Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism and beliefs

2009-03-19T00:27:26Z

GFasten:

I'm not touching this, though I do think panspermia needs to be added under Origins of Life. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:That's a rarely held view (I think), but it may merit inclusion if common. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:52, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::So is limited speech, but panspermia is still a view held by some atheists. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought weak atheists denied they had a belief system and strong atheists acknowledge they hold beliefs. I don't want to change anything without being sure. Can anyone clarify?[[User:MBBurke|MBBurke]] 17:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)

This article reads like a smear campaign. Surely that is not what we want to teach our children?
[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
: I don't see anything wrong with this article, it contains factual statements with supporting citations. This sort of thing should definatly be taught in order to broader expose what our children are exposed to, instead of the current narrow bias liberal views in todays modern media. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 20:19, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
:: I apologize if you thought I meant that the failures of atheism should not be taught; however, some of these comments paint all atheists as Socialist, demonic freedom-haters, which surely we all know is somewhat hyperbolic. Surely sticking only to the facts about all atheists should be sufficiently convincing, or some rewording is necessary to show that not EVERY atheist described by all of these? [[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
In addition, for "Moral Superiority", a blog is referenced. Perhaps a study or poll should be used to support this more powerfully?
[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Do you have any examples of atheists that don't show these qualities? I have certainly never seen any. Broaden your spectrum and look for evidence before making such preposterous claims. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 20:27, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and beliefs

2009-03-19T00:19:02Z

GFasten:

Essay:Man is not the descendant of monkey

2009-03-19T00:15:36Z

GFasten: wikilink

'''Man is not the descendant of monkey''' is a [[true]] statement that [[liberal]] academia refuses to adhere to. They falsely prefer to interpret man through an [[evolution]] stage, [[beast]] to man. In addition, they wrongly assert biology as proof of man from beast nonsense. They cling to the [[dishonest]] notions developed by [[Charles Darwin]].

The [[bible]] has great insight into who Man really is.

==Genesis KJV Bible==
Man is of [[God]], not of beast.

* So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. '''Genesis 1:27''' (God did not create monkey in his image)

* And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. '''Genesis 2:7''' (There was nothingness and then God made Man from dust, not from beast)

* And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. '''Genesis 2:19''' (God formed every beast...and monkey.)

* And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. '''Genesis 2:20''' (Man named every beast- including 'Monkey'. No other previous historical connection existed)
[[Category:evolution]]

User talk:JDWpianist

2009-03-16T22:01:47Z

GFasten:

{{Welcome}} [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 17:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi, welcome to CP, I'd reccomend writing something on your userpage in order to give you a blue name! [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 18:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Bypass Surgery

2009-03-16T22:00:18Z

GFasten: fixed bullet points

'''Bypass Surgery''', or '''Coronary artery bypass grafting''' (CABG), is a type of surgery called revascularization (re-VAS-kyu-lar-i-ZA-shun), used to improve blood flow to the heart in people with severe coronary artery disease (CAD).

CAD occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the [[heart]] muscle (the coronary arteries) become blocked due to the buildup of a material called plaque (plak) on the inside of the blood vessels. If the blockage is severe, chest pain (also called angina), shortness of breath, and, in some cases, [[heart attack]] can occur.

CABG is one treatment for CAD. During CABG, a healthy artery or vein from another part of the body is connected, or grafted, to the blocked coronary artery. The grafted artery or vein bypasses (that is, it goes around) the blocked portion of the coronary artery. This new passage routes oxygen-rich blood around the blockage to the heart muscle. As many as four major blocked coronary arteries can be bypassed during one surgery.
Overview

CABG is the most common type of open-heart surgery in the United States, with more than 500,000 surgeries performed each year. Doctors called cardiothoracic (KAR-de-o-tho-RAS-ik) surgeons perform this surgery.

CABG isn’t used for everyone with CAD. Many people with CAD can be treated by other means, such as lifestyle changes, medicines, and another revascularization procedure called angioplasty.

CABG may be an option if you have severe blockages in the large coronary arteries that supply a major part of the heart muscle with blood—especially if the heart’s pumping action has already been weakened.

CABG may also be an option if you have blockages in the heart that can’t be treated with angioplasty. In these situations, CABG is considered more effective than other types of treatment.

If you’re a candidate for CABG, the goals of having the surgery are to:

* Improve your quality of life and decrease angina and other symptoms of CAD
* Resume a more active lifestyle
* Improve the pumping action of the heart if it has been damaged by a heart attack
* Lower the chances of a heart attack (in some patients, such as those with diabetes)
* Improve your chance of survival

Repeat surgery may be needed if grafted arteries or veins become blocked, or if new blockages develop in arteries that weren’t blocked before. Taking medicines as prescribed and making lifestyle changes that your doctor recommends can lower the chance of a graft becoming blocked.

In people who are candidates for the surgery, the results are usually excellent, with 85 percent of people having significantly reduced symptoms, less risk for future heart attacks, and a decreased chance of dying within 10 years following the surgery.

== Sources ==

* [http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Index/b.html NIH Glossary]
[[category:medicine]]
[[Category:Medical Terms]]

User talk:JDWpianist

2009-03-16T21:49:39Z

GFasten: oops, parentheses failed!

{{Welcome}} [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 17:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

User talk:JDWpianist

2009-03-16T21:49:00Z

GFasten: New page: {{Welcome)) ~~~~

{{Welcome)) [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 17:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-03-14T16:42:38Z

GFasten: /* Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal */

Gents, this list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster. I think directly quoting dictionary entries would maintain the integrity of the examples here, but only the meaning we're concentrating on needs to be quoted. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 12:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Why don't we see how they define creationism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 12:56, 22 February 2009 (EST)

::Aha! The OED's definition is clearly mentions an alternative "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, '''rather than by natural processes such as evolution'''" So, in the evolution definition there is no mention of its controvosy, however in the creationism definition the alternative is presented. I would be interested to see if this is prevalent in other dictionaries? I only have the OED to hand, though I may go to the local libraray and have a browse. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 13:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Now how does it define [[Conservative]]? (I would look up myself if I had one!) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't in the political sense, but I think this is because its a British based dictionary and conservative means something different over there. (ie the British conservative party is far more left than an american conservative would be, and it's secular.)[[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 15:57, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal==
I would be careful with this one. The definition of liberal is not an actual set of positions on specific issues, but rather a relatively vague political ideology of change from the status quo. If you consider the history of the word "liberal" and "liberalism" you will see that its connotation (aka the specific positions of those labeled liberals) has changed quite a bit. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century (in the times of Bismarck, Lenin, Mussolini etc) liberals were in fact those who opposed government involvement in the economy, something which is considered quite a liberal stance today. If you consider the full history of these terms, the strongest constant is that liberal was used to describe those who wished some departure from the established order, whatever that order may be. Thus I would state that the definition given by MW (although the personal liberty aspect could be challenged effectively) is about as accurate of a definition, without connotation, as I can think of. Something to consider.--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:I would agree with the above. This site has formed a set in stone opinion of what a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' believe. This is not to mention the slight differences in meaning between countries, and bear in mind this is a British based dictionary. It is not so much the actual issues that define the political ideology, but it is the principles behind the issues. For example, with abortion, it is not the case that liberals have simply decided they are for it and conservatives are against it. That is far far too simplistic. Opinions are formed based upon a set of beliefs that a person has on the principles behind this, such as individual liberty, particularly weighing up the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. The use of the terms here has jumped straight to the conclusions rather than using the reasoning behind them as the definition. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:59, 25 February 2009 (EST)

::Having looked into this further I would in fact propose the deletion of this article. I have online access to the most detailed and up-to-date OED in which it does state that evolution is a theory. This is not to mention my above points and the fact that conservatism is defined. I believe all of the issues in the article have been adequately addressed and especially since it is based upon one dictionary it seems odd to keep the article. This is not to mention that nobody has provided a reasonable explanation as to why a dictionary of all things would show any significant political bias. People may dispute a few entries but that does not constitute a general bias by any means. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Not having the OED, I cannot verify what RobertWDP has stated regarding the evolution entry, but if it does indeed state that it is a theory, then the entry in the article really has no place. I still stand by my first entry regarding the Liberal entry. Some administrator discussion would be appreciated as to keep the article in its present state is not accurate or factual. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: For both public editions of the OED I have (both the paper copy and the free online copy)this article is true. I see no evidence of your claims RobertWDP since the source you cited requires you to pay to view! Surley the editions that most of the general public will see are the most influential ones and thus any bias in them will have a greater effect. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 11:22, 1 March 2009 (EST)

::My apologies for the citation in question, I had forgotten that access was via subscription. However, although you may well be right that most people will see other versions, the actual question of why there would be 'liberal bias' in dictionaries is not addressed. Personally it seems like a very odd claim, nowhere is there any explanation as to why the OED of all things would be 'liberally biased' and this of course feeds back into my point regarding the definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Also, the article only looks at a very few, very specific examples and it seems ludicrous to base claims of bias on just these few. There may well be definitions that would appear to be 'pro-conservative' for example. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:35, 1 March 2009 (EST)

::: What the majority see is obviously a dictionaries main output, and therefore, any bias it contains can be associated with the whole organization. Many university related publications (such as the OED) would be liberally bias due to the higher amount of liberals based at British educational institutions. Just look at how many range blocks here come from universities for liberal vandalism/parody. While there are the few examples, this is more than outweighed by the significance of the definitions. These are very important ideas and concepts which will influence the reader. I very much doubt there will be "pro-conservative" examples, and your claims of these are unfounded and lack any sort of evidence whatsoever, and hence your claims have no credibility. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 12:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-03-01T16:22:40Z

GFasten: /* Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal */

Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-25T19:43:21Z

GFasten:

Many world renowned dictionaries contain liberal or atheistic bias. In many popular dictionaries definitions of certain controversial terms contain liberal bias, mainly through excluding the fact that said term is disputed and only a theory.

* The [[Oxford English Dictionary]] defines [[evolution]] as "a process by which species develop from earlier appearance as an explanation of their [[Origins debate|origins]]", the definition contains no information stating this is only a [[theory]] and does not point to alternate theories which are just as or more viable. The Merriam-Webster dictionary also excludes the fact that evolution is controversial.

* Conversly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines [[creationism]] as "the belief that the [[universe]] and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine [[creation]], as in the [[biblical]] account, '''rather than by natural processes such as evolution'''." When they define creationism, it is presented as a controversial theory with alternatives but when they define evolution there is no mention of creationism at all. The Merriam-Webster also defines [[creationism]] like this.

* The OED definition for the word "[[liberal]]" is given as "willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own." or "(in a political context) favouring individual [[liberty]], [[free trade]], and moderate reform." It never once mentions school prayer or [[abortion]].

* The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even define Conservatism, it is merely mentioned as another form of the word conservative which does not contain the political definition. Liberalism, on the other hand is defined as shown in the above point.

[[Category:Lists]][[Category:Liberalism]]

Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T21:01:06Z

GFasten:

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T20:57:58Z

GFasten:

Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T18:26:57Z

GFasten:

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T18:24:33Z

GFasten:

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T17:24:35Z

GFasten:

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T17:22:58Z

GFasten:

This list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 12:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T17:22:47Z

GFasten: New page: This list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster

This list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster

Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T17:21:23Z

GFasten:

Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-02-22T17:20:38Z

GFasten: New page: Many world renowned dictionaries contain liberal or atheistic bias. In many popular dictionaries definitions of certain controversial terms contain liberal bias, mainly through excluding t...

Dictionary

2009-02-22T17:12:37Z

GFasten:

A '''dictionary''' is a book that contains an [[alphabet]]ized listing of ideally all known words in a particular language. Typically, the meanings of the words are given along with their origin, accepted spelling, pronunciation, [[part of speech]], and plurals. Some dictionaries also include example sentences or words translated from other languages. The creation of dictionaries can be a dynamic process, due to languages continually developing new words. Dictionaries can be subject to bias just like any other reference source through the way definitions are presented and the exclusion of certain views. (See [[Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries]])

[[category:linguistics]]

Manganese

2009-02-21T16:55:35Z

GFasten: Undo revision 628619 by KrisTree (Talk) Parodist. The reference cited doesn't even exist, Magnesium has no relation to Manganese,

{{Element | name=Manganese | symbol=Mn | anumber=25 | amass=54.938 amu | noe=25 | class=Transition metal | cstructure=Cubic | density=7.440 g/cm^3 | color=Silver/Gray | stableisotopes=1 | date=1774 | discname=[[Johann Gahn]] | origname=From the Latin word ''mangnes'' (magnet) | uses=Steel, batteries, ceramics, coins, fertilizer and animal feed additives | obtained=Pyrolusite, psilomelane, cryptomelane, manganite, rhodochrosite}}

'''Manganese''' is an [[element]] in the "transition metals" class of the [[periodic table of the elements|periodic table]]. It is hard and brittle. It reacts (slowly) with water, and with acids.

Manganese was discovered by [[Johann Gahn]] in 1774 by heating [[pyrolusite]] with [[charcoal]].

[[Category:Elements]]

Dictionary

2009-02-21T16:37:08Z

GFasten:

A '''dictionary''' is a book that contains an [[alphabet]]ized listing of ideally all known words in a particular language. Typically, the meanings of the words are given along with their origin, accepted spelling, pronunciation, [[part of speech]], and plurals. Some dictionaries also include example sentences or words translated from other languages. The creation of dictionaries can be a dynamic process, due to languages continually developing new words.

== Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries ==

* Many world renowned dictionaries contain liberal or atheistic bias, for example the Oxford English Dictionary defines evolution as "a process by which species develop from earlier appearance as an explanation of their origins", the definition contains no information stating this is only a theory and does not point to alternate theories which are just as or more viable.

[[category:linguistics]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T15:06:28Z

GFasten:

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

:Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup>

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: (interposed) I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that.

::::::: As to the rest of your statement, people obviously get more than "one chance", but it's not infinity. Justice necessarily entails harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and even the death penalty here on Earth. Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::By "one chance" I meant your life. I apologize for any confusion. Obviously you have multiple chances to be saved, but after you are dead not as much. And my statement about the physical punishment comes from the fact people eventually acclimate to harsh conditions, but not as much to the psychological. Of course, it could easily be a combination of the two. If you are there for all eternity, and nobody can (or will) help or even comfort you, that would be despair beyond anything.

:::::::::::(breaking in later) My response will differ from Andy's because I'm a [[Unificationist]], but I agree about the psychological aspect. People genuinely suffer in hell, and the worst part is probably regret. But unlike most Christians, I believe that it is possible to get a second chance after death. In the Unification Church, we call this "[[returning resurrection]]". Don't confuse it with [[reincarnation]] (a doctrine we regard as heretical at best, and probably pernicious as well).
:::::::::::If there is a way for spirit men to influence earthly humans, then might they not "come down" in some way and help us attain [[spiritual growth]] "since God had planned something better for us, so that they would not be perfected without us." (Hebrews 11:40) I know this is not mainstream Christianity, but it's what [[Reverend Moon]] teaches. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Also, to CD's question about those who never had the chance to know God, there's a few ideas about that. Though not canon, Dante described the "virtuous pagans" and unbaptized as going to Limbo, the outermost ring of Hell where there is no punishment, but no chance of salvation either. There's also the idea of Purgatory, where they atone their sins before entering Heaven (as far as I know this is mostly a Catholic belief). [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: There wasn't any confusion. I was objecting to your characterization of an entire life as "one chance." People get multiple chances every day, 365 days a year, and decades of years. It takes determination to be hostile to every chance. And that determination ends up in depression, crime, misleading and harming others, and ultimately Hell. The logic is pretty obvious and undeniable. Notice how you didn't reply to my observation that the devil delights in harming people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::I didn't reply because I'm sure that he does in fact enjoy doing so. However, there are many ways to harm a person. And yes, there are multiple chances in life, I'll admit it was a faulty characterization. I'm sure that neither of us have any wish to see or know exactly what the Devil does in Hell to punish the damned. Perhaps it is something too terrible to imagine that makes whips and fire seem pleasant in comparison. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 00:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

:::::::CD, atheism in Canada has led to far less charity than in the U.S., both in average dollars and percentages. Atheists as a group censor Christianity, as in classroom prayer and preaching from the Bible. Let's tell the truth here: atheism is hostile to Christianity. Don't expect Christ, a real person, to be pleased about that. Our criminal justice system punishes people who selfishly cause harm. God can be expected to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) ''homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is'' - I disagree. Research shows they are not. Where did you get that notion?

And there is no "[[punishment]]": the consequences of leading a life of homosexuality are natural (compare [[logical consequences]] in [[child discipline]], regrettably a red link at this writing - but this debate might become famous later on).

The problem with [[homosexual acts]], as with any other sin, is that it retards our spiritual growth or oven undoes it. People who steal, for example, necessarily lose their respect for other people's property and well-being. People who fornicate (i.e., engage in [[sexual intercourse]] outside of marriage) are largely using each other. The only way to express conjugal love properly is in the husband-wife relationship, as God ordained (Genesis 2:24). As to why this is so, you'll have to read [[Richard Cohen]]'s book, ''[[Coming Out Straight]]''. There are summaries and excerpts available at http://www.gaytostraight.org/ if you want to read more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:33, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== More responses ==

An interesting discussion, and so one that I'll put my two bob's worth into.

I don't have any real issues with CPalmer's opening paragraphs, but will quibble about one minor point. He says that "we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in.". Well, no, we don't know that, for certain. Just because we've mapped ''most'' of the Earth (there's some parts that are not well explored, especially including to ocean bottoms), doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly exist on Earth, and neither does it mean that it's not a physical place somewhere else in the universe. I'm not claiming that either of those are the case, however.

Conservativedude's response is little more than unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as argument. His only attempt at support (that hell was invented to control people) is itself unsubstantiated polemic. I have quite different views to Ed Poor, so I won't comment on Conservativedude's reply to him, and I think some of Andy's comments are not ones that I would make, so I also won't respond to most of Conservativedude's reply to him, except that I will point out that his question, "How can they go to a place they have no concept of?" is nonsense. If you discover a native in the jungles of the New Guinea, for example, who has no concept of Australia, does that mean that he can't go there? Of course not. All it needs is for someone to take him.

I'll also reply to Conservativedude's claims about Christianity and God. Christianity itself may be relatively new, but it is the natural continuation of the belief in the true God which is traceable back through the Israelites, Abraham, Noah, and etc. to Adam. As for ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., ''everyone'' has had the opportunity to acknowledge God: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 8:20). Many Christians are unsure just how God is going to handle this situation, but they have faith that the perfect, loving, and ''just'' God will handle the situation fairly.

Now to my views...

Is hell a physical place? We are told that when we go to Heaven, we will receive new bodies. From a science fiction point of view, "body" usually indicates something physical, as opposed to a non-material being. And the same seems to apply in the Bible. God is a bodiless spirit, but when He came to Earth as Jesus, He did so with a physical body. So likely that new body will also be physical. This is further supported by a reference (I'm sure, but I don't recall where) about Jesus' wounds (from the cross) still being visible in Heaven. Nevertheless, I believe that there remains the ''possibility'' that the new body will not be a physical one. But if it's physical, then this implies (requires?) that Heaven itself be a physical place. And I believe that this is how most Christians understand it. Although some references to it in the Bible may be symbolic (streets paved with gold, for example), many references do imply something physical about it.

That therefore suggests (but doesn't prove) that hell is also a physical place. However, there is also the possibility that that will be one of the horrors of hell—no bodies!

I don't think this discussion on the ''location'' of hell can avoid the question of the ''nature'' of hell, so I'll address that.

Just like the story of the blind men who describe an elephant in quite different ways because they are feeling different parts of it, I believe that there are a number of characteristics of hell that appear to be quite different yet really are talking about the same place.

One way of looking at hell is that it is nothing more or less than the place where God isn't. That is, there may be no actual punishments, tortures, or the like there at all. The torment will be nothing more than the absence of God. '''However''', as God is the creator of everything, and the Bible tells us that God "... is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17). So what happens when everything that God has provided—our bodies, our friends, our ability to love, our curiosity, etc.—are no longer held together by God? Simply being somewhere that God is no longer "holding together" would have to be the worst torment of all—''without God actually doing any tormenting''! That is, those people who have rejected God have simply gotten what they wanted—existence without God.

But of course this doesn't mean that all those "horror stories" about how bad hell is are nonsense. Hell ''is'' a horrible place, but only because God isn't there. So does that mean that it's a place of eternal punishment, or not? I guess that depends on how you define "punishment". If "punishment" is defined as the consequences of your actions (rejecting God, in this case), then yes it is.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)

: I would agree with you there PJR, in my opinion Hell isn't the stereotypical brimstones and fire, it is your soul's absence from God for eternity which is surley the greatest "punishment". Another interesting point is, once a soul is in hell, is redemption ever possible if you accept God and seek forgiveness? On the topic of where Hell actually is, I don't think its anywhere that is physically accesible to us while we are alive, however that is merely speculation, one can't rule out the possibility of it being located somewhere physically in this universe since we have not and most probably will not ever be able to explore it all. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 07:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:: Again I object to the attempts to downplay or dilute the suffering in Hell. It's illogical to pretend that Hell is a "not so bad" place. Very harsh punishment is a basic attribute of any system of justice, and just visit a courtroom one day if you don't believe me. Note also that the devil, to the extent he (or evil) rules over Hell, delights in harming people as much as possible.

:: There is real suffering on Earth. There is no reason to expect there is not even worse suffering for those, like atheists, who engage in selfishness (e.g., less charitable giving), deceit, and harming people by censoring Christianity (e.g., censoring classroom prayer or criticism of evolution).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)

::: I'm not sure which one of us you were replying to. Neither of us is "downplaying" the suffering of hell. If anything, we're doing the opposite. Eternal separation from God is the worst possible torment/suffering that one could experience. Yes, far worse than anything on Earth, where God is still present, and holding all together.
::: What makes you think that Satan will be ruling over hell, given that he is also subject to eternal punishment?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::: I think the fact that when a soul is in hell it is not in a physical form, like you would be on Earth, means what we would concieve as torture would not work on a non-physical being. Instead the emotional torment and quite frankly terrifying emptyness is by far the worst punishment possible. I agree with you Andy that Satan orcestrates and presides over this, and even though he himself is subject to eternal punishment, part of this punishment is "being in charge" as it were. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 10:06, 21 February 2009 (EST)

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T12:45:07Z

GFasten: /* More responses */

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup>

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: (interposed) I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that.

::::::: As to the rest of your statement, people obviously get more than "one chance", but it's not infinity. Justice necessarily entails harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and even the death penalty here on Earth. Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::By "one chance" I meant your life. I apologize for any confusion. Obviously you have multiple chances to be saved, but after you are dead not as much. And my statement about the physical punishment comes from the fact people eventually acclimate to harsh conditions, but not as much to the psychological. Of course, it could easily be a combination of the two. If you are there for all eternity, and nobody can (or will) help or even comfort you, that would be despair beyond anything.
::::::::Also, to CD's question about those who never had the chance to know God, there's a few ideas about that. Though not canon, Dante described the "virtuous pagans" and unbaptized as going to Limbo, the outermost ring of Hell where there is no punishment, but no chance of salvation either. There's also the idea of Purgatory, where they atone their sins before entering Heaven (as far as I know this is mostly a Catholic belief). [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: There wasn't any confusion. I was objecting to your characterization of an entire life as "one chance." People get multiple chances every day, 365 days a year, and decades of years. It takes determination to be hostile to every chance. And that determination ends up in depression, crime, misleading and harming others, and ultimately Hell. The logic is pretty obvious and undeniable. Notice how you didn't reply to my observation that the devil delights in harming people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::I didn't reply because I'm sure that he does in fact enjoy doing so. However, there are many ways to harm a person. And yes, there are multiple chances in life, I'll admit it was a faulty characterization. I'm sure that neither of us have any wish to see or know exactly what the Devil does in Hell to punish the damned. Perhaps it is something too terrible to imagine that makes whips and fire seem pleasant in comparison. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 00:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

:::::::CD, atheism in Canada has led to far less charity than in the U.S., both in average dollars and percentages. Atheists as a group censor Christianity, as in classroom prayer and preaching from the Bible. Let's tell the truth here: atheism is hostile to Christianity. Don't expect Christ, a real person, to be pleased about that. Our criminal justice system punishes people who selfishly cause harm. God can be expected to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== More responses ==

An interesting discussion, and so one that I'll put my two bob's worth into.

I don't have any real issues with CPalmer's opening paragraphs, but will quibble about one minor point. He says that "we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in.". Well, no, we don't know that, for certain. Just because we've mapped ''most'' of the Earth (there's some parts that are not well explored, especially including to ocean bottoms), doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly exist on Earth, and neither does it mean that it's not a physical place somewhere else in the universe. I'm not claiming that either of those are the case, however.

Conservativedude's response is little more than unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as argument. His only attempt at support (that hell was invented to control people) is itself unsubstantiated polemic. I have quite different views to Ed Poor, so I won't comment on Conservativedude's reply to him, and I think some of Andy's comments are not ones that I would make, so I also won't respond to most of Conservativedude's reply to him, except that I will point out that his question, "How can they go to a place they have no concept of?" is nonsense. If you discover a native in the jungles of the New Guinea, for example, who has no concept of Australia, does that mean that he can't go there? Of course not. All it needs is for someone to take him.

I'll also reply to Conservativedude's claims about Christianity and God. Christianity itself may be relatively new, but it is the natural continuation of the belief in the true God which is traceable back through the Israelites, Abraham, Noah, and etc. to Adam. As for ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., ''everyone'' has had the opportunity to acknowledge God: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 8:20). Many Christians are unsure just how God is going to handle this situation, but they have faith that the perfect, loving, and ''just'' God will handle the situation fairly.

Now to my views...

Is hell a physical place? We are told that when we go to Heaven, we will receive new bodies. From a science fiction point of view, "body" usually indicates something physical, as opposed to a non-material being. And the same seems to apply in the Bible. God is a bodiless spirit, but when He came to Earth as Jesus, He did so with a physical body. So likely that new body will also be physical. This is further supported by a reference (I'm sure, but I don't recall where) about Jesus' wounds (from the cross) still being visible in Heaven. Nevertheless, I believe that there remains the ''possibility'' that the new body will not be a physical one. But if it's physical, then this implies (requires?) that Heaven itself be a physical place. And I believe that this is how most Christians understand it. Although some references to it in the Bible may be symbolic (streets paved with gold, for example), many references do imply something physical about it.

That therefore suggests (but doesn't prove) that hell is also a physical place. However, there is also the possibility that that will be one of the horrors of hell—no bodies!

I don't think this discussion on the ''location'' of hell can avoid the question of the ''nature'' of hell, so I'll address that.

Just like the story of the blind men who describe an elephant in quite different ways because they are feeling different parts of it, I believe that there are a number of characteristics of hell that appear to be quite different yet really are talking about the same place.

One way of looking at hell is that it is nothing more or less than the place where God isn't. That is, there may be no actual punishments, tortures, or the like there at all. The torment will be nothing more than the absence of God. '''However''', as God is the creator of everything, and the Bible tells us that God "... is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17). So what happens when everything that God has provided—our bodies, our friends, our ability to love, our curiosity, etc.—are no longer held together by God? Simply being somewhere that God is no longer "holding together" would have to be the worst torment of all—''without God actually doing any tormenting''! That is, those people who have rejected God have simply gotten what they wanted—existence without God.

But of course this doesn't mean that all those "horror stories" about how bad hell is are nonsense. Hell ''is'' a horrible place, but only because God isn't there. So does that mean that it's a place of eternal punishment, or not? I guess that depends on how you define "punishment". If "punishment" is defined as the consequences of your actions (rejecting God, in this case), then yes it is.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)

: I would agree with you there PJR, in my opinion Hell isn't the stereotypical brimstones and fire, it is your soul's absence from God for eternity which is surley the greatest "punishment". Another interesting point is, once a soul is in hell, is redemption ever possible if you accept God and seek forgiveness? On the topic of where Hell actually is, I don't think its anywhere that is physically accesible to us while we are alive, however that is merely speculation, one can't rule out the possibility of it being located somewhere physically in this universe since we have not and most probably will not ever be able to explore it all. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 07:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T12:41:33Z

GFasten: /* More responses */

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup>

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: (interposed) I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that.

::::::: As to the rest of your statement, people obviously get more than "one chance", but it's not infinity. Justice necessarily entails harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and even the death penalty here on Earth. Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::By "one chance" I meant your life. I apologize for any confusion. Obviously you have multiple chances to be saved, but after you are dead not as much. And my statement about the physical punishment comes from the fact people eventually acclimate to harsh conditions, but not as much to the psychological. Of course, it could easily be a combination of the two. If you are there for all eternity, and nobody can (or will) help or even comfort you, that would be despair beyond anything.
::::::::Also, to CD's question about those who never had the chance to know God, there's a few ideas about that. Though not canon, Dante described the "virtuous pagans" and unbaptized as going to Limbo, the outermost ring of Hell where there is no punishment, but no chance of salvation either. There's also the idea of Purgatory, where they atone their sins before entering Heaven (as far as I know this is mostly a Catholic belief). [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: There wasn't any confusion. I was objecting to your characterization of an entire life as "one chance." People get multiple chances every day, 365 days a year, and decades of years. It takes determination to be hostile to every chance. And that determination ends up in depression, crime, misleading and harming others, and ultimately Hell. The logic is pretty obvious and undeniable. Notice how you didn't reply to my observation that the devil delights in harming people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::I didn't reply because I'm sure that he does in fact enjoy doing so. However, there are many ways to harm a person. And yes, there are multiple chances in life, I'll admit it was a faulty characterization. I'm sure that neither of us have any wish to see or know exactly what the Devil does in Hell to punish the damned. Perhaps it is something too terrible to imagine that makes whips and fire seem pleasant in comparison. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 00:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

:::::::CD, atheism in Canada has led to far less charity than in the U.S., both in average dollars and percentages. Atheists as a group censor Christianity, as in classroom prayer and preaching from the Bible. Let's tell the truth here: atheism is hostile to Christianity. Don't expect Christ, a real person, to be pleased about that. Our criminal justice system punishes people who selfishly cause harm. God can be expected to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== More responses ==

An interesting discussion, and so one that I'll put my two bob's worth into.

I don't have any real issues with CPalmer's opening paragraphs, but will quibble about one minor point. He says that "we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in.". Well, no, we don't know that, for certain. Just because we've mapped ''most'' of the Earth (there's some parts that are not well explored, especially including to ocean bottoms), doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly exist on Earth, and neither does it mean that it's not a physical place somewhere else in the universe. I'm not claiming that either of those are the case, however.

Conservativedude's response is little more than unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as argument. His only attempt at support (that hell was invented to control people) is itself unsubstantiated polemic. I have quite different views to Ed Poor, so I won't comment on Conservativedude's reply to him, and I think some of Andy's comments are not ones that I would make, so I also won't respond to most of Conservativedude's reply to him, except that I will point out that his question, "How can they go to a place they have no concept of?" is nonsense. If you discover a native in the jungles of the New Guinea, for example, who has no concept of Australia, does that mean that he can't go there? Of course not. All it needs is for someone to take him.

I'll also reply to Conservativedude's claims about Christianity and God. Christianity itself may be relatively new, but it is the natural continuation of the belief in the true God which is traceable back through the Israelites, Abraham, Noah, and etc. to Adam. As for ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., ''everyone'' has had the opportunity to acknowledge God: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 8:20). Many Christians are unsure just how God is going to handle this situation, but they have faith that the perfect, loving, and ''just'' God will handle the situation fairly.

Now to my views...

Is hell a physical place? We are told that when we go to Heaven, we will receive new bodies. From a science fiction point of view, "body" usually indicates something physical, as opposed to a non-material being. And the same seems to apply in the Bible. God is a bodiless spirit, but when He came to Earth as Jesus, He did so with a physical body. So likely that new body will also be physical. This is further supported by a reference (I'm sure, but I don't recall where) about Jesus' wounds (from the cross) still being visible in Heaven. Nevertheless, I believe that there remains the ''possibility'' that the new body will not be a physical one. But if it's physical, then this implies (requires?) that Heaven itself be a physical place. And I believe that this is how most Christians understand it. Although some references to it in the Bible may be symbolic (streets paved with gold, for example), many references do imply something physical about it.

That therefore suggests (but doesn't prove) that hell is also a physical place. However, there is also the possibility that that will be one of the horrors of hell—no bodies!

I don't think this discussion on the ''location'' of hell can avoid the question of the ''nature'' of hell, so I'll address that.

Just like the story of the blind men who describe an elephant in quite different ways because they are feeling different parts of it, I believe that there are a number of characteristics of hell that appear to be quite different yet really are talking about the same place.

One way of looking at hell is that it is nothing more or less than the place where God isn't. That is, there may be no actual punishments, tortures, or the like there at all. The torment will be nothing more than the absence of God. '''However''', as God is the creator of everything, and the Bible tells us that God "... is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17). So what happens when everything that God has provided—our bodies, our friends, our ability to love, our curiosity, etc.—are no longer held together by God? Simply being somewhere that God is no longer "holding together" would have to be the worst torment of all—''without God actually doing any tormenting''! That is, those people who have rejected God have simply gotten what they wanted—existence without God.

But of course this doesn't mean that all those "horror stories" about how bad hell is are nonsense. Hell ''is'' a horrible place, but only because God isn't there. So does that mean that it's a place of eternal punishment, or not? I guess that depends on how you define "punishment". If "punishment" is defined as the consequences of your actions (rejecting God, in this case), then yes it is.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)

: I would agree with you there PJR, in my opinion Hell isn't the stereotypical brimstones and fire, it is your soul's absence from God for eternity which is surley the greatest "punishment". Another interesting point is, once a soul is in hell, is redemption ever possible if you accept God and seek forgiveness? [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 07:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

India

2009-02-19T21:11:03Z

GFasten: /* Recent History */

{{Country
|name =''भारत गणराज्य <br/>Bhārat Gaharājya''
|map =India rel01.jpg
|flag =Flag of India svg.png
|arms =Emblem of India.png
|capital =New Delhi
|capital-raw =
|government =Federal Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Hindi
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Pratibha Patil
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Manmohan Singh
|pm-raw =
|area =3,287,590 sq mi
|pop =1,129,866,154 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$4.2 trillion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$3,800 (2006)
|currency =rupee
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Republic of India''' is a nation located in [[South Asia]]. It spans from the [[Himalayas]] in the north to the [[Indian Ocean]]. It borders [[China]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Nepal]], [[Bhutan]] and [[Myanmar]]. India is the 7th largest country in the world in terms of area and second most populous country (standing at around 1.1 billion according to 2006 estimate), only behind China. Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, the history, culture and tradition of India is more than 3000 years old. Though India is the world's fourth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, it has high levels of [[poverty]], [[illiteracy]], [[corruption]] and [[crime]].

==Etymology==
The name "India" came from the word 'Indus', which derives from the Persian word "Hindu" which was used to describe the Sindhu river (now known as the Indus).

==People==
[[Image:Haveli in Mandawa, India.jpg|240px|right]]
Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world's land area, it supports over 15% of the world's population; only China has a larger population. India's median age is 25, one of the youngest among large economies. About 70% live in more than 550,000 villages, and the remainder in more than 200 towns and cities. Over the thousands of years of its history, India has been invaded from the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, Arabia, Afghanistan, and the West; Indian people and culture have absorbed and modified these influences to produce a remarkable racial and cultural synthesis.

Religion, caste, and language are major determinants of social and political organization in India today. However, with more job opportunities in the private sector and better chances of upward social mobility, India has begun a quiet social transformation in this area. The government has recognized 18 official languages; Hindi, the national language, is the most widely spoken, although English is a national lingua franca. Although 81% of its people are Hindu, India also is the home of more than 138 million Muslims--one of the world's largest Muslim populations. The population also includes Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Parsis.

The Hindu caste system reflects Indian occupational and socially defined hierarchies. Ancient Sanskrit sources divide society into four major categories, priests (Brahmin), warriors (Kshatriya), traders (Vaishya) and farmers/laborers (Shudra). Although these categories are understood throughout India, they describe reality only in the most general terms. They omit, for example, the tribes and those once known as "untouchables." In reality, Indian society is divided into thousands of jatis--local, endogamous groups based on occupation--and organized hierarchically according to complex ideas of purity and pollution. Discrimination based on caste is officially illegal, but remains prevalent, especially in rural areas. Nevertheless, the government has made strong efforts to minimize the importance of caste through active affirmative action and social policies. Moreover, caste has been diluted if not subsumed in the economically prosperous and heterogeneous cities, where an increasing percentage of India's population lives. In the countryside, expanding education, land reform and economic opportunity through access to information, communication, transport, and credit have lessened the harshest elements of the caste system.

==Religions==

===Overview===

India has over 900 million [[Hindu]]s, 150 millions [[Muslim]]s, 25 million [[Christian]]s and 20 million [[Sikh]]s among the many religious groups that make up the country<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html</ref> including communities of [[Jain]]s, [[Buddhist]]s, and [[Bahai]].

India is the region where four major world religions were founded:
*[[Hinduism]]
*[[Buddhism]]
*[[Jainism]]
*[[Sikhism]]

Today, Hinduism and Buddhism are the world's third- and fourth-largest religions respectively, after Christianity and Islam, with a collective 1.4 billion followers.

===Hinduism in India===

Hinduism as it is identified today has existed in India for over 4000 years; in the past it had spread to the rest of South-East [[Asia]] and [[Indonesia]], although Hinduism is practiced outside India today only in the island of [[Bali]].

The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (1500–500BC) are called the "historical Vedic religion". Modern Hinduism grew out of the [[Vedas]],a large corpus of texts originating in Ancient India. They form the oldest layer of [[Sanskrit]] literature and the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism.[, the oldest of which is the [[Rigveda]], dated to 1700–1100BC. The Vedas center on worship of deities such as [[Indra]], Varuna and Agni, and on the Soma ritual. They performed fire-sacrifices, called yajña and chanted Vedic mantras but did not build temples or icons. The oldest Vedic traditions exhibit strong similarities to [[Zoroastrian]]ism and with other Indo-European religions. During the Epic and Puranic periods, the earliest versions of the epic poems [[Ramayana]] and [[Mahabharata]] were written roughly from 500–100BC, although these were orally transmitted for centuries prior to this period. The epics contain mythological stories about the rulers and wars of ancient India, and are interspersed with religious and philosophical treatises. The later Puranas recount tales about devas and devis, their interactions with humans and their battles against demons.

===Buddhism in India===

Buddhism originated in Eastern India in the 6th century B.C. and spread to the rest of Asia through individual and organized missionaries, although there are few practicing Buddhists left in India today.

===Jainism in India===

Jainism originated in Eastern India in the 6th century B.C. and spread to the rest of India; today they are mostly concentrated in the Southern and Western parts of the country.

===Sikhism in India===

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion that originated in India in the 16th century A.D.

===Other Religions in India===

[[Christianity]] arrived in India in the first century A.D., possibly through the travels of the [[Apostle Thomas]], whose tomb in the Indian city of Chennai is a major pilgrimage site for Christians in India.

[[Islam]] arrived in the latter half of the 8th century A.D. as a consequence of both war and trade. It continued to spread with invasions, wars and forced conversions by Afghans and Turkic Mongols. They slowly integrated into the society and formed India's Islamic tradition. The [[Taj Mahal]], India's national monument, was built by a Muslim emperor named Shah Jahan. Islam is practiced by around 13.4% of all Indians.
[[Image:Taj Mahal.jpg|thumb|Taj Mahal]]

Although small in number, India does have a Jewish community. The first identifiably [[Judaism|Jewish]] migrants arrived in India as the Bene Israel group. There is some debate as to the Jewishness of a possibly older group of Indians in the Northeastern part of the country called the Bnei Menashe.

===Religious Persecution===

While for many years India has been known as an area of the world where a melting pot of religions could be practiced freely, troubling and persistent persecution against [[Christian]]s by the [[Hindu]] majority arose in the 1990s and has continued since that time. In October 2008, 38 Christians were killed and 30,000 fled from efforts of Hindu militants to force them to convert to Hinduism<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27380721</ref>

==Government==
According to its Constitution, India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." Like the United States, India has a federal form of government. However, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and has adopted a British-style parliamentary system.

The government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the president, whose duties are largely ceremonial. A special electoral college elects the president and vice president indirectly for 5-year terms. Their terms are staggered, and the vice president does not automatically become president following the death or removal from office of the president.

Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers (Cabinet), led by the prime minister. The president appoints the prime minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority in the Lok Sabha (lower house). The president then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the prime minister.

India's bicameral Parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha.

The legislatures of the states and union territories elect 233 members to the Rajya Sabha, and the president appoints another 12. The members of the Rajya Sabha serve 6-year terms, with one-third up for election every 2 years. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members, who serve 5-year terms; 543 are directly elected, and two are appointed.

India's independent judicial system began under the British, and its concepts and procedures resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and 25 other justices, all appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister.

India has 28 states* and 7 union territories. At the state level, some legislatures are bicameral, patterned after the two houses of the national parliament. The states' chief ministers are responsible to the legislatures in the same way the prime minister is responsible to Parliament.

Each state also has a presidentially appointed governor, who may assume certain broad powers when directed by the central government. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained more power to administer their own affairs. Local governments in India have less autonomy than their counterparts in the United States. Some states are trying to revitalize the traditional village councils, or panchayats, to promote popular democratic participation at the village level, where much of the population still lives. Over half a million panchayats exist throughout India.

==Principal Government Officials==
*President--Pratibha Patil
*Vice President--Mohammed Hamid Ansari
*Prime Minister--Dr. Manmohan Singh
*Home Minister--Shivraj Patil
*Minister of External Affairs--Pranab Mukherjee
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Ronen Sen
*Ambassador to the UN--Nirupam Sen

===Political Conditions===
Emerging as the nation's single largest party in the April/May 2004 Lok Sabha election, Congress currently leads a coalition government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Party President Sonia Gandhi was re-elected by the Party National Executive in May 2005. Also a Member of Parliament, she heads the Congress Lok Sabha delegation. Congress prides itself as a secular, left of center party, with a long history of political dominance. Although its performance in national elections had steadily declined during the last 12 years, its surprise victory in 2004 was a result of recruiting strong allies into the UPA, the anti-incumbency factor among voters, and its courtship of India's many poor, rural and Muslim voters. Congress political fortunes suffered badly in the 1990s, as many traditional supporters were lost to emerging regional and caste-based parties, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party, but have rebounded since its May 2004 ascension to power. It currently rules either directly or in coalition with its allies in 9 states. In November 2005, the Congress regained the Chief Ministership of Jammu and Kashmir state, under a power-sharing agreement.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Rajnath Singh, holds the second-largest number of seats in the Lok Sabha. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee serves as Chairman of the BJP Parliamentary Party, and former Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani is Leader of the Opposition. The Hindu-nationalist BJP draws its political strength mainly from the "Hindi Belt" in the northern and western regions of India.

The party holds power in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa--in coalition with the Biju Janata Dal. Popularly viewed as the party of the northern upper caste and trading communities, the BJP made strong inroads into lower castes in recent national and state assembly elections. The party must balance the competing interests of Hindu nationalists, (who advocate construction of a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, and other primarily religious issues), and center-right modernizers who see the BJP as a party of economic and political reform.

Four Communist and Marxist parties are united in a bloc called the "Left Front," which controls 57 parliamentary seats. The Left Front rules the states of West Bengal and Kerala. Although it has not joined the government, Left Front support provides the crucial seats necessary for the UPA to retain power in New Delhi; without its support, the UPA government would fall. It advocates a secular and Communist ideology and opposes many aspects of economic liberalization and globalization, resulting in dissonance with Prime Minister Singh's liberal economic approach.

==Foreign Relations==
India's size, population, and strategic location give it a prominent voice in international affairs, and its growing economic strength, military prowess, and scientific and technical capacity give it added weight. The end of the Cold War dramatically affected Indian foreign policy. India remains a leader of the developing world and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). India is now strengthening its political and commercial ties with the United States, Japan, the European Union, Iran, China, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. India is an active member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Always an active member of the United Nations, India now seeks a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. India has a long tradition of participating in UN peacekeeping operations.

==Bilateral and Regional Relations==

===Pakistan===

India and Pakistan have been locked in a tense rivalry since the partition of the subcontinent upon achieving independence from Great Britain in 1947. The principal source of contention has been Kashmir, whose Hindu Maharaja at that time chose to join India, although a majority of his subjects were Muslim. India maintains that his decision and subsequent elections in Kashmir have made it an integral part of India. This dispute triggered wars between the two countries in 1947 and 1965 and provoked the Kargil conflict in 1999.

Pakistan and India fought a war in December 1971 following a political crisis in what was then East Pakistan and the flight of millions of Bengali refugees to India. The brief conflict left the situation largely unchanged in the west, where the two armies reached an impasse, but a decisive Indian victory in the east resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.

Since the 1971 war, Pakistan and India have made slow progress toward normalization of relations. In July 1972, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto met in the Indian hill station of Simla. They signed an agreement by which India would return all personnel and captured territory in the west and the two countries would "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations." Diplomatic and trade relations were re-established in 1976.

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan caused new strains between India and Pakistan. Pakistan supported the Afghan resistance, while India implicitly supported the Soviet occupation. In the following eight years, India voiced increasing concern over Pakistani arms purchases, U.S. military aid to Pakistan, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. In an effort to curtail tensions, the two countries formed a joint commission. In December 1988, Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto concluded a pact not to attack each other's nuclear facilities and initiated agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation.

In 1997, high-level Indo-Pakistani talks resumed after a three-year pause. The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met twice, and the foreign secretaries conducted three rounds of talks. In June 1997 at Lahore, the foreign secretaries identified eight "outstanding issues" around which continuing talks would be focused. The dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir, an issue since partition, remains the major stumbling block in their dialogue. India maintains that the entire former princely state is an integral part of the Indian union, while Pakistan insists upon the implementation of UN resolutions calling for self-determination for the people of the state.

In September 1997, the talks broke down over the structure of how to deal with the issues of Kashmir and peace and security. Pakistan advocated that separate working groups treat each issue. India responded that the two issues be taken up along with six others on a simultaneous basis. In May 1998 India, and then Pakistan, conducted nuclear tests. Attempts to restart dialogue between the two nations were given a major boost by the February 1999 meeting of both Prime Ministers in Lahore and their signing of three agreements. These efforts were stalled by the intrusion of Pakistani-backed forces into Indian-held territory near Kargil in May 1999 (that nearly turned into full scale war), and by the military coup in Pakistan that overturned the Nawaz Sharif government in October the same year. In July 2001, Mr. Vajpayee and General Pervez Musharraf, leader of Pakistan after the coup, met in Agra, but talks ended after two days without result.

After an attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001, India-Pakistan relations cooled further as India accused Pakistan of involvement. Tensions increased, fueled by killings in Jammu and Kashmir, peaking in a troop buildup by both sides in early 2002.

Prime Minister Vajpayee's April 18, 2003 speech in Srinagar (Kashmir) revived bilateral efforts to normalize relations. In November 2003, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf agreed to a ceasefire, which still holds, along the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir. After a series of confidence building measures, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf met on the sidelines of the January 2004 SAARC summit in Islamabad and agreed to commence a Composite Dialogue addressing outstanding issues between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. The UPA government has continued the Composite Dialogue with Pakistan.

In February 2004, India and Pakistan agreed to restart the "2+6" Composite Dialogue formula, which provides for talks on Peace and Security and Jammu and Kashmir, followed by technical and Secretary-level discussions on six other bilateral disputes: Siachen Glacier, Wuller Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek estuary, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial cooperation, and the Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in various fields. The Foreign Secretary talks resumed in November 2006, after a three-month delay following the July 11, 2006 terrorist bombings in Mumbai. The meeting generated modest progress, with the two sides agreeing to establish a joint mechanism on counter-terrorism and agreeing to a follow-on meeting in February 2007. The restart of the Composite Dialogue process is especially significant, given the almost six years that transpired since the two sides agreed to this formula in 1997-98.

Following the October 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, the two governments coordinated relief efforts and opened access points along the Line-of-Control to allow relief supplies to flow from India to Pakistan and to allow Kashmiris from both sides to visit one another.

===South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)===

Certain aspects of India's relations within the subcontinent are conducted through the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Its members are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, with the People's Republic of China, Iran, Japan, European Union, Republic of Korea, and the U.S. as observers. Established in 1985, SAARC encourages cooperation in agriculture, rural development, science and technology, culture, health, population control, narcotics, and terrorism.

SAARC has intentionally stressed these "core issues" and avoided those which could prove divisive, although political dialogue is often conducted on the margins of SAARC meetings. In 1993, India and its SAARC partners signed an agreement gradually to lower tariffs within the region. Forward movement in SAARC had slowed because of tension between India and Pakistan, and the SAARC summit scheduled for 1999 was not held until January 2002. In addition, to boost the process of normalizing India's relationship with Pakistan, the January 2004 SAARC summit in Islamabad produced an agreement to establish a South Asia Free Trade Area (SAFTA). All the member governments have ratified SAFTA, which was slated to come into force on January 1, 2006, with a series of graduated tariff cuts through 2015. As of December 2006, however, the FTA partners were still negotiating sensitive product lists, rules of origin, and technical assistance. India hosted the 2007 SAARC summit, which called for greater regional cooperation on trade, environmental, social, and counterterrorism issues.

===People's Republic of China===

Despite suspicions remaining from a 1962 border conflict between India and China and continuing territorial/boundary disputes, Sino-Indian relations have improved gradually since 1988. Both countries have sought to reduce tensions along the frontier, expand trade and cultural ties, and normalize relations. Their bilateral trade reached $24 billion in 2006. China is India's second-largest trading partner behind the U.S.

A series of high-level visits between the two nations has improved relations. In December 1996, Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited India on a tour of South Asia. While in New Delhi, he and the Indian Prime Minister signed a series of confidence-building measures along the disputed border, including troop reductions and weapons limitations.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao invited Prime Minister Vajpayee to visit China in June 2003. They recognized the common goals of both countries and made the commitment to build a "long-term constructive and cooperative partnership" to peacefully promote their mutual political and economic goals without encroaching upon their good relations with other countries. In Beijing, Prime Minister Vajpayee proposed the designation of special representatives to discuss the border dispute at the political level, a process that is still under way.

In November 2006, President Hu Jintao made an official state visit to India, further cementing Sino-Indian relations. India and China are building on growing economic ties to improve other aspects of their relationship such as counter-terrorism, energy, and trade. In another symbol of improved ties, the two countries opened the Nathu La Pass to bilateral trade in July 2006 for the first time in 40 years. Though it is the first direct land trade route in decades, trade is expected to be local and small since the pass is open only four months a year.

===Former Soviet Union===

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for Indian foreign policy. India's substantial trade with the region plummeted after the Soviet collapse and has yet to recover. Longstanding military supply relationships were similarly disrupted due to questions over financing. Russia nonetheless remains India's largest supplier of military systems and spare parts.

Russia and India have not renewed the 1971 Indo-Soviet Peace and Friendship Treaty and follow what both describe as a more pragmatic, less ideological relationship. The visit of Russian President Boris Yeltsin to India in January 1993 helped cement this new relationship. The pace of high-level visits has since increased, as has discussion of major defense purchases. UPA leader Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Singh visited Russia in July 2005. President Vladimir Putin traveled to India in January 2007 to attend an Indo-Russia Summit and was the guest of honor at India's Republic Day celebrations.

==Defense==
The supreme command of the Indian armed forces is vested in the President of India. Policies concerning India's defense, and the armed forces as a whole, are formulated and confirmed by the Cabinet.

===Indian Army===

The Indian Army numbers over 1.1 million strong and fields 34 divisions. Its primary task is to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country against external threats. The Army has been heavily committed in the recent past to counterterrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the in the Northeast. Its current modernization program focuses on obtaining equipment to be used in combating terror. The Army often provides aid to civil authorities and assists the government in organizing relief operations.

===Indian Navy===

The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region. The Navy's primary missions are the defense of India and of India's vital sea lines of communication. India relies on the sea for 90% of its oil and natural gas and over 90% of its foreign trade. The Navy currently operates one aircraft carrier with two on order, 14 submarines, and 15 major surface combatants. It is capable of projecting power within the Indian Ocean basin and occasionally operates in the South China Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Fleet introduction of the Brahmos cruise missile and the possible lease of nuclear submarines from Russia will add significantly to the Indian Navy's flexibility and striking power.

Although small, the Indian Coast Guard has been expanding rapidly in recent years. Indian Navy officers typically fill top Coast Guard positions to ensure coordination between the two services. India's Coast Guard is responsible for control of India's huge exclusive economic zone.

===Indian Air Force===

The Indian Air Force is becoming a 21st century force through modernization, new tactics and the acquisition of modern aircraft, such as the SU-30MKI, a new advanced jet trainer (BAE Hawk) and the indigenously produced advanced light [[helicopter]] (Dhruv). In June 2007, the Indian Government announced intentions to release a request for proposals for 126 multi-role combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force.

==Economy==

===General overview===
[[Image:Krishna a la flute.gif|right|180px]]
India's population is estimated at more than 1.1 billion and is growing at 1.3% a year. It has the world's 12th largest economy--and the third largest in [[Asia]] behind [[Japan]] and [[China]]--with total [[GDP]] of around $1 trillion ($1,000 billion). Services, industry, and [[agriculture]] account for 55%, 27%, and 18% of GDP respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the population depends on agriculture for its livelihood. 700 million Indians live on $2 per day or less, but there is a large and growing [[middle class]] of 325-350 million with disposable income for consumer goods.

India is continuing to move forward with market-oriented economic reforms that began in 1991. Recent reforms include liberalized foreign investment and exchange regimes, industrial decontrol, significant reductions in [[tariff]]s and other trade barriers, reform and modernization of the financial sector, significant adjustments in government monetary and fiscal policies, and safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Real GDP growth for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 was 9.4%, up from 9.0% growth in the previous year. Growth for the year ending March 31, 2008 is expected to be between 8.5-9.0%. Foreign portfolio and direct investment inflows have risen significantly in recent years. They have contributed to $255 billion in foreign exchange reserves by June 2007. Government receipts from privatization were about $3 billion in fiscal year 2003-2004, but the privatization program has stalled since then.

Economic growth is constrained by inadequate infrastructure, a cumbersome bureaucracy, corruption, labor market rigidities, regulatory and foreign investment controls, the "reservation" of key products for small-scale industries, and high (although declining) fiscal deficits. The outlook for further trade liberalization is mixed. India eliminated quotas on 1,420 consumer imports in 2002 and has incrementally lowered non-agricultural customs duties in recent successive budgets. However, the tax structure is complex, with compounding effects of various taxes.

The [[United States]] is India's largest trading partner. Bilateral trade in 2006 was $32 billion. Principal U.S. exports are diagnostic or lab reagents, aircraft and parts, advanced machinery, [[cotton]], [[fertilizer]]s, ferrous waste/scrap metal, and computer hardware. Major U.S. imports from India include [[textile]]s and ready-made garments, Internet-enabled services, agricultural and related products, gems and jewelry, leather products, and chemicals.

The rapidly growing software sector is boosting service exports and modernizing India's economy. Software exports crossed $28 billion in FY 2006-2007, while business process outsourcing (BPO) revenues hit $8.3 billion in 2006-2007. Personal computer penetration is 14 per 1,000 persons. The cellular/mobile market surged to 140 million subscribers by November 2006. The country has 54 million [[cable TV]] customers.

The United States is India's largest investment partner, with a 13% share. India's total inflow of U.S. direct investment is estimated at more than $9 billion through 2006. Proposals for direct foreign investment are considered by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board and generally receive government approval. Automatic approvals are available for investments involving up to 100% foreign equity, depending on the kind of industry. Foreign investment is particularly sought after in power generation, telecommunications, ports, roads, petroleum exploration/processing, and mining.

India's external debt was $155 billion in 2006-2007, up from $126 billion in 2005-2006. Foreign assistance was approximately $3 billion in 2006-2007, with the United States providing about $126 million in development assistance. The [[World Bank]] plans to double aid to India to almost $3 billion a year, with focus on infrastructure, education, health, and rural livelihoods.

===Agriculture===
[[Image:Varma Lady Carrying Fruits.jpg|thumb|Lady Carrying Fruits by Ravi Varma.]]
India has a cultivated area of 138 million hectares which almost equals that of the [[European Union]]. A lot of the land has good agriculture potential especially where water supplies are available. Arable farming, especially cereals is the main kind of farming. India, which has two thirds of its working population relying on the land to earn a living, desperately needs to improve agriculture production in order to develop its economy.

When India became independent from [[Britain]] in 1947 the Indian government recognized agriculture as a key area for economic development. Despite this there has been limited modernization of the sector. There hasn’t been an effective land reform package introduced to redistribute land from wealthy landlords to landless peasants. In the 1990’s almost half of rural families had plots of 0.5 hectares or no land at all, but a quarter of India’s agricultural land was owned by five percent of rich landowning families. This has made it nearly impossible to mechanize and introduce modern farm practices.

The dominant type of farming throughout India is intensive [[Subsistence farming]]. It is used especially in rural areas with high population density, where people depend on being able to feed themselves. [[Rice]] is very important for this type of farming, especially in the Indus and Ganges flood plains. Other crops such as wheat and millet are grown in drier parts of peninsular India. Farming is a family affair, with all planting, flooding and harvesting done by hand. One of the reasons rural Indians have such large families is to provide free labour to help harvest crops. This adds to the pressure on India’s service sector and India’s agriculture sector to meet the demands of India’s ever-growing population.

India is a country that has benefited from the Green revolution. This refers to the development and introduction of genetically modified, high yield varieties of staple crops, such as rice and wheat. These ‘miracle’ crops produce high yields and are resistant to disease and pests. Due to the Green revolution, India has managed to become a net exporter of food.

There is however some problems linked to the Green revolution. It depends on large inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that may be costly and harmful to the soil in the long run. Labour is often replaced with machinery, so rural unemployment goes up and more people leave the land and go to towns, increasing rural-urban migration. A well-educated farm population and capital investment are needed. It only really benefits comparatively few, large-scale farmers; large numbers of small-scale farmers may not be able to benefit from the process.

For a large number of Indian farmers a better solution would be the introduction of more intermediate technology and a more effective programme of land reform. While the Green revolution has brought some positive results, the vast majority of India’s rice farmers use traditional farm practices that depend heavily on the natural environment. The need to match food production to match India’s growing population is a major concern for government.

===Industry===

When India became independent in 1947 it had a largely underdeveloped Industrial system, with textiles and food processing been the key industries in the country. Only two percent of the working population had been employed in industry, which was concentrated in the major cities; [[Bombay]], [[Calcutta]] and [[Madras]]. On gaining independence the new government was determined to reduce India’s dependence on imported goods and to promote greater wealth and employment throughout the country.

The size of India’s population provided it a large home market and the country had some natural resources (coal and Iron) a large and cheap labour force and outputs from agriculture (cotton, Jute) Mineral resources encouraged the government to develop heavy industries, such as Iron and steel, shipbuilding and chemicals. Despite these advantages development was relatively slow and only benefited a few growth centers. In addition, by the 1980’s, many heavy industries were in decline, Industrial policy has changed to emphasize Agri-industries, consumer goods industries and small craft industries, rural development (community based development and self-help schemes) and high technology industries.

Agri-industries would be advantageous to India in that it already employs a large number of people in the agricultural sector. The development of fertilizers, machinery and food processing benefits rural communities and helps in the modernization of India’s agricultural system.

[[Consumer goods]] industries are more labour intensive than large-scale heavy industries, so more jobs are created as a result. They also benefit from low labour costs and traditional skills, which make them more competitive in, export markets. E.g. jewellary, clothing, leather goods etc.

With more than 70% of India’s population living in rural areas, jobs need to be taken to these people rather than encouraging migration to urban areas. This involves support for community development projects and self-help schemes that improve skills levels among the workforce.

High technology (Hi-tech) industries are attracted to India by the growing number of India’s skilled workers (Which produces more university graduates than USA and Canada combined) low costs and improved communication systems. These high value industries add a modern face to Indian industry. Many major multinationals, such as [[IBM]] and [[Texas instruments]], have located in India. Large numbers of locally owned companies have also set up to supply software components to western markets. (See [[Spin-off Effect]])

Although the government has tried to spread industry across the country, this growing sector remains concentrated in a growing number of city regions. The most important are [[Calcutta]], [[Bombay]] and [[Bangalore]]. Bangalore is known as ‘India’s silicon valley’ as a result of all the high-tech industries which have set up there.

==History==

==Bronze Age India==

===Indus Valley Civlization===

The people of India have had a continuous civilization since 3300 B.C., when the inhabitants of the Indus River valley developed an urban culture based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade. The civilization is noted for its cities built of brick, road-side drainage system and multi-storied houses. This civilization declined around 1700 B.C., probably due to ecological changes.

===Vedic Age===

The Vedic culture is the Indo-Aryan culture associated with the Vedas, which are some of the oldest extant texts, orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. It lasted from about 1500 BC to 500 BC; though this is disputed by some Indian historians who posit the earlier date of 3000 BC.. Properly speaking, the first 500 years (1500 - 1000 BC) of the Vedic Age correspond to Bronze Age India and the next 500 years (1000 - 500 BC) to Iron Age India. Many scholars today postulate an Indo-Aryan migration into India, proposing that early Indo-Aryan speaking tribes migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent in the early 2nd millennium BC. Many scholars postulate these Indo-Aryan tribes as originating in Iran, Kurdistan or Anatolia from where they migrated east into India, and west into Europe, overunning the native northern Europeans and finally assimilating with them whilst spreading their language and culture. This has been countered by the proponents of Out of India theory, who claim Aryans were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent.

===Establishment of Mahajanapadas===

In the later Vedic Age, a number of small kingdoms or city states had covered the subcontinent, many mentioned during Vedic literature as far back as 1000 BC. By 600 BC, sixteen monarchies and 'republics' known as the Mahajanapadas — Kasi, Kosala, Anga, Magadha, Vajji (or Vriji), Malla, Chedi, Vatsa (or Vamsa), Kuru, Panchala, Machcha (or Matsya), Surasena, Assaka, Avanti, Gandhara, Kamboja — stretched across the Indo-Gangetic plains from modern-day Afghanistan to south pole. This was the second major urbanisation in India after the Indus Valley Civilization. Many smaller clans mentioned within early literature seem to have been present across the rest of the subcontinent. Some of these kings were hereditary, other city states elected their rulers. The educated speech at that time was Sanskrit, while the dialects of the general population of northern India were referred to as Prakrits. These sixteen kingdoms had reduced to four by 500 BC, that is by the time of Siddhartha Gautama, probably due to infighting. These four were Vatsa, Avanti, Kosala and Magadha.

==Classical India==

===Persian and Greek Invasion===

Much of the northwestern Indian Subcontinent (present day Eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan) came under the rule of the Persian Achaemenid Empire in c. 520 BC during the reign of Darius the Great, and remained so for two centuries thereafter. In 334 BC, Alexander the Great conquered Asia Minor and the Achaemenid Empire, reaching the north-west frontiers of the Indian subcontinent. There, he defeated King Puru in the Battle of the Hydaspes (near modern-day Jhelum, Pakistan) and conquered much of the Punjab; however, Alexander's troops refused to go beyond the Hyphases (Beas) River near modern day Jalandhar, Punjab. Alexander left many Macedonian veterans in the conquered regions<ref>http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander11.html</ref>; he himself turned back and marched his army southwest.

The Persian and Greek invasions had important repercussions on Indian civilization. The political systems of the Persians was to influence future forms of governance on the subcontinent, including the administration of the Mauryan dynasty. In addition, the region of Gandhara, or present-day eastern Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan, became a melting pot of Indian, Persian, Central Asian and Greek cultures and gave rise to a hybrid culture, Greco-Buddhism, which lasted until the 5th century AD and influenced the artistic development of Mahayana Buddhism.

===Maurya and Gupta Dynasties===

The subcontinent was united under the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. It subsequently became fragmented, with various parts ruled by numerous Middle kingdoms for the next ten centuries. Its northern regions were united once again in the 4th century AD, and remained so for two centuries thereafter, under the Gupta Empire. This period was known as the "Golden Age of India." During the same time, and for several centuries afterwards, Southern India, under the rule of the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas and Pandyas, experienced its own golden age, during which Hinduism and Buddhism spread to much of south-east Asia.

==Medieval India==

===The Islamic Sultanates===

Islam spread across the subcontinent over a period of 700 years. In the 10th and 11th centuries, Turks and Afghans invaded India and established sultanates in Delhi. In the early 16th century, Babur, a Turkish adventurer and distant relative of Timurlane, established the Mughal Dynasty, which lasted for 200 years. South India followed an independent path, but by the 17th century large areas of South India came under the direct rule or influence of the expanding Mughal Empire. While most of Indian society in its thousands of villages remained untouched by the political struggles going on around them, Indian courtly culture evolved into a unique blend of Hindu and Muslim traditions.

==Colonial India==

===East India Company===

The first British outpost in South Asia was established by the English East India Company in 1619 at Surat on the northwestern coast. Later in the century, the Company opened permanent trading stations at Madras (now Chennai), Bombay (now Mumbai), and Calcutta (now Kolkata), each under the protection of native rulers.

The British expanded their influence from these footholds until, by the 1850s, they controlled most of present-day India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. In 1857, an unsuccessful rebellion in north India led by Indian soldiers seeking the restoration of the Mughal Emperor caused the British Parliament to transfer political power from the East India Company to the Crown. Great Britain began administering most of India directly, while controlling the rest through treaties with local rulers.

===Beginnings of Independence===

In the late 1800s, the first steps were taken toward self-government in British India with the appointment of Indian councilors to advise the British Viceroy and the establishment of Provincial Councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in Legislative Councils. Beginning in 1920, Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi transformed the Indian National Congress political party into a mass movement to campaign against British colonial rule. The party used both parliamentary and nonviolent resistance and non-cooperation to agitate for independence. During this period, however, millions of Indians served with honor and distinction in the British armed forces, including service in both World Wars and countless other overseas actions in service of the Empire.

==Modern India==

===Independence===

With Indians increasingly united in their quest for independence, a war-weary Britain led by Labor Prime Minister Clement Attlee began in earnest to plan for the end of its suzerainty in India. On August 15, 1947, India became a dominion within the Commonwealth, with Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister. Strategic colonial considerations, as well as political tensions between Hindus and Muslims, led the British to partition British India into two separate states: India, with a Hindu majority; and Pakistan, which consisted of two "wings," East and West Pakistan--currently Bangladesh and Pakistan--with Muslim majorities. India became a republic within the Commonwealth after promulgating its Constitution on January 26, 1950.

===Post-Independence India===

After independence, the Indian National Congress, the party of Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, ruled India under the leadership first of Nehru and then his daughter (Indira Gandhi) and grandson (Rajiv Gandhi), with the exception of brief periods in the 1970s and 1980s, during a short period in 1996, and the period from 1998-2004, when a coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party governed.

Prime Minister Nehru governed the nation until his death in 1964. Nehru was succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri, who also died in office. In 1966, power passed to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977. In 1975, beset with deepening political and economic problems, Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency and suspended many civil liberties. Seeking a mandate at the polls for her policies, she called for elections in 1977, only to be defeated by Morarji Desai, who headed the Janata Party, an amalgam of five opposition parties.

In 1979, Desai's Government crumbled. Charan Singh formed an interim government, which was followed by Mrs. Gandhi's return to power in January 1980. On October 31, 1984, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated, and her son, Rajiv, was chosen by the Congress (I)--for "Indira"--Party to take her place. His Congress government was plagued with allegations of corruption resulting in an early call for national elections in 1989.

Although Rajiv Gandhi's Congress Party won more seats than any other single party in the 1989 elections, he was unable to form a government with a clear majority. The Janata Dal, a union of opposition parties, then joined with the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the right and the Communists on the left to form the government. This loose coalition collapsed in November 1990, and the Janata Dal, supported by the Congress (I), came to power for a short period, with Chandra Shekhar as Prime Minister. That alliance also collapsed, resulting in national elections in June 1991.
===Economic history===
National economic policy went through four stages:<ref> Arvind Panagariya, ''India: The Emerging Giant'' (Oxford University Press, 2008) </ref> 1951-65 was - a period of relative liberalism under Nehru; 1965-81 -- a period where “Socialism Strikes with a Vengeance”; 1981-88 was “Liberalization by Stealth”; and 1988-2006 represents “The Triumph of Liberalization."<ref> Liberalization means less government regulation, of the sort favored by American conservatives.</ref> Recent high growth rates have led to lower poverty and have been the single biggest benefit of liberalization.
===Recent History===

While campaigning in Tamil Nadu on behalf of Congress (I), Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 27, 1991, apparently by Tamil extremists from Sri Lanka, unhappy with India's armed intervention to try to stop the civil war there. In the elections, Congress (I) won 213 parliamentary seats and returned to power at the head of a coalition, under the leadership of P.V. Narasimha Rao. This Congress-led government, which served a full 5-year term, initiated a gradual process of economic liberalization and reform, which opened the Indian economy to global trade and investment. India's domestic politics also took new shape, as the nationalist appeal of the Congress Party gave way to traditional caste, creed, regional, and ethnic alignments, leading to the founding of a plethora of small, regionally based political parties.

The final months of the Rao-led government in the spring of 1996 were marred by several major corruption scandals, which contributed to the worst electoral performance by the Congress Party in its history. The Hindu-nationalist BJP emerged from the May 1996 national elections as the single-largest party in the Lok Sabha but without a parliamentary majority. Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the subsequent BJP coalition lasted only 13 days. With all political parties wishing to avoid another round of elections, a 14-party coalition led by the Janata Dal formed a government known as the United Front, under the former Chief Minister of Karnataka, H.D. Deve Gowda. His government collapsed after less than a year, when the Congress Party withdrew its support in March 1997. Inder Kumar Gujral replaced Deve Gowda as the consensus choice for Prime Minister at the head of a 16-party United Front coalition.

In November 1997, the Congress Party again withdrew support from the United Front. In new elections in February 1998, the BJP won the largest number of seats in Parliament--182--but fell far short of a majority. On March 20, 1998, the President approved a BJP-led coalition government with Vajpayee again serving as Prime Minister. On May 11 and 13, 1998, this government conducted a series of underground nuclear tests, spurring U.S. President Clinton to impose economic sanctions on India pursuant to the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act.

In April 1999, the BJP-led coalition government fell apart, leading to fresh elections in September. The National Democratic Alliance--a new coalition led by the BJP--won a majority to form the government with Vajpayee as Prime Minister in October 1999. The NDA government was the first in many years to serve a full five year term, providing much-needed political stability.

The Kargil conflict in 1999 and an attack by terrorists on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 led to increased tensions with Pakistan.

Hindu nationalists supportive of the BJP agitated to build a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, destroying a 17th century mosque there in December 1992, and sparking widespread religious riots in which thousands, mostly Muslims, were killed. In February 2002, 57 Hindu volunteers returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive when their train caught fire. Alleging that the fire was caused by Muslim attackers, anti-Muslim rioters throughout the state of Gujarat killed over 900 people and left 100,000 homeless. This led to accusations that the BJP-led Gujarat state government had not done enough to contain the riots, or arrest and prosecute the rioters.

The ruling BJP-led coalition was defeated in a five-stage election held in April and May of 2004, and a Congress-led coalition, known as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), took power on May 22 with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. The UPA's victory was attributed to dissatisfaction among poorer rural voters that the prosperity of the cities had not filtered down to them, and rejection of the BJP's Hindu nationalist agenda.

The Congress-led UPA government has continued many of the BJP's foreign policies, particularly improving relations with the U.S. Prime Minister Singh and President Bush concluded a landmark U.S.-India strategic partnership framework agreement on July 18, 2005. In March 2006, President Bush visited India to further the many initiatives that underlie the new agreement. The strategic partnership is anchored by a historic civil nuclear cooperation initiative and includes cooperation in the fields of space, high-technology commerce<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA1NoOOoaNw&eurl</ref>, health issues, democracy promotion, agriculture, and trade and investment.

==Bibliography==
* Allan, J. T. Wolseley Haig, and H. H. Dodwell, ''The Cambridge Shorter History of India'' (1934) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88816404 online edition]
* Brown, Judith M. ''Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy'' (2nd ed. 1994) 464 pgs [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59677250 online edition]
* Cohen, Stephen P. ''India: Emerging Power'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815715013/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Daniélou, Alain. ''A Brief History of India'' (2003)
* Habib, Irfan. ''Atlas of the Mughal Empire: Political and Economic Maps '' (1982).
* James, Lawrence. ''Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India'' (1997) ISBN 0-316-64072-7 [http://www.amazon.com/Raj-Making-Unmaking-British-India/dp/0312263821/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Keay, John. ''India: A History'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/India-History-John-Keay/dp/0802137970/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189741409&sr=8-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Kishore, Prem and Anuradha Kishore Ganpati. ''India: An Illustrated History'' (2003)
* Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. ''A History of India.'' 4th ed. (2004) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108019139 online edition from [[Questia]]]; [http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Hermann-Kulke/dp/0415154820/ref=pd_bbs_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189741409&sr=8-8 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Lal, Deepak. ''The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C.-2000 A.D.'' (2nd ed. 2005).
* Majumdar, R. C. et al. ''An Advanced History of India'' London: Macmillan. 1960. ISBN 0-333-90298-X
* Mcleod, John. ''The History of India'' (2002) 225pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-history-of-india-by-john-mcleod.jsp online edition]
* Rawlinson, H. G. ''India: A Short Cultural History'' (1952) 454 pgs. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95582746 online edition]
* Richards, John F. ''The Mughal Empire'' (The New Cambridge History of India) (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Mughal-Empire-Cambridge-History-India/dp/0521566037/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189744829&sr=1-6 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Sardesai, D. R. ''India: The Definitive History'' (2007), 486pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0813343526/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Smith, Vincent. ''The Oxford History of India'' (1981), original edition 1915
* Smith, Vincent. ''The Oxford student's history of India'' (1915) [http://www.archive.org/details/studentshistoryof00smitiala online edition]
* Spear, Percival. ''The History of India'' Vol. 2 (1990)
* Thapar, Romila. ''Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Penguin/dp/0140138358/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189741409&sr=8-3 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Wolpert, Stanley. ''A New History of India'' (7th ed. 2003) 544pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195166779/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
*Jackson, A.V. et al, eds. ''History of India'' (1906-1907)
**''v.l. From the earliest times to the sixth century B.C.,'' by R.C. Dutt. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia01jackiala online edition]
**''v.2. From the sixth century B.C. to the Mohammedan conquest,'' by V.A. Smith. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia02jackiala online edition]
**''v.3. Mediaeval India from the Mohammedan conquest to the reign of Akbar the Great,'' by S. Lane-Poole. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia03jackiala online edition]
**''v.4. From the reign of Akbar the Great to the fall of the Moghul empire,'' by S. Lane-Poole. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia04jackiala online edition]
**''v.5. The Mohammedan period as described by its own historians,'' by Sir H.M. Elliot[http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia05jackiala online edition]
** ''v.6. From the first European settlements to the founding of the English East India Company,'' by Sir W.W. Hunter. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia06jackiala online edition]
** ''v.7. The European struggle for Indian supremacy in the seventeenth century,'' by Sir W.W. Hunter. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia07jackiala online edition]
**''v.8. From the close of the seventeenth century to the present time,'' by Sir. A.C. Lyall. [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia08jackiala online edition]
**''v.9. Historic accounts of India by foreign travellers, classic, oriental, and occidental,'' by A.V.W. Jackson [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia09jackiala online edition]

===Economic history===
*Balachandran, G. ed. ''India and the World Economy, 1850-1950'' Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-567234-8.
* Chaudhuri, K. N.''Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750'' (1985)
* Das, Gurcharan. ''India Unbound: The Social and Economic Revolution from Independence to the Global Information Age'' (2002). [http://www.amazon.com/India-Unbound-Revolution-Independence-Information/dp/0385720742/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189744748&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dutt, Romesh. ''The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age'' (1908) [http://www.archive.org/details/TheEconomicHistoryOfIndiaInTheVictorianAge online edition]
* Ludden, David, ed. ''New Cambridge History of India: An Agrarian History of South Asia'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/New-Cambridge-History-India-Agrarian/dp/0521364248/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189744790&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Habib, Irfan. ''Agrarian System of Mughal India'' (1963, revised edition 1999).
* Habib, Irfan. ''Atlas of the Mughal Empire: Political and Economic Maps '' (1982).
* Habib, Irfan. ''Indian Economy, 1858-1914'' (2006).
* Raychaudhuri, Tapan and Irfan Habib, eds. ''The Cambridge Economic History of India: Volume 1, c. 1200-c. 1750'' (1982).
* Kumar, Dharma and Meghnad Desai, eds. ''The Cambridge Economic History of India: Volume 2, c.1751-c.1970'' (1983).
* Tomlinson, B. R. et al.''The Economy of Modern India, 1860-1970'' (1996) (The New Cambridge History of India)
* Larue, C. Steven. ''The India Handbook'' (1997) (Regional Handbooks of Economic Development).
* Panagariya, Arvind. ''India: The Emerging Giant'' (2008) 544 pp., ISBN: 978-0-19-531503-5 The major recent history; for advanced readers. [http://www.amazon.com/India-Emerging-Giant-Arvind/dp/0195315030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222697254&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rothermund, Dietmar. ''An Economic History of India: From Pre-Colonial Times to 1991'' (1993)
* Rudolph, Lloyd I. ''In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State'' (1987).
* Roy, Tirthankar. ''The Economic History of India 1857-1947'' (2006). [http://www.amazon.com/Economic-History-1857-1947-Oxford-Textbooks/dp/0195684303/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189744962&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
===Primary sources===
*Jackson, A.V. et al, eds. ''History of India'' (1907) ''v.9. Historic accounts of India by foreign travellers, classic, oriental, and occidental,'' by A.V.W. Jackson [http://www.archive.org/details/historyofindia09jackiala online edition]

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

== See Also ==
*[[World History Lecture Three]] for more information on Ancient India.
*[[Anti-conversion legislation in India]]
*[[Oriental art]]

----

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}} source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm]

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

The Ashes

2009-02-09T12:47:30Z

GFasten: New page: '''The Ashes''' is a cricket series of test matches played between England and Australia. It dates back to 1882 and is currently played once every two years. It is named the as...

'''The Ashes''' is a [[cricket]] series of test matches played between [[England]] and [[Australia]]. It dates back to 1882 and is currently played once every two years. It is named the ashes because the teams compete to retain a small urn containing the ashes of the outer casing of the cricket ball used in a 19th century match between [[England]] and [[Australia]]
The series alternates between being hosted in England and Austalia.

Australia currently hold the ashes following their victory in 2006/2007.

[[Category:Sports]]

Six Nations Championship

2009-02-09T12:41:12Z

GFasten:

The '''Six Nations Championship''' is a [[tournament]] for the main [[Rugby Union]] playing nations of the [[Northern Hemisphere]]: [[England]], [[France]], [[Ireland]], [[Italy]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]]. Each side plays one match against every other side. Between 1910 and 1999 the competition was known as the 'Five Nations': England, France, Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Italy joined in 2000. Between 1883 and 1909 the competition was known as the 'Home Nations' comprising of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

The winner of the 2008 Six Nations Championship is Wales, which also won the 'Triple Crown' (a title awarded to a team from England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales which defeats all its British Isles opponents) and the 'Grand Slam' (it defeated all the other sides). The other prize available in the tournament is the Calcutta Cup, which is awarded to the winner of the game between England and Scotland. Also, a team that wins none of its games in a given year is said to have 'won' the [[wooden spoon]].

[[Category:Rugby]]

6 nations

2009-02-09T12:38:40Z

GFasten: Redirecting to Six Nations

#REDIRECT [[Six Nations]]