor values]] of his academic colleagues. His reasoning above does not persuade, as there were many "oral traditions" (like the "Gospel of Thomas") that were properly rejected as not authentic. In the case of the adulteress story, the hoaxsters (vandals?) were more clever about it, appending or inserting it into an authentic work. It is analogous to clever vandalism on wikis today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: It's quite inappropriate to describe those three individuals as "liking" the story, as though they had a gooey feeling rather than good research. I've answered below about Jesus writing, but how is any of the story "disproved" by other portions of the New Testament? Your 17:07 post is mainly mere assertion, and does nothing to support your case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

== What Constitutes Gospel? ==

I think Fox has a convincing take on why this may not be an addition. But even if it's not original, I have to ask how we can be sure that the Almighty wasn't working through whoever added it. {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}

: Your faulty logic would apply to anything, including additions or amendments to today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what's the fault in it? When did God stop talking to and acting through man? {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}
: The Bible indicates that it is complete. Anything added after it is complete is not canonical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, and the adulteress story was indisputably added later. Even the evangelical, conservative translation (NIV) expressly notes that in its version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Yup. It has brackets around it in mine but curiously doesn't say why. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not "indisputably" added later. Some ''do'' dispute it. The NIV's note (I'd be surprised if yours doesn't say why, Ajkgordon), does not say that it was added later. It says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The ''implication'' is that it was added later, but being added later is not what the NIV ''says''. And the implication could be wrong. I'm not saying that it ''is'' wrong; just that it could be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It might, Philip, but I can't see it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Begging your pardon. It's the King James and it makes no mention at all, not even brackets. I must have been thinking of another version. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== A reason to "conserve" the story ==

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for this essay. I don't know why I overlooked it up to now.

You make a very good point about how liberals misuse the admonition, "Don't judge":

* The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

Liberals are obviously hypocritical about this, making most of their political ideas into moral issues (e.g., "saving" the environment) and then criticizing others who don't adopt their ideas - often even while violating their own moral dictates themselves. [[Hypocrisy]] and [[double standards]] are generally a smokescreen to cover up one's own wrong-doing.

Another interpretation of the [[Jesus and the adulterous woman]] story is that of God's [[mercy]] and forgiveness. When I've taught this story in Sunday School, I tell the children that the key points are:

#Jesus does not condemn the woman to immediate execution by mob violence, but he does not excuse the act of adultery either
#He shames each member of the mob by "writing on the ground" - we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote, but wouldn't it be interesting if it was the sins committed by the accusers?
#He admonishes the woman to stop sinning: "Go and sin no more"

A conservative interpretation of the story might be that God still '''disapproves of sin''' and yet is not always willing that a sinner be punished. The point being that He desires obedience to His moral rules, and if a magnanimous act of mercy can encourage a sinner to repent this could be an effective mode of preaching. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a [[liberal]] one at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And in my analysis, this particular passage is apparently an afterthought, and tacking on extra text goes against Christian thought, as I think Philip explained above. Moreover, the main problem with the story is that - even if it were considered legitimate, the wrong lesson is being taught from it. Jesus never said we shouldn't evaluate the actions of other people as right or wrong and "look only" at our own selves. That false lesson is used by defenders of all sorts of moral evils, when they argue that "according to your own rules you can't judge anyone". I guess they think only they have the right to judge and condemn and order people around, but the Bible does not approve of their opposition to properly constituted authority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Gulik5 may have a point. After all, Timothy I, Timothy II, and Titus reflect a level of Church organization that did not exist at that early date. Consider also the lengthy interlocution in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Paul's Greek was very good, but in Corinthians I, there is a long run on sentence, that does not fit with the rest of Pauline corpus--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: You write as though this is a new idea. This sort of analysis of the Bible has been going on ever since it was written. The authenticity of the particular passage in question here was being debated 1,600 years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: At issue is not an inability to verify, but hard evidence that early copies of the Bible did not have this passage. Please try sticking to the argument and not going off on tangents. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I am sorry. I will not go "off on tangents" again. Given Sysop's responses on other issues (such as whether or not certain people are professors), I assumed that tangents were perfectly acceptable on Conservapedia. Nevertheless, I do think Aschlafly raises an important point, perhaps the Bible should be examined and all of the material that has added by liberals over the centuries should be purged. Then the Good Book will be truly conservative--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 08:31, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: That depends on what you mean by "clearly aren't". At issue here is a passage that was not in most or all of the early copies of the Bible, but strongly appears to have been added later. If your question is "our current Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that were not in the original Bibles", then the answer is yes. But your question was too ambiguous to answer that way. By the way, I've effectively already pointed this out in earlier posts above, so you don't really have any excuse for misunderstanding that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mathewson and Devotchka are illustrating point 1 in [[liberal tricks]]. Perhaps they're hoping their fallacious arguments will fool a dimwitted viewer. Just a little thought is required to realize that non-authentic material is not biblical, such as the Gospel of Thomas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I didn't advance any argument - I asked for clarification. I'll try again: you're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, so now you're going to try logical sophistry. "Parts that clearly aren't" in the Bible are not part of the Bible. Can you follow that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Yes. Just like I can follow "Cities that clearly aren't" in America are not part of America. Are you going to answer my question or not? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Inspired Word of God or Not ==

I trust God to hand The Bible to us in it's correct and accurate form. I have to. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as it has passed through many human hands. I trust God to do His work in this respect and ensure His Word is kept accurate, true and Holy. Clearly you do not trust God in this regard. I think you have crossed a line here.

I resign from this project and request you delete my account. I would also request (although of course I acknowledge I am in no position to demand this) that you delete my name from any part of Conservapedia to which I have contributed with the sole exception of this comment. Re-write The Bible any way you wish. Count me out. While you do it you may wish to think hard about Revelation 22:18-21

Amen. Good-bye, Conservapedia.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Take solace in your [[last wordism]] of which you are so quick to accuse others. I won't be back to read it. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 16:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're funny Jack. I really chuckled at this one. You win the "[[Parthian Shot]] of the Month"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::I respect Jack for taking a stand for the Bible and I agree with most of what he said. Although, Mr. Schlafly, I love and respect you, and am subservient to you on this website, I must say he was correct defending the inerrancy of the scripture. It may be naive, but I still believe the Bible, Authorized Version 1611. Christ said not one jot or tittle would go out of the law, so I assume that any addition to it would be valid and Spirit-inspired. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 19:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Steve, I don't think Jack was really taking a stand for the Bible and Christianity. But I hope you're right.

::: To me, the [[Gospel of John]] was vandalized by the [[liberal]] adulteress story, which is used today to oppose the [[death penalty]], make light of promiscuity, downplay [[Hell]], and undermine Christian teaching about asking for and receiving forgiveness. The story pretends to be an eyewitness account, but was added long after all the eyewitnesses had died. No big deal: I'd do the Lord's work by "reverting" the vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: The Bible is considered to be inerrant in its original form. We believe we have a good indication of what was preached and told, but understand that there may be small differences such as that section in John and the end of Mark. In comparison to any other work of antiquity, the cohesion of the Bible and lack of differences among different copies is unparalleled.

:On a different note though, I wouldn't call the story a liberal falsehood, as concepts of liberal and conservative as understood today did not have a direction correlation to that time. One of the issues that is left out, is the fact that only the woman was brought before Jesus. Where was the man since she was caught 'in the very act of adultery'. The Pharisees, to put it in terms that do have meaning to us today, were being deceitful. Their reason to confront Jesus was to discredit Him in a no win situation, not because they had a deep desire to see that justice was done. Many of the concepts in the story can be found in other areas of Scipture. For instance Jesus is known for performing miracles in different ways; the idea of him writing on the ground is only a difficulty if we go out of our way to read one into it -- in my opinion. Other concepts of 'Judge not lest you be judged' and 'taking the log out of your own eye before helping your neighbor take the speck out of their eye' from other areas of Scripture also show a hesitancy to judge. Reproof of others should be done in a spirit of humility and with a goal to help the person. I think that is the greatest interpretation that can be taken from this story and from other areas of the Bible that echo similar themes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Learn together is correct that the Bible is considered to be inerrant ''in its original form'', not in the various translations that we have today (and they can't be, as some differ, even if only in trivial details). So JThomson, genuine though I believe he was, was wrong to imply that God has ensured that the Bible we have today is ''exactly'' as God intended it to be. He is also being close-minded in not hanging around to see if any of us can offer counter-arguments to his post. And his reference to Revelation 22:18-21 is begging the question.
:: Steve, you don't express yourself clearly enough, so I might be misunderstanding you, but the original autographs, not the 1611 translation of them, were the inspired, infallible, Word of God.
:: Andy, your comment that it was added long after all eyewitnesses had died ignores the possibility that the story had been around since the time of Jesus, even though not part of the book of John. That in itself is not reason to claim that it's an invention.
:: Learn together, your comments are very good. I would add regarding Jesus writing on the ground that there ''is'' a precedent: Jesus is God, and God wrote with his own "finger" on the tablets of stone that Moses prepared. In both cases we have God/Jesus writing with His ''finger'' on "earth material" (stone/dirt).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I don't think there is evidence that the adulteress story is as old as Jesus's ministry. The story conflicts with fundamental teachings of Christianity, such as the need to ''ask'' for forgiveness and the complete forgiveness that is then granted. Rather, the story implicitly conveys the wrong message that unforgiven sin is a function of age, and that older people are wiser in recognizing that. The unanimous acceptance of Jesus's answer is also absurd: Jesus had enemies, many of them, who would never accept His teaching.

::: The story is plainly anti-Christian vandalism and, as in a wiki, should be "reverted".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Jesus, when on the cross, forgave the soldiers without them asking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:11, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Good point, but due to extraordinary circumstances. The soldiers did not know any better, for example, while the adulteress surely did. Moreover, you're responding to only a small part of the conflict with Christian doctrine in the story.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Hooey. That God gives unconditional love and forgiveness--even to the undeserving--and that we should follow His example, is a consistent theme throughout the New Testament. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I realised that I was only responding to one point. I thought that I'd tackle one point at a time. I think you're surmising more than you are entitled to, as you don't know how much the woman knew compared to how much the soldiers knew. And Jesus may have had a special reason in this case: Because the accusers were using her to try and trap Jesus, Jesus decided to show her extra mercy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Philip, I don't find your argument persuasive, and don't know why you're pursuing a tangential issue here. Think Jesus was feeling pressure to forgive the woman as a way out of the trap? I don't buy it. Jesus did mercifully forgive those who sought forgiveness. All bets are off for those who do not.

::::::: The bigger conflict with Christianity in the story is how it portrays the older people as more sinful -- and more wise -- that the younger ones. That's absurd, and implicitly denies the effectiveness of forgiveness, which is central to Christianity. The adulteress story is an anti-Christian act of vandalism to the Bible, one that should be "reverted" so that others are not misled by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::When can we look forward to the new, Liberalism-free Andrew Schlafly Edition of the Bible? Hopefully, it'll contain all those Special Conservative Scriptures that never made it into the Liberal-Contaminated editions, like "Blessed are the rich in money, for they are better than the Poor", "Thou shalt not bear false witness, unless it's against a Liberal", and "Thou shalt not admit adultery."
::::::::All sarcasm aside, what a lot of you are worshipping [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm might not be Jesus]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Interesting how the first quote on your link to support a [[liberal]] interpretation of [[Jesus]] is ... the phony adulteress story. Will you admit that [[liberal]]s' favorite quote from the Gospels is widely recognized not to be an authentic original?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::I think the arguments above - that later addition might not be an adequate proxy for falsity - are well made. The Bible was compiled from various authors at various times. Some built upon the works of others, and added their own experiences. That a late edition must needs be a falsity doesn't follow. Further, if you're admitting that the Bible isn't all literal - that it's open to interpretation on some issues - there's a much harder issue you must face. How do you know which parts are open to interpretation, and which aren't? How can you be certain of any of your literal interpretations, anymore? This is a slipper slope, upon which I'm surprised to see you embark.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 00:18, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mosaic law ==

Steve, your cite to the Mosaic law is terrific. But [[liberal]] [[Christians]] will cite the adulteress story as changing Mosaic law. Indeed, the increasing reliance on this adulteress story in churches is leading to an increased opposition to the [[death penalty]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:You're right Mr. Schlafly, the way [[liberal Christians]] are twisting the adulteress story for political gain drives me nuts. Phillip, you're right: I don't express myself clearly enough. This is a tough topic. I'm not really sure what to think about it, and perhaps my vagueness stopped me from saying something ludicrous. I will consult my Pastor before further comments. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 13:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::I second Steve's comments. I think that Conservapedia should embark on a project to purge the Bible of the insertions that liberals have added over the centuries. Conservapedia could create a truly conservative online edition of the Bible--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT).

:::Dude, there already is a truly conservative edition of the Bible: The King James! See my recent additions to [[Liberal Christianity]]. Although truly conservative Christians are rare, even rarer than anyone else on the net, this site is the one of the closest I've found. That's why it bugged my when Aschlafly said the NIV was a conservative Bible. N means "new!" NIV, and all the other "new" versions, are based on a completely different Greek translation of the Bible than KJV. That's why they doctrine the get from it is so different. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

User:ArcturusM/websites

2008-04-02T21:53:33Z

ArcturusM: putting in userspace too so I can work on it

What follow are websites containing information on the theory of evolution, designed to supplement a public school or [[homeschooling|home school]] education.

==Mainstream Science==
*[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ A good introduction,] from the science department at Berkeley.
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html PBS' Website] is also a good interactive site.
*Science Daily's [http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/ Evolution News] covers up-to-the-day information on evolution.
*The [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html TalkOrigin Archive], often technical, helps to understand creationist arguments, and provides the information needed to rebut them.

[[category:Evolution]]
[[category:Education]]
[[category:Homeschool curriculum]]

User talk:NathanG/RiddleMeThis

2008-04-02T19:30:20Z

ArcturusM:

==Evolution Riddle==
I don't think it's an insult to say, "millions of years ago, when your species didn't exist, but the precusors to your species were less intelligent forms of life." This is actually a very big problem with the understanding of evolution. People often say, "evolution means your ancestors were monkeys," but that's in no way correct. Similarly, too graft a value judgment onto science is not the province of science; that's philosophy. Evolution as it stands does not pass judgment on the fact that a species owes some genetic debt to another, less complex species.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 15:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:*doesn't read your response* That line is only from my experience in high school biology. -_- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 15:27, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Hah. That sounds like your teacher's fault then :-/. I'd be happy to explain evolution to you if you like.
::Also, I'm sorry you're "not in the mood," I hope you feel better!-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 15:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You could read [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ this site for one.] it's quite good.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 15:30, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:NathanG/RiddleMeThis

2008-04-02T19:29:14Z

ArcturusM:

User talk:NathanG/RiddleMeThis

2008-04-02T19:25:08Z

ArcturusM: New page: ==Evolution Riddle== I don't think it's an insult to say, "millions of years ago, when your species didn't exist, but the precusors to your species were less intelligent forms of life." T...

Coerced morality

2008-04-02T19:12:58Z

ArcturusM:

{{cquote|If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.<ref>Albert Einsten</ref>}}
'''Coerced morality''' is the idea that [[ethics]] can spring from some force, either physical or mental. [[Law]] seeks to create a form of coerced morality, in that a citizen will decide to obey the law, not because of their inherent rightness and the value of morality, but for fear of the consequences. Similarly, religious laws are a form of coerced morality if obeyed only for fear of consequences, such as [[Heaven]] or [[Hell]].

Since coerced morality secures adhesion merely out of fear or hope, rather than inherent belief in the normative qualities of morality, coerced morality is a secondary tier of ethics, and someone who is good only out of coercion cannot be said to have resolved personal ethical issues. Nonetheless a form of coercive morality is almost always necessary to a [[steady state]] society.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Ethics]]

Coerced morality

2008-04-02T19:12:05Z

ArcturusM:

{{cquote|If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.<ref>Albert Einsten</ref>}}
'''Coerced morality''' is the idea that [[ethics]] can spring from some force, either physical or mental. [[Law]] seeks to create a form of coerced morality, in that a citizen will decide to obey the law, not because of their inherent rightness and the value of morality, but for fear of the consequences. Similarly, religious laws are a form of coerced morality if obeyed only for fear of consequences, such as [[Heaven]] or [[Hell]].

Since coerced morality secures adhesion merely out of fear or hope, rather than inherent belief in the normative qualities of morality, coerced morality is a secondary tier of ethics, and someone who is good only out of coercion cannot be said to have resolved personal ethical issues.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Ethics]]

Coerced morality

2008-04-02T19:10:14Z

ArcturusM: New page: {{cquote|If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.}}<ref>Albert Einsten</ref> '''Coerced morality''' is the idea that [[eth...

{{cquote|If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.}}<ref>Albert Einsten</ref>
'''Coerced morality''' is the idea that [[ethics]] can spring from some force, either physical or mental. [[Law]] seeks to create a form of coerced morality, in that a citizen will decide to obey the law, not because of their inherent rightness and the value of morality, but for fear of the consequences. Similarly, religious laws are a form of coerced morality if obeyed only for fear of consequences, such as [[Heaven]] or [[Hell]].

Since coerced morality secures adhesion merely out of fear or hope, rather than inherent belief in the normative qualities of morality, coerced morality is a secondary tier of ethics, and someone who is good only out of coercion cannot be said to have resolved personal ethical issues.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Ethics]]

Conservapedia terms

2008-04-02T15:09:00Z

ArcturusM: improved

Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed on [[Conservapedia]]. Some are entirely original to [[Conservapedia]], while others were developed in an original manner by one or more editors here. Examples include:

*[[90/10 rule]]
*[[Abortion deceit]]
*[[Affirmative acting]]
*[[Affirmative Action President]]
*[[Atheistic denial]]
*[[Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Conservaphobia]]
*[[Deliberate ignorance]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=419854 Dick], as in, "don't be a dick"
*[[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Genius bias]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Godspeed]]
*[[Embraced deceit]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Gunaphobia]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[liberal friendship]]
*[[liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal redefinition]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Mindless equality]]
*[[Minister's son]]
*[[Movement conservative]]
*[[Photo bias]]
*[[Placement bias]]
*[[Professor values]]
*[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Quantifying Openmindedness]]
*[[Racial censorship]]<ref>This was first coined by black Professor Walter Williams.</ref>
*[[Resurrection Sunday]]
*[[Essay:Supreme Court Half-Life|Supreme Court Half-Life]]
*[[Swift-Boating]]
*[[Transaction benefits]]
*[[Why Conservative?]]
*[[Young mass murderers]]

This list will grow over time, and feel free to add to it.

[[category:Conservapedia]]