Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Burger King

2009-10-13T19:46:47Z

Baronvonbob:

'''Burger King''' (also "BK") is a chain of restaurants founded in [[Florida]] specializing in fast food products, especially [[hamburger]]s. There are more than 11,000 Burger King locations worldwide. Burger King's major competitors are [[Wendy's]] and the larger [[McDonald's]] corporation. One of Burger King's most well-known burgers is known as the Whopper. No one has seen the burger kings face. The actor that plays him is a born again christin.

==See also==
*[[Hamburger]]
{{stub}}

==External Links==
*[http://bk.com Official website of Burger King]
[[Category:Restaurants]]
[[Category:Fast Foods]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-13T19:39:22Z

Baronvonbob: /* Translation or Paraphrase? */ new section

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

Antonio de venafro

2009-10-09T16:51:54Z

Baronvonbob:

Antonio Giordano, called Antonio da Venafro, was born in 1459 in Venafro—about 50 miles North of [[Naples]]. He moved to [[Siena]] and attended the university there graduating in [[jurisprudence]]. In 1488 Venafro was elected professor of law at the University of Siena. In November 1493 Antonio was elected Appellate [[Judge]]. As such he was arrested by the avant-garde of Charles VIII and forced to follow them in their march to Rome. He was freed a few days later only by a direct order of the King himself. A trusted adviser and private secretary of the Lord of Siena, Pandolfo Petrucci, he was named by the latter counselor and prime minister. In the month of October 1502 Venafro represented Pandolfo Petrucci at the Diet of La Magione; and later he went to Imola with Paolo Orsini, where a peace agreement was signed between [[Cesare Borgia]] and the conspirators of La Magione represented by Paolo Orsini. Venafro was a statesman of high caliber, appreciated and respected by men such as Guicciardini, Vettori and [[Nicollo Machiavelli]]. In 1515, under constant pressure by Pope Leo X, Antonio left Siena and returned to his native town of Venafro. But a few years later, in 1919, Antonio moved to Naples where he became a member of the Consiglio Collaterale and professor of jurisprudence at the University of Naples. He died there in 1530.

==Mention In the Prince==
In chapter 22 of [[The Prince]], where the prince private counselors are discussed, Nicollo Machiavelli praises Antonio Venafro, seeing him as an excellent minister Pandolfo Petrucci of Siena.

[[category: Renaissance]]

Antonio de venafro

2009-10-09T16:48:38Z

Baronvonbob:

Antonio Giordano, called Antonio da Venafro, was born in 1459 in Venafro—about 50 miles North of [[Naples]]. He moved to Siena and attended the university there graduating in [[jurisprudence]]. In 1488 Venafro was elected professor of law at the University of Siena. In November 1493 Antonio was elected [[Appellate Judge]]. As such he was arrested by the avant-garde of [[Charles VIII]] and forced to follow them in their march to Rome. He was freed a few days later only by a direct order of the King himself. A trusted adviser and private secretary of the Lord of Siena, Pandolfo Petrucci, he was named by the latter counselor and prime minister. In the month of October 1502 Venafro represented Pandolfo Petrucci at the Diet of La Magione; and later he went to Imola with [[Paolo Orsini]], where a peace agreement was signed between [[Cesare Borgia]] and the conspirators of La Magione represented by Paolo Orsini. Venafro was a statesman of high caliber, appreciated and respected by men such as [[Guicciardini]], [[Vettori]] and [[Nicollo Machiavelli]]. In 1515, under constant pressure by Pope Leo X, Antonio left Siena and returned to his native town of Venafro. But a few years later, in 1919, Antonio moved to Naples where he became a member of the Consiglio Collaterale and professor of jurisprudence at the University of Naples. He died there in 1530.

==Mention In the Prince==
In chapter 22 of [[The Prince]], where the prince private counselors are discussed, Nicollo Machiavelli praises Antonio Venafro, seeing him as an excellent minister [[Pandolfo Petrucci]] of Siena.

[[category: Renaissance]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-09T16:41:26Z

Baronvonbob: /* Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary */ new section

Antonio de venafro

2009-10-08T00:11:56Z

Baronvonbob:

Antonio Giordano, called Antonio da Venafro, was born in [[1459]] in [[Venafro]]—about 50 miles North of [[Naples]]. He moved to [[Siena]] and attended the university there graduating in [[jurisprudence]]. In 1488 Venafro was elected professor of law at the [[University of Siena]]. In November 1493 Antonio was elected Appellate Judge. As such he was arrested by the avant-garde of Charles VIII and forced to follow them in their march to Rome. He was freed a few days later only by a direct order of the King himself. A trusted adviser and private secretary of the Lord of Siena, [[Pandolfo Petrucci]], he was named by the latter counselor and prime minister. In the month of October 1502 Venafro represented Pandolfo Petrucci at the Diet of La Magione; and later he went to Imola with [[Paolo Orsini]], where a peace agreement was signed between [[Cesare Borgia]] and the conspirators of La Magione represented by Paolo Orsini. Venafro was a statesman of high caliber, appreciated and respected by men such as [[Guicciardini]], [[Vettori]] and Nicollo Machiavelli. In 1515, under constant pressure by [[Pope Leo X]], Antonio left Siena and returned to his native town of Venafro. But a few years later, in 1919, Antonio moved to Naples where he became a member of the [[Consiglio Collaterale]] and professor of jurisprudence at the University of Naples. He died there in 1530.

==Mention In the Prince==
In chapter 22 of [[The Prince]], where the prince private counselors are discussed, Nicollo Machiavelli praises Antonio Venafro, seeing him as an excellent minister [[Pandolfo Petrucci]] of Siena.

[[category: Renaissance]]

Talk:Antonio de venafro

2009-10-08T00:11:16Z

Baronvonbob: Created page with 'Created this article about an Italian Statesman. (~~~~)'

Created this article about an Italian Statesman. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 20:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT))

Antonio de venafro

2009-10-08T00:10:33Z

Baronvonbob:

Antonio Giordano, called Antonio da Venafro, was born in [[1459]] in [[Venafro]]—about 50 miles North of [[Naples]]. He moved to [[Siena]] and attended the university there graduating in [[jurisprudence]]. In 1488 Venafro was elected professor of law at the [[University of Siena]]. In November 1493 Antonio was elected Appellate Judge. As such he was arrested by the avant-garde of Charles VIII and forced to follow them in their march to Rome. He was freed a few days later only by a direct order of the King himself. A trusted adviser and private secretary of the Lord of Siena, [[Pandolfo Petrucci]], he was named by the latter counselor and prime minister. In the month of October 1502 Venafro represented Pandolfo Petrucci at the Diet of La Magione; and later he went to Imola with [[Paolo Orsini]], where a peace agreement was signed between [[Cesare Borgia]] and the conspirators of La Magione represented by Paolo Orsini. Venafro was a statesman of high caliber, appreciated and respected by men such as [[Guicciardini]], [[Vettori]] and Nicollo Machiavelli. In 1515, under constant pressure by [[Pope Leo X]], Antonio left Siena and returned to his native town of Venafro. But a few years later, in 1919, Antonio moved to Naples where he became a member of the [[Consiglio Collaterale]] and professor of jurisprudence at the University of Naples. He died there in 1530.

==Mention In the Prince==
In chapter 22 of The [[Prince]], where the prince private counselors are discussed, Nicollo Machiavelli praises Antonio Venafro, seeing him as an excellent minister [[Pandolfo Petrucci]] of Siena.

[[category: Renaissance]]

Antonio de venafro

2009-10-08T00:10:04Z

Baronvonbob: Created page with 'Antonio Giordano, called Antonio da Venafro, was born in 1459 in Venafro—about 50 miles North of Naples. He moved to Siena and attended the university there gra...'

Antonio Giordano, called Antonio da Venafro, was born in [[1459]] in [[Venafro]]—about 50 miles North of [[Naples]]. He moved to [[Siena]] and attended the university there graduating in [[jurisprudence]]. In 1488 Venafro was elected professor of law at the [[University of Siena]]. In November 1493 Antonio was elected Appellate Judge. As such he was arrested by the avant-garde of Charles VIII and forced to follow them in their march to Rome. He was freed a few days later only by a direct order of the King himself. A trusted adviser and private secretary of the Lord of Siena, [[Pandolfo Petrucci]], he was named by the latter counselor and prime minister. In the month of October 1502 Venafro represented Pandolfo Petrucci at the Diet of La Magione; and later he went to Imola with [[Paolo Orsini]], where a peace agreement was signed between [[Cesare Borgia]] and the conspirators of La Magione represented by Paolo Orsini. Venafro was a statesman of high caliber, appreciated and respected by men such as [[Guicciardini]], [[Vettori]] and Nicollo Machiavelli. In 1515, under constant pressure by [[Pope Leo X]], Antonio left Siena and returned to his native town of Venafro. But a few years later, in 1919, Antonio moved to Naples where he became a member of the [[Consiglio Collaterale]] and professor of jurisprudence at the University of Naples. He died there in 1530.

==Mention In the Prince==
In chapter 22 of The [[Prince]], where the prince private counselors are discussed, Nicollo Machiavelli praises Antonio Venafro, seeing him as an excellent minister [[Pandolfo Petrucci]] of Siena.

[[category: Italian Renaissance]]

Burger King

2009-10-03T23:26:00Z

Baronvonbob:

'''Burger King''' (also "BK") is a chain of restaurants founded in [[Florida]] specializing in fast food products, especially [[hamburger]]s. There are more than 11,000 Burger King locations worldwide. Burger King's major competitors are [[Wendy's]] and the larger [[McDonald's]] corporation. One of Burger King's most well-known burgers is known as the Whopper. No one has seen the burger kings face. The actor that plays him is a bor again christin.

==See also==
*[[Hamburger]]
{{stub}}

==External Links==
*[http://bk.com Official website of Burger King]
[[Category:Restaurants]]
[[Category:Fast Foods]]

Bridge to Terabithia

2009-10-03T23:24:51Z

Baronvonbob:

{{stub}}
'''Bridge to Terabithia''' is a story of two [[children]] who don't fit in well at [[school]], and how they dealt with it by primarily by escaping to imaginative play. It is a stereotypical story of how "failures" can succeed doing abstract things. Homeschooling was not even considered during the course of the story.
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Movies]]

Antipope

2009-10-03T23:22:04Z

Baronvonbob:

An '''antipope''' is somebody who makes a claim to the [[papacy]] and develops a significant following, but is not actually accepted by the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. A small minority of [[catholics]] refer to [[Barack Obama]] as an antipope.

The word "antipope" is often associated with the [[Western Schism]], in which two (and later, three) popes reigned simultaneously.

{{stub}}
[[Category:Popes]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

Captain Nemo

2009-10-03T23:17:18Z

Baronvonbob:

{{stub}}
'''Captain Nemo''' was one of the main characters in the early sci-fi novel [[Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea]]. Although left out in the English Translation because of controversy, he was really an Indian prince who wanted independence from Britain. This explains his reason for targeting British ships in the book.
[[Category:Fictional characters]]

Talk:Scientology

2009-10-03T23:00:38Z

Baronvonbob: /* Beliefs */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== Archives ==

[[Talk:Scientology/Archive1|Archive 1]] [[Talk:Scientology/Archive2|Archive2]]

----

== Typos ==

This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. "Psychology" should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Hackers? ==
C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say "Hackers on steroids", add a reference to "Secret Websites", and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::It's not a joke. Hacker carries some unnessecarily dark connotations. The quotes above are from a video from Fox News on this very subject. I can find it for you, if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::A link's not necessary, but a straightforward response is always appreciated. What's wrong with the word hacker, what's a better word, and why can't you just change it yourself? The article called them a "hacking group" and I had no reason to call them anything else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::Because pretty much any time I try to change something that might be even slightly controversial, I get banned.
::::The word hacker, thanks to the MSM, brings up images of people sabotaging networks/stealing information from the government/what have you. Where I come from, at least.
::::Could simply refer to them as "a group" instead of "a hacking group." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Well if anyone is confused, they can see [[hacker]], which is wikilinked within the article, and which doesn't bring up images of people sabotaging networks or stealing information. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Alright. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)
I've removed the reference to hackers. Barikada's complaint was legitimate, and although the link to [[hacker]] should mitigate that if it was necessary to mention it, I couldn't see that there was any real need to mention it. The YouTube video doesn't refer to them as hackers, nor even mention anything to do with computers. Their tactics, just going by the video, seem to lie in other areas. Yes, the other link does refer to hackers, so in that sense the use of the term was justifiable, but it still wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:I've never understood people's deal with the word hacker, but I also didn't watch many movies in the late 80's ;-) Is there a better word than simply "group", though, because it's more than just a group of ''people'', right? It's people who are highly skilled in a certain area (namely using computers to illegally and skillfully disrupt other people's computers) and I don't know what word covers that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::No need to specify computers, given that many Anons are handing out flyers in reality. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::Err... but flyers don't perfom DoS attacks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::::Indeed. Which is why I attempted to imply that not all of the activities perpetrated by Anonymous are internet-based. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::I'll say again, I'm only as good as my sources. I found a source that says they are hackers (and I still don't see why it's inaccurate), and it said nothing about handing out flyers. At any rate, just because they do ''more'' than computer-based attacks doesn't change their core purpose or definition. Nobody's been able to come up with any better word than "group of people". What's so wrong with using descriptive language? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: "Hackers" is a bit like "Fundamentalists". The origin of the word is good, but it's been appropriated by the media to mean someone bad.
:::::: As far as the legitimacy of its use in this article is concerned, the primary evidence, the video, made no reference to hackers and no reference to computer attacks. The secondary reference, quoting a third source, referred to them as hackers and said that the group had already launched denial of service attacks, but apart from that being their only documented tactic so far, there's no evidence that computer-based tactics are going to be their main mode of attack. In other words, they could be planning on using several approaches, and the denial of service attack just happens to be the first one. Actually, the video seemed to be indicating that a tactic would be infiltration.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== A chance? ==
This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.
: Is it your opinion that Christianity and Scientology are in opposition? Whose opinion is it? The reason I ask is, opposition is not widely stated by Christian Churches. A few even use Scientology methods (it has been in the news). If it is certain, it certainly isn't obvious. Also, the Scientology website claims it is compatible. Whose opinion is that? [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 00:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Scientology is incompatible with virtually evrey religion in existence in the $cientology book the history of man L Ron states that man evolved from lower life forms. (gasp!) but how they evolved has absolutely no basis in either science or religion. according to Hubbard humans evolved form clams (the sources of our jaw pain and the now disproved Piltdown man. Also im many of his lectures and books he makes his disdain for Jesus Christianity and just about every other major religion. The final blow to the "you can be a Cristian and a $cientoligist" notion. Is the revelation one you spend 200000$ to get to 0t3 is that the memory of Jesus and all the old religions were implanted into the dead alien souls that now inhabit your body by The evil Galactic Lord Xenu. {{unsigned|Craan}}

== Meow ==

Needs a cat. Can a sysop add one? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Cat problem==
Scientology is a religion, not a science. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)
: Agreed. The category should be changed to "Religion." Funny, whoever put "Pseudoscience," but completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:It's not a religion - it's an evil cult that destroys lives, and we should say so. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 16:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)

*For purposes of this encyclopedia, "Scientology" (''no matter what our personal opinions are'') is categorized by most major governments as a religion, including the Government of the United States. CP is an American wiki. End of discussion. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Missing Parenthesis ==
There is a missing parenthesis, and I have bolded where I believe it was meant to be in the following - "Later Hubbard refined his ideas and moved toward a structured system of belief involving the human soul, or "thetan" (each person's spiritual self, and the origins of life and the universe.''')''' [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 12:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fair Game ==
Can this article include information on Scientology's Fair Game policy, stating that enemies of the church are "fair game" for being "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." -[[User:Birry|Birry]] 07:78, 14 May 2009 (EST)
:I second the motion to include.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:09, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::I support this as well. We need to show the facts about Scientology. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:29, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I agree with them. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:33, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

*Editors can post their suggestions to change here, but I do not support any changes to what we have here, as it opens up Pandora's Box once again. Scientology is a very minor "religion", and without its celebrity members, would never be noticed by anyone. The fact that two socks of previously blocked instigators made accounts to support revisiting this doesn't exactly inspire confidence. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:20, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

==Hate to say it==

...but Scientology is no religion! Hubbard made many many comments to the effect of "the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion." This is a proven fact! Religions like Christianity and Judaism have a history of faith capital, if you will. People have died for these beliefs, struggled for them, lived ascetic lifestyles to prove their faith. Scientology, as far as I've ever read of it, is just a religion for famous people like Kabbalah. A majority of them tend to have what my dad calls "Hollywood views", too. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 10:28, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

== Beliefs ==

Something should be stated concerning their beliefs, the following is an example.
Scientologists believe that they have thetans, which are comparable to a soul, on or iside them (sometimes they have more than one according to scientology). When they die their souls are taken to Venus where they are brainwashed about their past life, then are loaded into capsules (they are first given new bodies). They are the dropped into the ocean somewhere off of the coast of california. There they either drown or make it to land, Where they have a chance to start a new life in of californias big cities.
Although this story is ridiculous it is affirmed by scientlogist doctrine, you ca look elsewhere to affirm this. I just hope people can see how ridiculous this religion is (all i said about their beliefs is true!). Semper Vigilo ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 19:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT))

Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?

2009-10-03T02:42:36Z

Baronvonbob:

{{Debate}}

The following is a posting that I made on Talk:Barack Obama several months ago, but that never sparked any discussion. I was hoping the theory might encourage more reactions if I made it into a debate page.

"I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany." It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?"

I look forward to a vigorous and respectful debate. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:41, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==Yes==

I'll give this topic another gentle push. Much has been made of the fact that Obama retook his Oath of Office without a Bible, and a number of Conservapedians have speculated that he actually used a Qu'ran. By the principle of Occam's Razor, however, it's logical to assume that he used nothing at all - a sign that his true belief system is not Islam, but atheism. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:46, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

:If he believes that "He is the Messiah", that would make him an atheist because God doesn't worship God. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:I don't think you can apply Occam's Razor to assumptions - Occam's Razor would seem to dictate in this situation that you not make assumptions as none of them would be more correct than the other. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

::Occam's Razor deals precisely with assumptions - it urges that "entities not be multiplied unnecessarily." In other words, when multiple explanations give coherent descriptions of an event, the "simplest" is the one that ought to be accepted. Of course, the definition of "simplest" is often itself a matter of context. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:23, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it seems apparent that he doesn't have much faith, or (if he does) considers himself more of a "humanist" than anything. It's not uncommon for political leaders to adopt a religious belief in order to become elected. Atheists will vote for a religious person, but religious parties will not vote for an atheist. Obama could be an agnostic, as well. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

==No==

No, he is a Muslim, as documented at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] and elsewhere on this site. His apparent lack of devotion is just as well explained by his being a Muslim observing taqiyya. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:34, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:But if his being a Muslim "just as well explains" his lack of devotion as his being an atheist, how can you be so certain that [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] has converged on the correct explanation for his behavior? --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 21:54, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Of course he's not. Conservatives just want him to be. [[User:JeanJ|JeanJ]] 10:21, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Only Obama knows what Obama believes. When someone says that they are a Christian, including Obama, I give them the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==AN anti christ==
Obama Definitely believes in [[moral relativism]], so regardless of his religion we can assume a few things. He is a muslim to Muslims . A christian to Christians. An athiest to athiests. A god to the uneducated, as we see by these children aand health care villagers praising him. In Europe he is an Anti-American Demogogue, to illegal immigrants he is the hero who provides respite for the oppressed. He has no morals, he is an image of those he wants to support him. I will take the shots, It sounds like Hitler, An anti-reformation Pope, or the above title. SEMPER vigilo ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 22:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT))

Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?

2009-10-03T02:28:31Z

Baronvonbob:

Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church? If it were not for Jesus's Church, would the other denominations ever exist?

==Yes==
The Eastern Orthodox Church is doing OK. The Roman Catholic Church split off from the earlier church , so its existence wasn't really necessary. There were bound to be break off sects in time. There is an element of contention about the validity of these as true Christian churches [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:03, 9 December 2008 (EST)

==No==
No way, the other denominations owe your religion to Catholicism.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 20:44, 9 December 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Not as we know them==
The Jehovah's Witnesses are an example of a group that has tried to work from 'first principles', without building on the tradition started by the Roman Catholic Church. They differ from other Christian denominations in a lot of ways - in the whole structure of their religious practice - so I think that without Catholicism, Christianity would be very different (though not necessarily like Jehovah's Witnesses).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:01, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Is the Pope Jewish, There is your answer

User:TimR

2009-09-27T01:29:16Z

Baronvonbob: Created page with 'I am stuck on stupid.'

I am stuck on stupid.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools

2009-09-24T01:20:11Z

Baronvonbob: /* No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution */

No.

who left this stub here like this?

== Yes ==

I believe science is objective, and therefore we should have as many different view points in the scientific community as there are scientists. Obviously not every view point can be taught in schools but they ought to be theaching the main ones.
So I think the main point of this question is: Is creationism a main point of view?
I'll get to that, but first as to Intelligent design.
ID, as its called, is just creationisim in disguise. The liberals say ID is being used as a way to sneak God into the schools. I think that, for once, they're right. Intelligent design is not explicitly religious and it has all the proof creationisim has, except for the Bible. But its not really any different scientifically and a science class should display a variety of scientist's views.

[[Creationisim]] says there is indirect scientific proof for a Biblical begining to the universe. I think it is a main point of view because there are scientists who believe it and they observe, experiment; they have even better evidence than the evolutionists.
Of course, no science: Creation, Evolution, or otherwise, can ''prove ''%100, anything about the origin of the universe. Scientific infallability only comes with direct observation. -[[User:StevenM]]

== No, not in public schools ==
*I think it's fine to teach that C/ID are views some people hold. However, they should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution because they are not science. Science is falsifiable. Evolution would be thrown out the window if a dog gave birth to a cat, or if a dog turned into a cat. As far as I know (and, I admit, I'm not an expert) C/ID aren't falsifiable. I would gladly accept that they are scientific if some hypothetical result or occurrence that would prove them wrong were suggested and agreed upon by most of the major people in the fields of ID and evolution (Proving the nonexistence of God doesn't count). [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 18:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

No, a thousand times no. Science has a place in school, religion has a place in church/the home. This is not science. Chris

== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==
ID is not Creation , and Science related to Creation is called [[Creation Science]],All subjects taught in school are not falsifiable. In my opinion Creation should be taught as a fact. In fact I believe the whole Bible should be taught as God's True inspired Word. However I do not foresee this happening, alas.
[[Baronvonbob]]

[[category:conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2009-09-24T00:42:26Z

Baronvonbob:

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Wait Till He Returns==
You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. [[Baronvonbob]]

Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?

2009-09-24T00:39:02Z

Baronvonbob:

==Affirmative Opinions==

What definies the right of one country to a portion of land? While I'm prepared to change my mind-- I am rather uneducated on the subject of hawaii-- I must take the following position: America was wrong to annex Hawaii initialy, but at this point there is nothing we can do to ammend the wrong; we can't exactly kick them out of the union just because we never should have taken over way back in 1898. We have inherited a Hawaii that our great-grandfathers wrongfully annexed. Even so, Hawaian culture has been integrated with American culture; Americans and Hawaians have become American alike; at this point our occupation of hawaii ''is'' justified. That is to say: Our occupation of Hawaii, though wrongfully attained by our forebears, is now in the best intrest of all concerned.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)

:I kinda intended for this to be a one-time forum-type-thing. Like everyone gives their opinion once. -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:36, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Great! I will assuredly not give mine again.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 19:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)

While I lean "yes" ([[Barack Obama]] being to me a sufficient justification for annexing Hawaii), it's fun to think about [[alternate histories]] of the late 19th century in which Hawaii is never added to the U. S., such as suggested in the article on the [[Confederate States of America]]. Even had it not been, Hawaii would surely have remained a gathering spot and melting pot for people from all over the world, as it was in 1961. I've been there -- go now, while you still don't need a passport! I'm also surprised to see that this debate appears to have fizzled out four months ago, before I had even heard of Conservapedia. -- [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:20, June 1, 2007

I would have to agree with Ben on the point that while perhaps deciding that the original 'occupation' of Hawaii may have been incorrect, it borders on unconstitutional to all of a sudden tell everyone born there as American citizens that they're not in the club anymore and to go back to their monarchy. It would be difficult for them to reestablish a stable governemtn after being apart of the union for a hundred years [[User:Katieb|KTB]] 19:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I say Yes . What would Hawaii be if we had not invaded/stolen/taken the islands? The IJN would have used Hawaii as a staging point for raids on the American mainland - the people of Hawaii would not have access to the benefits of American life, and even if we had not taken Hawaii, someone else would have taken Hawaii---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 21:52, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==Negative Opinions==

'''NO!!!''' We never had any right to Hawaii the Americans were there as missionaries bbut their children turned into greedy businessmen who stole Hawaii from under Queen Liliuokalani's nose! -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)

NO - just as the occupation of North America by a bunch of European immigrants and the bloody suppression of the aboriginal inhabitants cannot be justified!

Good point! Every point above could be used on every state in the union! [[User:Grinder|Grinder]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, but just as we're not going to give back North America, we're not giving back the islands. That's manifest destiny for ya. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes And No==
Although the US did technically steal Hawai'i from the Hawaiians, we have not oppressed them or their culture, I don't see any real harm. Also due to the US federalistic government, as a state they maintain a high degree of self-government and security from the federal government. And, with time there was a good chance they would have joined the Union anyways. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:29, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

The Country was first taken over by a coupe d'etat instigated by Hawaiian businessmen. Although I wish Hawaii remained independent, it was not wholly America's fault. Hawaii asked to be annexed as an U.S. territory. [[Baronvonbob]]

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?

2009-09-24T00:26:11Z

Baronvonbob:

==Not Necessarily==
I understand killing yourself is an ultimatum sin. But what about people who suffer from depression? They have a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them intense grief. They become so helpless they turn to suicide. Would God punish someone for dieing of cancer? Someone who commits suicide from depression is not thinking with a clear mind due to the depression. However, their are those who commit suicide out of cowardice. I believe those who commit suicide to escape punishment are the ones who go to hell. Not the ones who can't mentally control their emotions. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 24:05, 15 March 2009.

:Just as we don't know who goes to Heaven or hell (that is for Jesus alone to decide), we don't know if all suicides end in hell. The mercy of God's love is not fathomable. All humans are not worthy of God's glory, yet he loves us no matter. I can see instance where a good holy person and mother loses a child to suicide. The Lord would never break her eternal heart saying she must separate her from her beloved offspring in Heaven, because of the evil one's bidding. For all we know, some suicides may end up in Purgatory. This being just a purification stop with a guarantee of Heaven eventually.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 02:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

::Strictly speaking, suicide is a mortal sin, but not an ''unforgivable'' sin. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I think we have reason to hope that, in at least some cases, suicide is forgiven. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:::In the Divine Comedy, only one suicide is shown outside Hell, namely [[Cato the Younger]], who guards the gate of Purgatory. He committed suicide rather than surrender, which the Romans considered a noble act. However, Dante doesn't explain why Cato should escape Hell so the exact reasoning behind his placement is a bit of a mystery, even for scholars.

:::I forgot about Purgatory jpatt. As for Dante one should remember he was going on the seven vices and came up with it from his imagination. However Dante gave a great perspective. [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 18:30, 15 March 2009

::::I don't think all suicides go to Hell. For example: King Saul, the first king of Israel, falls on his own sword after a horrible defeat and to escape capture by the Philistines. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=31] In fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that committing suicide automatically send you to Hell. As stated above, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I think that ''if'' the Bible said suicide was okay, lots of people would be killing themselves just to get to Heaven.) -[[User:Solomos|Christopher Solomos]] 01:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I've heard it said that suicide is a sin because it is the intentional destruction of a gift of God. Not only that, its the intentional destruction of God's greatest gift -- the gift of life itself. Now, if you take the traditional Protestant position that all your sins must be forgiven to avoid Hell, and that you must request forgiveness to receive it, then suicides do go to Hell, because they commit a sin and then die before they could ask forgiveness. (Well, ignoring cases like someone who jumps off a bridge, thinks better of it, and asks forgiveness on the way down.) However, we must ultimately remember that God is a loving God. I don't think God would condemn a person who did not have control over their own actions due to mental illness. I also don't think God would condemn the poor people who chose to jump out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 rather than burn to death.

:::::However, this leads to another question: what about actions that aren't strictly speaking, suicide, but still self-destructive? For instance, the case of someone who "drank himself to death". (The question of whether or not drinking alcohol is a sin in and of itself is an entire new topic....) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 07:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::Couldn't you claim that soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others committed suicide? God would have to be very strange to condemn them for that show of love. --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I would simply like to point out the Samauri of Japan, who would rather commit suicide than live with any sort of cultural dishonor. [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 12:55, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

There's a difference between sacrificing yourself '''for''' someone, and merely refusing to live with emotional pain. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 5:13) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

It is my opinion that anyone who commits suicide, with a feeling of complete despair that death seems to be the only solution, that they are not truly thinking clearly, and are thus not held accountable for their action --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Yes==

I do not think anyone that is Truly a born again Christian can commit [[suicide]]. The reason being that the [[Holy Spirit]] indwells them, which would disable them from getting to the point of suicide. I believe this applies to people on drugs or with supposed "mental" illnesses. [[User:Baronvonbob]]

Template talk:DR userbox

2009-09-22T00:06:19Z

Baronvonbob: Created page with 'I'm home schooled too, how did ya become an administrator? Baronvonbob'

I'm home schooled too, how did ya become an administrator? [[Baronvonbob]]

User page

2009-09-21T23:59:21Z

Baronvonbob:

{{merge|MediaWiki}}
A '''user page''', in a Wiki powered by MediaWiki software, lets other users know a bit of personal information a user wants to share, along with their accomplishments and future goals for the project.

[[category:MediaWiki]]
Hi,ever read [[Patriot post]].

Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television

2009-09-21T23:55:26Z

Baronvonbob:

I was editing the article on the Wombles a while ago, and it occured to me that the program is in some ways liberal propaganda. I didn't want to sound paranoid so I didn't give much further thought to it, until it occured to me that a lot of childrens' programs seem to be suspicious in that regard. There is the very blatent Captain Planet, for a start. Then while reading the article on starfish here I noticed some have concerns regarding Spongebob Squarepants - though I cannot verify this myself as I refuse to watch such trash. Even the classic Sesame Street has that couple who appear worryingly like cohabiting homosexuals, and it's famous episode on death had a distinct lack of Christian worldview. Perhaps Conservapedia members should investigate for other examples? Parents rarely pay great attention to childrens' entertainment, so it's quite possible we are missing this hidden way in which values counter to our own culture are being slipped under the radar. I'm not suggesting that there is a great conspiricy here (Maybe a tiny one) - only that program producers tend to include their own values in the programs, and most people working in childrens' TV production seem to be leftists and lukewarm christians at best. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Yes!!!!
Ugh! Soon they are gonna talk about how bad and evil war is, I'm allmost about to throw up! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 19:18, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
::That's probably attributable more to wanting to avoid contriversy. Show realistic war in a childrens' program, and get accused of traumatising them - thus programs are forced to take either the 'world peace' route of having all the characters oppose the war, or the 'toy soldiers' route where there is plenty of fighting, glory and patriotism but it's all really dumbed down and sanitised so much even the enemy doesn't die, and the good guys have a brilliently fun time playing with the guns and saving the country. Could you find some examples for me? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Captain Planet has been off the air for 15 years, Bert and Ernie are NOT gay, and what's your concern with old SpongeBob? As a parent and teacher, I'm more concerned that kids TV are nothing but commercials for toys. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:02, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:I still see it on reruns sometimes, but 'niche' is insufficient to describe how rarely. My concern is that we really don't ''know'' what is on the TV.
:I grew up on the Wombles and later watched Captain Planet every morning. It served as a timer: mid-way through the episode was time to finish breakfast and get ready for school. I still don't know how most of them ended. Looking back, I can see that the two programs influenced what I thought at the time - I did the recycling fad, and the energy-saving fad where I annoyed my parents by turning the lights off every time a room was empty for ten seconds.
:The programs I grew up with are no longer shown often, but what are children today growing up on? I don't watch childrens' TV, I really have not the faintest idea what programs today teach, and I expect many parents to have a similar lack of knowledge. This ignorance is a concern. If liberalism could get into TV fifteen years ago, why couldn't it get in today? Is there any way to be sure, short of spending weeks watching children's TV to see what values they teach?
:Bert and Ernie... while not gay, are still two adult men who live together, which looks very suspicious and at the very least will create the impression that this is a normal arrangement. As for spongebob, no idea - someone else made that accusation on another page, I just repeated it here. I would never watch such rubbish. Also, you are right about them being over-commercial - but that's a completly separate concern. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 13:04, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'm an elementary teacher with a small child so I'm exposed to much more children's TV than I could care for. PBS has really good stuff, concentrating mostly on education and character development. I must disagree with you about Bert and Ernie. They are not adults, they play with toys and do other childish things. According to the PBS website, they're just friends. Besides, by the time a kid is old enough to know what a gay couple is, they wouldn't be watching Sesame Street anymore. Commercial TV runs the guantlet from educational to absolutely moronic. Some people don't like Sponge Bob because they think he's effeminite, but I don't see it. Sure there's liberalism in many shows, but there's also conservatism. It's up to the PARENTS to monitor what their kids are watching. And if you ever want to see a hilarious take on Bert and Ernie's relationship, check out the broadway play 'Avenue Q.' Thanks. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 22:52, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I've always seen Clifford the Big Red Dog as a symbol of communism.
:Paranoid as I might be, even I don't believe that one :) [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:08, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Lest we forget Tinky Winky and the Teletubbies. Be that as it may, I do miss wholesome shows like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, a show that I grew up with and helped shape who I am today. Most of today's children's entertainment is rubbish, and it serves as a babysitter most of the time. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:11, 10 November 2008 (EST)

First off, Spongebob is not so much a children's show as a teenage show. Like that of Cow and Chicken, or more previously Shrek, it teaches children lessons as many other shows do, and they understand. It is done in a certain way that many of the jokes in the show can only be understood by older kids, but the admirable characters and colourful animation get the message of basic morals across to young children.
Of course liberalism can be seen in kids' shows, we are living in a changing world and the mass media must adjust to suit the opinions of the majority of viewers, and thus must teach children that ethnic and religous differences etc are now accepted in society, which is true on the most part.
If you want "wholesome" TV for kids, sit them in front of the Disney Channel, in which life is impossibly happy and protganonists are always the popular, pretty kids. --[[User:LauraF|LauraF]] 08:44, 25 February 2009 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

This is a good subject for discussion,many children's programs are guilty of this, here is a short list of their 'crimes':
* Sponge bob: Promoting [[evolution]], [[pantheism]], theres an episode where he decides to become one with nature, so he spends the rest of his life in the woods, completely unclothed for the duration of the show. In another episode him and Patrick raise a clam being its parents.

*Transformers: [[Singularitarianism]] possibly even [[genocide]] since the decepticons are always being destroyed.

*Arthur: [[evolution]] public education]] [[progressivism]]

*Teletubbies: [[moral relativism]][[anarchy]] no solid proof of this though.

again children's programming is no less than a vast global conspiracy to brainwash youth into hopeless and heretical liberal nightmares.
Thats my spin on it anyway. [[Baronvonbob]]

Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?

2009-09-21T22:36:12Z

Baronvonbob:

{{debate}}

==Yes==

* [[Role-playing]] games do not reinforce evil, but "get it out of your system".
* Anyway, it's just a game.
* Encourages a sense of imagination

Yes, for at least two reasons:
1) Most of the monters encountered are based on mythology and literature. Seeing the cool monsters would spark a broader interest in the classics. It did for me when I was a kid.

2) Playing those games builds problem solving skills. If you're in a party of five characters, and you're about to enter a dungeon with forty hobgoblins, you can't just walk in with swords drawn and expect to survive. To succeed at a role-playing game, you need to know how to plan, you need to find creative ways to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, you need to learn when to be aggressive and when to use caution. All of those are skills which will serve the kids well in the real world, even if (hopefully) not in the same situation.

It is true that it's bad if the child goes overboard, but that's true of anything. That's why we have parents, to keep that from happening.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==No==

* Acting out mental fantasies of sorcery, theft, etc., encourages these evil tendencies.

:It seems to me that "'''of course''' they are bad" is the obvious and correct conclusion. People tend to escalate in behaviors in which they indulge. When I started collecting guns, I bought one, and it was cool, so I bought a second...then my collecting got more and more pronounced. Now I actually have to budget my income to make sure I don't inadvertently indulge the hobby too much. The same goes for '''bad''' behaviors. Pedophiles, murderers, drug users, criminals, all are known to escalate over time, not start off at the top and then, the "pressure" released, revert to ordinary citizens. It's called "escalation behavior" and it's why no one, children or adults, should casually play RPGs in my opinion. Part of the reason we (meaning conservatives) seem to have, on the whole, a very relaxed attitude towards sexual and occult imagery and influences of things like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and [[Harry Potter]] are that the influences are everywhere and we "get used to them." Though I have my issues with Catholicism, the Pope is absolutely right to refer to the "[http://www.explorefaith.org/news/08_02_05.html subtle seductions] of fictional representations of the occult. They normalize things which should be categorically condemned. Jesus Saves 19:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

==Very Occasionally==

I think both of the Debaters above have good points. I do think it is unfair to write off all RPG's as evil. However they should be played only for enjoyment in my opinion. I would put them in same category of movies, not very profitable, but usually somewhat enjoyable. There are some interesting aspects of most of them, but not really any moral ones. However many Role Playing Games glorify Gore, Violence and suggestive content. These should be avoided, especially by children. Parents should monitor what their children play, indeed in some games such as the [[elder scrolls]] series there is a variety of dark, wicked cults for players to join. Indeed caution is required when children devote any amount of time to Role Playing Games. [[Baronvonbob]]

Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television

2009-09-21T22:35:11Z

Baronvonbob:

Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television

2009-09-21T22:33:25Z

Baronvonbob:

Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?

2009-09-21T22:30:09Z

Baronvonbob: