Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ann Coulter

2008-12-10T13:06:23Z

Colenso:

{{merge from|Coulter on Hillary and McCain}}
[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an [[attorney]], legal affairs correspondent, social commentator and a well known political pundit.
She has written five bestselling books on U.S. politics. U.S. Federal Judge [[Richard Posner]] called her one of America's top public intellectuals. <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] "Data for tables in Chapter 5 of Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline" where Posner talks about the data he used for his book ''Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline''.</ref> <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] Table II, which is Posner's data for 607 public intellectuals. A PDF search of "Coulter" will show she is on Posner's list.</ref>

Coulter's primary focus is exposing the faults of [[liberalism]], and she has enjoyed a popular following for her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
She is well known for her forthright statements against those who wish to hurt the [[United States]].

Coulter is a high profile female [[conservative]], in line with [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. Her books and strong speaking style have endeared her to fans and infuriated opponents.

As a [[Christian]], Coulter attributes to the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition the view that [[human being]]s are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

Being an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently stupid and offensive.<ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)]</ref><ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f*****.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html]</ref>

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] for President instead of [[John McCain]]. Coulter asserted that McCain is not conservative, but [[liberal]].

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)
*''[[If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans]]'' (2007)

In ''Godless'', Coulter illustrates how liberals make a [[religion]] out of their beliefs, which they follow with the sort of intolerant zeal which they claim [[fundamentalist]]s do. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==

* "Whether they are defending the [[Soviet Union]] or bleating for [[Saddam Hussein]], liberals are always against [[United States of America|America]]. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the [[New York Times]] Building." She later clarified "Of course I regret [saying] it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to [[Darfur]], a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, [[Holocaust]]-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear [[Harry Reid]] and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in [[World War II]]. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your [[Communists]] will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." <ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001 </ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." <ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Sept. 13, 2001 she wrote this about the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|Sept. 11 terrorist attack]]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." <ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001 [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml]</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " <ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins. </ref>

* "Liberals are driven by [[Satan]] and lie constantly. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>

* "Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email Another Liberal Noose-ance], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 10/17/2007,</ref>

* "Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316 McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 11/07/2007.</ref>

* "By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet [[totalitarianism]], [[McCarthy]] shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the [[Stalin]]ist [[liberal hate speech|hate machine]] attacked him viciously and has never let up."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824 They'll Never Forgive You], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 12/05/2007.</ref>

* "How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?], By Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', October 31, 2007.</ref>

* "[The New York Times'] reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)" <ref>[http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071306.php3 ''N.Y. Times: Better dead than read]]</ref>

* "I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/</ref>

* "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb] - ''Washington Post'' - March 6, 2007
*[http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2095 Media Research Center 'Funny Video's from 2007'] Watch Ann Coulter present funny videos from 2007 at the 2008 MRC DisHonors Awards in DC.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}

[[Category:Women Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

Christmas

2008-12-04T16:04:15Z

Colenso: assumed replaced with believed in refernce to Mesopotamian religion (less loaded).

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|right|260px]]
'''Christmas''' is a Christian [[holiday]] which celebrates the birth of [[Jesus Christ]]. Christmas is typically celebrated on December 25th. The word Christmas comes from "Christ's [[mass]]," and the [[Roman Catholic]] church and most [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations observe Christmas after sundown on the 24th of [[December]]. Some [[Eastern Orthodox Church]](s) practice it on January 6th, combining the day with Epiphany. Orthodox practice a Christmas Fast--lasting 40 days (November 15 to December 24).

The story of the birth of Christ is told in the opening chapters of the [[Gospel of Luke]] and the [[Gospel of Matthew]]. Each contains different elements of "the Christmas Story." The visit of the Archangel to the shepherds and the birth of Jesus in a manger are from Luke. The story of the Star of [[Bethlehem]] and the visit from the Wise Men bringing gifts of "gold, and frankincense and myrrh" are from Matthew.

In Western countries, during the Christmas season people generally hang up colored lights, place a [[Christmas tree]] (typically an evergreen tree) in their house, sing carols (songs), and exchange gifts. Gift-giving commemorates the gifts given to the Christ child by the Wise Men and is symbolic of the fact that Jesus came as gift to mankind from [[God]].{{Fact}}

==History==
[[Image:Parmigianino Virgin with Child.jpg|right|240px|Virgin with Child]]
Festivals have always been celebrated around the time of the solstice. Two thousand years before Christ, the early Mesopotamians celebrated a 12 day new year around that time, which is still reflected in our custom of the 12 Days of Christmas. Their chief god, Marduk, was supposed to battle annually against the forces of chaos, which the Mesopotamians believed were making the sunlight dwindle. The [[Mesopotamian]] King was supposed to be killed to go fight at Marduk's side. However, the king usually substituted a condemned prisoner and let him spend a day as the king. He was treated like the king for a day, then at the end of the day he was stripped and killed in the king's stead.

It is usually assumed that the historical Jesus was born in the Spring. It wasn't until around 350 AD that Caesar appointed 25 December to be The Mass of Christ, probably to coincide with the date of the Winter Solstice. The early Catholic Church concurred, probably in order to draw parishioners away from licentious pagan festivals occurring at about the same time of year. The Romans decked their halls with green laurels and trees decorated with candles. This feast, called [[Saturnalia]], was a time for masquerades and feasts and the trading of presents, including "lucky fruits," the ancestor of today's fruitcake.

Christmas is a relatively unimportant holiday in the Christian liturgy (less important, for example, than the Feast of the Epiphany). Early Protestants, including the Puritans who settled in Plymouth, did not celebrate Christmas, which they denounced as Papist.

Many of the customs we have come to associate with Christmas developed in Victorian England, notably the Christmas Tree (which originated in Germany and was introduced in England by Prince Albert). The concept of Christmas as a family-centered celebration and a time of generosity, good will, and friendliness to neighbors, was promoted and codified by Charles Dickens in ''A Christmas Carol.''

In the United States, the image of [[Santa Claus]] (i.e. Saint Nicholas) and his reindeer has been shaped by Clement Moore's poem, "A Visit from Saint Nicholas" (with the famous opening line "'Twas the night before Christmas.") In other countries, the depiction of Santa vary widely. For instance, in the Netherlands, Santa Claus is shown in a bishop's mitre.

In the [[United States]], during the twentieth century, gift-giving assumed a greater and greater role, and by mid-century had become of great commercial importance, to the point where some felt the religious aspects were becoming forgotten. As Stan Freberg put it<ref>in a recording, "Green Christmas"</ref> in 1958, "There are two S's in Christmas and they're ''both'' dollar signs." The single week before Christmas currently accounts for 25% to 30% of all retail sales.

==Modern-day cultural significance==

The tension between religious and secularized Christmas has waxed and waned periodically over the years. The pendulum swung toward secularization in the middle of the twentieth century. One marker was the emergence of songs like ''I'll Be Home For Christmas'' (1943), ''The Christmas Song,'' (1946), and ''Silver Bells'' (1951), which have become a beloved part of Christmas in America despite their lack of any religious content. Bing Crosby, a devout Catholic, initially was reluctant to sing the secular 1942 song ''White Christmas,'' which was to become his biggest hit.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=850892 Still Dreaming of a White Christmas], NPR story</ref>

In recent years, the celebration of Christmas has become part of the "culture wars." [[Fox News]] analysts [[John Gibson]] and [[Bill O'Reilly]] claim that Christmas has come under attack by "[[liberal]]s." Some Christian conservatives want an increased recognition of the religious core of the holiday, and want to maintain a separation between Christmas and other holidays occurring at the same time of year.

==See also==
*[[Santa Maria]]
*[[Saint Nicholas]]
* [[Carols by Candlelight]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.the-north-pole.com/index.htm Welcome to The North-Pole]

==Notes and references==

<references/>

[[Category:Observances]][[category:Holidays]]

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-12-03T15:55:10Z

Colenso: /* YES */

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus's Apostles were the first to be called Christians by Antioch citizens. The Apostle Peter became the founder of the modern day Catholic Church with his successor being Pope Benedict. What Catholic really means is Universal. This became the Univeral Church for Gentiles and Jews. Christian denominations are just seperate branches of the same tree, Jesus. The main difference being the seperate denominations don't adhere to the successor of St. Peter. To believe in Jesus as Lord, that individual has a special Grace from God. To know and believe is called Christianity.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Absolutely. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The only way to sensible classify religions is through factors such as their origins, demographics, characteristics, and self identifications. Theological debate over Catholic interpretation of the bible is completely irrelevant to whether they count as Christians.

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreeing with the previous two comments. Some Catholics are saved, but in spite of their church rather than because of it. They may have been truely Christian once, but they have burried Christ beneath a mountain of doctrine, dogma, papal rulings, procedure, ritual, saints, demons and angels so thick that He can no longer be seen through the thicket of false teachings. Even the existance of a Pope is completly unbiblical. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I think Christians are losing their ability to hate, and this is a bad thing. Hate, unpleasant as it is, can be a tool for good. Rightous hate drives people to fight evil, to oppose sin. Hate of sin is one of the things that gives Christians the will to try to end it. Without hate, there can only be tolerance or acceptance. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

::Are you trying to be ironic!!??? That's excactly what Jesus wanted us to do! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please do provide sources. Now, the unanimous opinion of the early church was that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now, why would they lie? Three out of the four were minor individuals with no great reputation. If they wanted to lie about their authors, they would only do so if it was an attempt to improve their standing and bolster their reputation. So, if you were going to lie, you would attribute their authorship to more well-known individuals. Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. That’s what later people tried to do. When the later “alleged” Gospels were written, they attributed their authorship to Peter, Thomas, Judas and other bigger figures. But that’s not what the earl Christians did. They attributed the Gospels to minor figures. The only logical reason behind this would be if they were really truly written by these people.

Are you saying that you don’t consider Paul’s work to be part of the New Testament? Luke, who wrote the Gospel by the same name, also wrote the book of Acts. And Acts details Paul’s early persecution of the church, his meeting Jesus and conversion, and his ministry. Throughout the book we see him working with Peter, James etc. Major figures in the church. Peter authenticates Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So Paul is a very legitimate figure to quote.

Oh, and just as a side-note, are you not going to further comment on the above "YES" section? I just ask because I keep looking at it and want to stop wasting time if we're not going to debate that anymore. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"''his meeting Jesus''..." Where is this mentioned in the bible please? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Paul's encounter with Christ and conversion on the way to Damascus is detailed in Acts 9. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Wicca

2008-11-26T17:42:43Z

Colenso: No references for Jonestown connection, also factually innacurate from initial research.

'''Wicca''' is a pagan [[religion]] which involves the practicing of [[witchcraft]]. While witchcraft has ancient roots, it has little to do with the modern incarnation called Wicca. Wicca has many different sects and groups, but has no central body or governing organization, or a holy book. Wiccans belong to small, local organizations called "covens" or practice "solitary", as they see fit. Because Wicca encourages its followers to question what they are taught<ref>Helping yourself with White Witchcraft by Al G Manning, page 23</ref> <ref>[http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html Isaac Bonewit's Danger of Cult Evaluation]</ref> and develop their own practices, it can be very difficult to come up with a universal definition of what a Wiccan is. Most Wiccans desire to live in rhythm with nature. Wicca calls on the practitioner to act as their own priest(ess), interacting directly with the spirit force or deity.

==Wiccan Morality==
Most Wiccans submit to two basic rules of morality, the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law. ''The Rede'' states: "And it harm none, do as you will," meaning that you may do what you like, so long as you do not offer harm to others or to yourself. The Threefold Law states that what you send out in both the mundane and magical planes will return to you, though not necessarily by three.

==Cult Status==
Wicca is considered a Cult in [[France]] following a 1995 referendum.

==Wiccans and Deity==
Wiccans may be either monotheistic or polytheistic; the monotheists simply directing their spells and prayers to Spirit, and the polytheists subscribing to a variety of historical pantheons, including Celtic, Greek, Nordic, Roman, and even Chinese, Japanese, and Indian; or some combination of the above. Nearly all Wiccans, however, subscribe to the idea of Spirit being divided into two polarities, the [[male]] and the [[female]]. <ref> Wicca for One by Raymond Buckland, page 28 </ref> The male polarity is the God, or the Green Man; the female polarity is the Goddess, whom herself is split into the three parts of Maiden, Mother, and Crone. They are also often called the Lord and Lady. They have been given so many names they have been called the Nameless Ones.<ref>Wicca a Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham, page 11 </ref>

==Wiccans and Magic==
"Wicca" is a pagan religion. "Witchcraft" refers to the practice of magic. Most Wiccans are also witches in that they practice magic, but there are those Wiccans who do not practice magic, and there are those who practice magic, but do not call themselves Wiccans, or even [[Pagan]]. Most magicians, however, are not Wiccans.

==Wiccan Holy Days==
Wiccans usually celebrate the eight Sabbats (also referred to collectively as Wheel of the Witches Year) <ref> Wicca for One by Raymond Buckland, page 104 </ref> and the thirteen Esbats. The Sabbats follow the solar cycle, and are as follows:

*Imbolc (Feb. 1)
*Ostara (March 21)
*[[May Day|Beltaine]] (May 1)
*Midsummer Day (June 21, sometimes called Litha)
*Lammas (Aug. 1, sometimes called Lughnasadh)
*Mabon (Sept. 21)
*[[Halloween|Samhain]] (Oct. 31)
*Yule (Dec. 21/22)
The esbats follow the lunar cycle, and are generally celebrated on the full moon.

==The Four Elements==
Wiccan worship is conducted in a [[circle]], and the participants call on the four traditional elements of [[Air]], [[Fire]], [[Water]], and [[Earth]] at the respective [[cardinal]] points of [[East]], [[South]], [[West]], and [[North]]. Air and Fire are considered masculine elements, and Water and Earth are considered feminine. Air is generally represented by an athame or a [[sword]], and stands for the east, the New moon, [[spring]], the intellect, and new beginnings. Fire is represented by a wand or [[candle]], and stands for the south, [[summer]], the waxing moon, will, passion, and transformation. Water is represented by a chalice and stands for the west, the [[full moon]], emotions, cleansing, and the season of fall. Earth is represented by the pentacle or a bowl of [[salt]], and stands for [[winter]], silence, [[death]], the waning moon, and the practical matters of everyday living.

==Wiccans and Ritual==
The general procedure for a Wiccan ritual is as follows:

*Cleansing of the sacred space with incense/[[holy water]]
*Forming of the circle
*Invoking the four quarters/elements
*Invoking the Lord and Lady
*Invoking of the ancestral dead
*State intent of [[ritual]]
*Drawing down of sun/moon (optional)
*Perform magical work
*Cakes and Ale
*Devoke ancestors
*Thank and release Deity
*Thank and release quarters
*Devoke circle
*Cleanup

This is not a hard and fast outline. The drawing down of the moon would generally only occur during an ''Esbat'' (see above), just as the drawing down of the sun would generally only occur during a ''Sabbat''. A solitary performing a ritual, or a group performing a simpler ritual may opt not to do these things, just as they may opt not to invoke the ancestors or serve the Cakes and Ale.

==History of Wicca==
Although there are elements of Wicca which date back to ancient times (the Sabbat fire festivals, for example), it does not tie to any particular religious practice from ancient times. Most aspects of Wicca are modern and were made in the last fifty years. Wicca was first popularized in England by Gerald Gardner after the repeal of Britain's laws banning Witchcraft. These attitudes are still adhered to by those who follow his religion in the form in which he created it, who are known as 'Gardnerians'. Nowadays, there are many forms of Wicca, including Alexandrian, Dianic, [[Druid]]ic, Corellian, Stregha (Italian witchcraft), Faery, and many others. There are also many Solitary and Eclectic practitioners, who follow no set tradition at all.
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Paganism]]