Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The Battle of Thermopylae

2007-03-23T18:59:06Z

Goose89: empty link

The '''Battle of Thermopylae''' was a famous battle during the [[Greco-Persian Wars]]. It is known for the fact that 300 [[Sparta|Spartan]] soldiers and 7000 other Greek soldiers (most notably the [[Thespiae|Thespians]]) held off an army of several hundred thousand [[Persia|Persian]] soldiers (led by [[Xerxes]]) for three days.

== Greek/Persian ==

The most recognized battle of Thermopylae was that of the Greeks and Persians around 480 BC. The Persian "God" king Xerxes was waging war on Greece for control of its lands and people. The battle is most known for the impressive show of strength by the Persians, whose forces numbered between 2 million and 200,000. The battle is also known for the determination and bravery of the roughly 7000 Greeks. The estimated 6700 Athenians (and soldiers from other city-states) were led by the Spartan king Leonidas. A traitorous Greek farmer named [[Ephialtes of Trachis|Ephialtes]] told the Persians of a secret path that let the Persians get around and attack the Spartans from behind. 300 Spartans stayed, while the Athenians left to gather more forces, and the impressive last stand by the Spartans allowed Sparta and Athens to regroup and eventually defeat the Persian forces in a later battle. It is also estimated that 20000 Persians were killed by the allied force.

A movie was made about this battle in 2007 named "300". However, the movie was based upon the highly-stylized graphic novel by Frank Miller and not upon historical fact.

== Source ==

Cartledge, Paul, Thermopylae; the Battle that Changed the World, Overlook Press, New York, 2006

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-20T17:30:35Z

Goose89: clone sentence

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-16T17:19:57Z

Goose89:

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Paintball

2007-03-16T16:28:05Z

Goose89: /* History Of */

== History Of ==

Paintball originally did not start out as a sport. The first paintball gun (also commonly called a "marker") was made in 1970 by James Hale of Daisy manufacturing. It was a way of marking livestock and trees for property lines. It eventually transpired into the game known today.

Paintball was officially born in May of 1981, through the ideas of Bob Gurnsey, who retailed sporting goods, and Hayes Noel, a stockbroker. Records indicate the first game was played on June 27, 1981, with 12 players playing capture the flag. The game was won without either team firing a shot. 1982 marked the first company to widely distribute paintball materials, Pursuit Marketing Inc (PMI). In 1983, the first official Paintball tournament was held by the National Survival Game started by Charles Gaines. There was a $14000 cash prize.

In 1985, the first commercial game gun, the Splatmaster, was made. After it's patent, Nelson Paint Company began mass producing it for game play. The Splatmaster was all plastic and had to be cocked back before every shot.

Dennis Tippmann designed the first semi-auto paintball gun called the SMG60. The gun eventually evoloved into the .68 Special that featured the first hopper-like feeding device. The year 1995 and the Smart Parts company released the "Shocker", the first electronic paintball gun.

== The Games ==

Paintball is played many diffrent ways but two major sects have emerged through the years. There is the game of Speedball that is, as the name implies, fast and within rather close quarters. Most paintball tournaments featured in the mainstream and commercial world are speedball.

On the other half is Recreational or Woods Ball. Recball, as it is called, is almost the exact opposite of speedball. Most games are outdoors and have a higher objective than team elimination such as capture the flag or defend the base. Some Recball games are scenario oriented and are played by massive groups. One example is D-Day in Oklahoma.

''Under Construction''

Paintball

2007-03-16T16:27:49Z

Goose89: /* History Of */

== History Of ==

Paintball originally did not start out as a sport. The first paintball gun (also commonly called marker) was made in 1970 by James Hale of Daisy manufacturing. It was a way of marking livestock and trees for property lines. It eventually transpired into the game known today.

Paintball was officially born in May of 1981, through the ideas of Bob Gurnsey, who retailed sporting goods, and Hayes Noel, a stockbroker. Records indicate the first game was played on June 27, 1981, with 12 players playing capture the flag. The game was won without either team firing a shot. 1982 marked the first company to widely distribute paintball materials, Pursuit Marketing Inc (PMI). In 1983, the first official Paintball tournament was held by the National Survival Game started by Charles Gaines. There was a $14000 cash prize.

In 1985, the first commercial game gun, the Splatmaster, was made. After it's patent, Nelson Paint Company began mass producing it for game play. The Splatmaster was all plastic and had to be cocked back before every shot.

Dennis Tippmann designed the first semi-auto paintball gun called the SMG60. The gun eventually evoloved into the .68 Special that featured the first hopper-like feeding device. The year 1995 and the Smart Parts company released the "Shocker", the first electronic paintball gun.

== The Games ==

Paintball is played many diffrent ways but two major sects have emerged through the years. There is the game of Speedball that is, as the name implies, fast and within rather close quarters. Most paintball tournaments featured in the mainstream and commercial world are speedball.

On the other half is Recreational or Woods Ball. Recball, as it is called, is almost the exact opposite of speedball. Most games are outdoors and have a higher objective than team elimination such as capture the flag or defend the base. Some Recball games are scenario oriented and are played by massive groups. One example is D-Day in Oklahoma.

''Under Construction''

Paintball

2007-03-16T16:15:51Z

Goose89: /* History Of */

== History Of ==

Paintball originally did not start out as a sport. The first paintball gun was made in 1970 by James Hale of Daisy manufacturing. It was a way of marking livestock and trees for property lines. It eventually transpired into the game known today.

Paintball was officially born in May of 1981, through the ideas of Bob Gurnsey, who retailed sporting goods, and Hayes Noel, a stockbroker. Records indicate the first game was played on June 27, 1981, with 12 players playing capture the flag. The game was won without either team firing a shot. 1982 marked the first company to widely distribute paintball materials, Pursuit Marketing Inc (PMI). In 1983, the first official Paintball tournament was held by the National Survival Game started by Charles Gaines. There was a $14000 cash prize.

In 1985, the first commercial game gun, the Splatmaster, was made. After it's patent, Nelson Paint Company began mass producing it for game play. The Splatmaster was all plastic and had to be cocked back before every shot.

Dennis Tippmann designed the first semi-auto paintball gun called the SMG60. The gun eventually evoloved into the .68 Special that featured the first hopper-like feeding device. The year 1995 and the Smart Parts company released the "Shocker", the first electronic paintball gun.

== The Games ==

Paintball is played many diffrent ways but two major sects have emerged through the years. There is the game of Speedball that is, as the name implies, fast and within rather close quarters. Most paintball tournaments featured in the mainstream and commercial world are speedball.

On the other half is Recreational or Woods Ball. Recball, as it is called, is almost the exact opposite of speedball. Most games are outdoors and have a higher objective than team elimination such as capture the flag or defend the base. Some Recball games are scenario oriented and are played by massive groups. One example is D-Day in Oklahoma.

''Under Construction''

Hellenistic culture

2007-03-16T03:09:13Z

Goose89:

A term for Greek culture. Derived for ''Hellas'' meaning Greece. In wide use during and after the conquests of Alexander the Great in which the Hellenistic/Greek culture was spread.

Paintball

2007-03-16T03:07:43Z

Goose89: /* History Of */

== History Of ==

Paintball originally did not start out as a sport. The first paintball gun was made in 1970 by James hale of Daisy manufacturing. It was a way of marking livestock and trees for property lines. It eventually transpired into the game known today.

Paintball was officially born in May of 1981, through the ideas of Bob Gurnsey, who retailed sporting goods, and Hayes Noel, a stockbroker. Records indicate the first game was played on June 27, 1981, with 12 players playing capture the flag. The game was won without either team firing a shot. 1982 marked the first company to widely distribute paintball materials, Pursuit Marketing Inc (PMI). In 1983, the first official Paintball tournament was held by the National Survival Game started by Charles Gaines. There was a $14000 cash prize.

In 1985, the first commercial game gun, the Splatmaster, was made. After it's patent, Nelson Paint Company began mass producing it for game play. The Splatmaster was all plastic and had to be cocked back before every shot.

Dennis Tippmann designed the first semi-auto paintball gun called the SMG60. The gun eventually evoloved into the .68 Special that featured the first hopper-like feeding device. The year 1995 and the Smart Parts company released the "Shocker", the first electronic paintball gun.

''Under Construction''

Paintball

2007-03-16T03:07:01Z

Goose89: /* History Of */

Greco-Persian Wars

2007-03-15T19:55:51Z

Goose89: /* Thermopylae */

The '''Greco-Persian Wars''', also known as the '''Medic Wars''' (500 [[BC]]-448 [[BC]]) were a series of conflicts fought between the [[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] [[Achaemenid Empire]] (in modern [[Iran]], led by [[Xerxes]]) and the Greek city-states (most notably [[Athens]] and [[Sparta]]). The war may be best known for the [[Battle of Thermopylae]], which has given birth to many cultural references even to this day.

==History==
===Roots===
The roots of the Greco-Persian Wars lie in 545 [[BC]], when the Achaemenid Empire conquered and annexed Ionia. While none of the Greek city-states risked sending military units to defend Ionia, the Spartans did send a message to king [[Cyrus the Great]], warning him to stay away from mainland Greece. Upon hearing this message, Cyrus famously replied "Who are the Spartans?".

Cyrus did not heed the Spartan message. In 514 [[BC]], the Persians conquered [[Thrace]] and [[Macedonia]], angering the Greeks. Ionia had been seen by Cyrus as a logical expansion of the Achaemenid Empire, though Ionia was culturally and tradionally connected to the other Greek-speaking lands around the [[Aegean Sea]].

===Eretria and Marathon===
By now, [[Darius I]] had taken control of Persia. In 499 [[BC]], Ionia begins to rebel against Persian rule. As the Ionians and Persians fought, Athens covertly sent supplies to Ionia. The revolts were put down by 493 [[BC]], and Cyrus set his sights on Athens. A Persian amphibious force of nearly 600 ships sailed towards [[Eretria]], easily sacking the city. The force then crossed to the mainland at [[Marathon]], a large, flat plain just north of [[Athens]].

At Marathon, one of the largest battles in [[Classical Antiquity]] took place. Nearly 11,000 Athenians held their own against some 20,000 Persians. After the victory, a Greek soldier by the name of [[Pheidippides]] ran nonstop from Marathon to Athens, to announce the miraculous victory (only 200 Greeks died in the entire battle). This was the inspiration for the marathon race.

===Thermopylae===
By 481 [[BC]], A large Persian force (described as 5 million by [[Herodotus]], though this is wildly improbable) had been assembled to march along the northern coast of the Aegean into Greece. This was disturbing to the Greek city states, who convened at the [[Isthmus of Corinth]] to discuss the threat caused by the Persians.
''Under Construction''[[The Battle of Thermopylae]]

Paintball

2007-03-15T19:52:18Z

Goose89: /* History Of */

== History Of ==

Paintball originally did not start out as a sport. The first gun was made in 1970 by James hale of Daisy manufacturing. It was a way of marking livestock and trees for property lines. It eventually transpired into the game we know today.

May 1981 is when Paintball was officially born through the ideas of Bob Gurnsey, who retailed sporting goods, and Hayes Noel who was a stockbroker. Records of the first game was played on June 27, 1981 with 12 players playing capture the flag. The game was won without either team firing a shot. 1982 marked the first company to widely distribute paintball materials, Pursuit Marketing Inc (PMI). In 1983 the first official Paintball tournament was held by the National Survival Game started by Charles Gaines. There was a $14000 cash prize.

In 1985 the first commercial game gun, the Splatmaster, was made. After it's patent, Nelson Paint Company began mass producing it for game play. The Splatmaster was all plastic and had to be cocked back before every shot.

Dennis Tippmann designed the first semi-auto paintball gun called the SMG60. The gun eventually evoloved into the .68 Special that featured the first hopper like feeding device. The year 1995 and the Smart Parts company gave us the "Shocker", the first electronic paintball gun.

Paintball

2007-03-15T18:28:20Z

Goose89:

== History Of ==

Paintball originally did not start out as a sport. It was a way of marking livestock and trees for property lines. It eventually transpired into the game we know today. In 1985 the first commercial game gun, the Splatmaster, was made. After it's patent, Nelson Paint Company began mass producing it for game play. The Splatmaster was all plastic and had to be cocked back before every shot.

Dennis Tippmann designed the first semi-auto paintball gun called the SMG60. The gun eventually evoloved into the .68 Special that featured the first hopper like feeding device. The year 1995 and the Smart Parts company gave us the "Shocker", the first electronic paintball gun.

User:Goose89

2007-03-15T17:54:33Z

Goose89:

Conservapedia SYSOP/Administrator

My name is Greg and I am a strong conservative but have a few liberal views. I hail from New Orleans and currently live in Knob Noster. My Father is stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base and I am a student at the University of Central Missouri. I specialize in history both American and Foreign.

User:Goose89

2007-03-15T17:54:06Z

Goose89:

Conservapedia SYSOP

My name is Greg and I am a strong conservative but have a few liberal views. I hail from New Orleans and currently live in Knob Noster. My Father is stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base and I am a student at the University of Central Missouri. I specialize in history both American and Foreign.

The Battle of Thermopylae

2007-03-15T03:10:13Z

Goose89: /* Greek/Persian */

The '''Battle of Thermopylae''' was a famous battle during the [[Greco-Persian Wars]]. It is known for the fact that 300 [[Sparta|Spartan]] soldiers held off an army of several hundred thousand [[Persian]] soldiers (led by [[Xerxes]]) for three days.

== Greek/Persian ==

The most recognized battle of Thermopylae was that of the Greeks and Persians around 480 BC. The Persian "God" king Xerses was waging war on Greece for control of its lands and people. The battle is most known for the impressive show of strength by the Persians, who forces where anywhere between 2 million and 200,000, and the determination and bravery of the roughly 7000 Greeks. The estimated 6700 Athenians (and soldiers from other city-states) were led by the Spartan king Leonidas. A traitorous Greek soldier told the Persians of a secret path that let the Persians get around and attack the Spartans from behind. It is also estimated that 20000 Persians were killed by the allied force. A movie was made about this battle in 2007 named "300".

== Source ==

Cartledge, Paul, Thermopylae; the Battle that Changed the World, Overlook Press, New York, 2006

User:Goose89

2007-03-15T02:58:44Z

Goose89:

My name is Greg and I am a strong conservative but have a few liberal views. I hail from New Orleans and currently live in Knob Noster. My Father is stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base and I am a student at the University of Central Missouri. I specialize in history both American and Foreign. I have a current Sysop status so just contact me if there are any questions or problems.

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

2007-03-15T02:56:16Z

Goose89: /* Neither */

If Jesus was alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>

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

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

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

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

2007-03-15T02:56:07Z

Goose89: /* Neither */

If Jesus was alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>

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

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

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

User:Goose89

2007-03-14T19:47:54Z

Goose89:

The Battle of Thermopylae

2007-03-14T18:58:36Z

Goose89:

== Greek/Persian ==

The most recognized battle of Thermopylae was that of the Greeks and Persians around 480 BC. The Persian "God" king Xerses was waging war on Greece for control of its lands and people. The battle is most known for the impressive show of strength by the Persians, who forces where anywhere between 2 million and 200,000, and the determination and bravery of the roughly 7000 Greeks. The estimated 6700 Athenians (and soldiers from other city-states) were led by the Spartan king Leonidas. It is also estimated that 20000 Persians were killed by the allied force. A movie was made about this battle in 2007 named "300".

== Source ==

Cartledge, Paul, Thermopylae; the Battle that Changed the World, Overlook Press, New York, 2006

User:Goose89

2007-03-14T18:44:57Z

Goose89:

User:Goose89

2007-03-14T17:58:29Z

Goose89:

My name is Greg and I am a strong conservative but have a few liberal views.

User:Goose89

2007-03-14T17:58:10Z

Goose89:

My name is Greg and i am a strong conservative but have a few liberl views.

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2007-03-14T17:53:45Z

Goose89: /* Yes */

== No ==

'''No'''. What is [[morality]], after all, but a code of ''values''? A man without morality has no values. But surely every man values ''something.'' Even if all that a man values is himself, and what will make him happy, he still has values. With values comes morality.

Thus a man might ''claim'' to be [[Amoralism|amoral]], but in fact he does live by a code of morality that he himself has invented.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==
Morality is a set of laws enforced by God. If a man has no religion then he believes that there is no God, therefore he does not believe that his actions will be judged. If there was no God then there would be no morality. There would be no laws if there was no government to enforce them. Therefore, ethiests live in moral anarchy(lack of morality) because they do not believe in God.

Double Edge
{{Unsigned|Double Edge}}

:If you define morality merely as "a code of laws dictated by [[God]]," then I suppose you're right. But an [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] wouldn't agree with you. Objectivism says that a code of morality is ''any'' code of values that a man accepts ''by choice.''

:So I suppose everything depends entirely on what morality is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It reflects poorly on the editors of Conservapedia to be phrasing questions using "MAN" instead of "PERSON" considering we are in the year 2007. Women are not meekly pouring their husbands scotch while their men engage in intellectual discussions on your site. I assure you, you have many women readers whom you would be advised to address should you wish to be considered a reliable and unbiased resource. {{Unsigned|Valerie}}

:This is a separate issue, but I use ''man'' to mean "any human being." I don't hold with surrendering the common-gender contexts of certain words, for no better reason than that they are "masculine" forms. For the record, I don't believe that a woman (that is, a female) can live without morality--that is, totally without values--any more than can a man (that is, a male).--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, think of all the serial killers and mass murderers that go on almost forever that seem to have no morals or real code of living. As long as there is evil in the world there will be a need for morals.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2007-03-14T17:24:23Z

Goose89: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

Yes. Two major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying american citizens. Ww had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2007-03-14T17:20:18Z

Goose89: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

They Attacked us, what more is there?

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Yes, even if they hadn't attacked us we had a moral responsibility to enter WWII. If America hadn't taken a stand against Hitler how much more damage would he have done?

[[User:Sarah_B|Sarah B]]

Hitler and the Japanese were on their way to winning WWII till we joined.
If we didn't join, Hitler probably would have had complete control of europe, and the japanese would have had the pacific, and we would have been the next target. we already were attacked at pearl harbor so that kind of forced us, but even if we were not we still should have joined.

Tim

Yes,
It's obvious that Hitler was an evil man. As christians we were justified to fight him in world war two. When America came into the war Britain was about to be destroyed by Germany. If America hadn't come in when it did, they would've been destroyed(I think we should've helped Britain with soldiers alot sooner, just goes to show how indecisive a democracy can be). On Japanese front I think they attacked us and we were justified to defend ourselves. Overall I think this is a silly debate because nobody will ever take the negative side.

Double Edge

[[Will N.]]

Yes,

It was a necessity! At this moment we could be speaking German and not be celebrating Christmas the Christian way! Hilter was a madman hated even by his closest generals and field marshals. Field Marshal [[Erwin Rommel]] once attempted to assasinate the Fuher in his HQ in central [[Germany]]. Thats how bad the man was. It was a good thing we entered the war.

[[PJ]]
Just because Hitler was evil, does not mean that the United States had the moral authority to go to war. What are the conditions for a just war, and do they apply?

'''Reply:''' Actually, the United States ''did'' have the moral authority to go to war because Hitler was evil, even if Japan hadn't spurred us to do so first. If it is not morally right to oppose evil, then I don't know what is. As for your question, the conditions for a just war could range from protecting your country or protecting an oppressed country or opposing a country that has committed an act that is universally accepted as bad (ex. the Holocaust).
--[[User:David R|David R]] 21:57, 9 February 2007 (EST)

::Yes we should have gone into World War II. Even when we didn't know what [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] was really doing to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] people at the time. We should have gone to help our allies out in the War so that they would be able to return the favor to us if we ever need to have to be saved by an enemy.
::--[[Zorala|Daniel]] 12:48 3/11/2007 GMT-8

Absolutely! First off, we were attacked by a superpower and we had the right acts to defend outselves. And secondly...well just read the ones above i guess we are kicking a dead horse at this point.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)