Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2012-06-04T07:22:24Z

Jzy: /* Given for hardness of hearts */

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. No one is really interested in this page. That's because divorce is a problem best dealt with in the real world, and god, moses and all the biblical team have nothing relevant to say on the matter. They're dead, as are their god and their thoughts

bless you all

Chris Larner

== What's a Christian To Do?? ==

Don't get married. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. Marriage is the key to a happy life. True love is being focused on being honorable, faithful and loving to your spouse. The Bible teaches us marriage is a good thing and encourages us to stay married.

==Foolishness==
Sheer mockery or just convoluted thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:15 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

To those without wisdom: Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fail to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

I pray that some day you will seek wisdom so that you will be able to understand God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Truth is, God was married to Israel, divorced her, invited her back (in contradiction to Deuteronomy 24 which he even says so in Jeremiah 3). The New Testament Church is now the bride of Christ, and awaits return of the bridegroom who is coming back for his bride. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not actually. Israel is the bride to be wed. The bridegroom (Christ) who was rejected at His first coming has yet to return at the Second Coming. Christians are the branch grafted into the tree of Israel. Israel is the bride that will recognize their Messiah upon his Second Coming. There are no contradictions to that in God's Word. The contradictions come from mankind misunderstanding that Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think you have reiterated what I've said; now, what is the meaning of Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 3:8? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 54:5 "For you Maker is your husband the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is you Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."
Israel is often portrayed as the bridegroom or bride in their relationship with God. So then the role plays out when Israel misbehaves a divorce certificate is issued. Israel is sent away from her home into exhile in 721 B.C. such as in Jeremiah 3:8
But remember that Israel hasn't actually been wedded to their Messiah because they didn't recognize Him the first time. Not until the end of Jacobs 70th week known as the Tribulation. Read Romans 11:25-27

Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."
Many people will try to use mention of a divorce certificate to say that God has ridden Himself of Israel. That now the church is His bride. Of course this is in conflict with every book of the Bible. This is one of the signs of an apostate church. Israel is the tree and root while the Christian church is the branch grafted onto the tree. Romans 11:17-21--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for clarifing that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

well its quite clear that God does not approve of divorce but if certain rules are followed
it is allowed...I.E you CAN'T get re-married. This was not Mose's wish but the people. Jesus
still disapproving it allowed for that law to remain in place. so move on, its not a good
choice but it is allowed. For me its still unclear though is divorced allowed ONLY if your
spouse is NOT a virgin OR is divorce allowed for any reason EXCEPT thier NOT a virgin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:*''Jesus ...disapproving ..allowed for that law to remain in place...''
::Interesting doctrine; are you somehow implying that Jesus's mission was to rewrite the law, and he did so, and that now Christianity follows some form of "biblical law" based upon the teachings of Jesus? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeshua Messiach's mission, as it were, isn't to rewrite the Law. It is to fulfill it. By revealing its meaning. Divorced for not being a virgin? I don't think so. Sounds like some other religions' doctrine and not the Judeo-Christian kind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

umm read the verse again...it says fornication...sex without being married....which would
implie they were not virgins...you got a better explaination? its exactly what Joseph considered
doing with mary as he thought she no longer was a virgin. what bible you reading from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

if he allowed the law to "remain"..how is that re-writing it? sounds more like a confirmation
yes?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Joseph did exactly what Jeremiah 3:1 says,
:*''It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless '''return to me''', saith the Lord, '''and I will receive thee'''.

:Here the Lord amends himself; Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to stick a bill of divorcement into his wife's hand and send her out if he hated her. But Joseph, following the spirit of the law, said, "return unto me." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

This is what Christ himself had to say about this subject:

Matthew 19:7-15 (King James Version)

:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

http://www.myspace.com/zelemiah
{{unsigned|Zelemiah}}

== Given for hardness of hearts ==
Jesus actually clarified this, saying that Moses included the ruling not because it was originally God's will, but because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts (Matthew 19:7-9). It was in other words a commandment derived from the will of men and not God.
{{cquote|Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. }}

Isaiah 50:1 appears to suggest that God never divorced Israel.
{{cquote|Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.}}

Therefore, according to what Jesus said, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 was specifically given because of the hardened hearts of the Israelites.
{{cquote|Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The Hebrew word translated "divorcement" (<k@riythuwth>)in verses 1 and 3 there is used in just two other places in the Old Testament (I included it and bolded it where it is translated). One is in Isaiah 50:1, and the other is in Jeremiah 3:8.
{{cquote|Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce '''<k@riythuwth>'''; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.}}

Therefore, since Jesus already explained Deuteronomy 24, there is exactly one unexplained usage in the Bible of divorce, and that is Jeremiah 3:8. Perhaps this verse was included by Pharisees because of their desire for a teaching on divorce, per the condemnation in Revelation 22:18.

--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:21, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2012-06-04T07:21:57Z

Jzy:

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. No one is really interested in this page. That's because divorce is a problem best dealt with in the real world, and god, moses and all the biblical team have nothing relevant to say on the matter. They're dead, as are their god and their thoughts

bless you all

Chris Larner

== What's a Christian To Do?? ==

Don't get married. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. Marriage is the key to a happy life. True love is being focused on being honorable, faithful and loving to your spouse. The Bible teaches us marriage is a good thing and encourages us to stay married.

==Foolishness==
Sheer mockery or just convoluted thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:15 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

To those without wisdom: Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fail to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

I pray that some day you will seek wisdom so that you will be able to understand God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Truth is, God was married to Israel, divorced her, invited her back (in contradiction to Deuteronomy 24 which he even says so in Jeremiah 3). The New Testament Church is now the bride of Christ, and awaits return of the bridegroom who is coming back for his bride. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not actually. Israel is the bride to be wed. The bridegroom (Christ) who was rejected at His first coming has yet to return at the Second Coming. Christians are the branch grafted into the tree of Israel. Israel is the bride that will recognize their Messiah upon his Second Coming. There are no contradictions to that in God's Word. The contradictions come from mankind misunderstanding that Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think you have reiterated what I've said; now, what is the meaning of Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 3:8? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 54:5 "For you Maker is your husband the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is you Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."
Israel is often portrayed as the bridegroom or bride in their relationship with God. So then the role plays out when Israel misbehaves a divorce certificate is issued. Israel is sent away from her home into exhile in 721 B.C. such as in Jeremiah 3:8
But remember that Israel hasn't actually been wedded to their Messiah because they didn't recognize Him the first time. Not until the end of Jacobs 70th week known as the Tribulation. Read Romans 11:25-27

Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."
Many people will try to use mention of a divorce certificate to say that God has ridden Himself of Israel. That now the church is His bride. Of course this is in conflict with every book of the Bible. This is one of the signs of an apostate church. Israel is the tree and root while the Christian church is the branch grafted onto the tree. Romans 11:17-21--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for clarifing that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

well its quite clear that God does not approve of divorce but if certain rules are followed
it is allowed...I.E you CAN'T get re-married. This was not Mose's wish but the people. Jesus
still disapproving it allowed for that law to remain in place. so move on, its not a good
choice but it is allowed. For me its still unclear though is divorced allowed ONLY if your
spouse is NOT a virgin OR is divorce allowed for any reason EXCEPT thier NOT a virgin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:*''Jesus ...disapproving ..allowed for that law to remain in place...''
::Interesting doctrine; are you somehow implying that Jesus's mission was to rewrite the law, and he did so, and that now Christianity follows some form of "biblical law" based upon the teachings of Jesus? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeshua Messiach's mission, as it were, isn't to rewrite the Law. It is to fulfill it. By revealing its meaning. Divorced for not being a virgin? I don't think so. Sounds like some other religions' doctrine and not the Judeo-Christian kind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

umm read the verse again...it says fornication...sex without being married....which would
implie they were not virgins...you got a better explaination? its exactly what Joseph considered
doing with mary as he thought she no longer was a virgin. what bible you reading from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

if he allowed the law to "remain"..how is that re-writing it? sounds more like a confirmation
yes?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Joseph did exactly what Jeremiah 3:1 says,
:*''It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless '''return to me''', saith the Lord, '''and I will receive thee'''.

:Here the Lord amends himself; Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to stick a bill of divorcement into his wife's hand and send her out if he hated her. But Joseph, following the spirit of the law, said, "return unto me." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

This is what Christ himself had to say about this subject:

Matthew 19:7-15 (King James Version)

:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

http://www.myspace.com/zelemiah
{{unsigned|Zelemiah}}

== Given for hardness of hearts ==
Jesus actually clarified this, saying that Moses included the ruling not because it was originally God's will, but because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts (Matthew 19:7-9). It was in other words a commandment derived from the will of men and not God.

{{cquote|Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. }}

Isaiah 50:1 appears to suggest that God never divorced Israel.

{{cquote|Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.}}

Therefore, according to what Jesus said, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 was specifically given because of the hardened hearts of the Israelites.

{{cquote|Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The Hebrew word translated "divorcement" (<k@riythuwth>)in verses 1 and 3 there is used in just two other places in the Old Testament (I included it and bolded it where it is translated). One is in Isaiah 50:1, and the other is in Jeremiah 3:8.

{{cquote|Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce '''<k@riythuwth>'''; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.}}

Therefore, since Jesus already explained Deuteronomy 24, there is exactly one unexplained usage in the Bible of divorce, and that is Jeremiah 3:8. Perhaps this verse was included by Pharisees because of their desire for a teaching on divorce, per the condemnation in Revelation 22:18.

--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:21, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2012-06-04T07:09:00Z

Jzy: /* My thoughts in favor of a literal reading */

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Also, could I point out that you can't take one Biblical passage as proof of the truth of another. Nothing is proof of itself - you can't say "The Bible says that The Bible is correct, therefore The Bible is correct." [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 14:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

If one looks at the real evidence, the evidence being the book of Genesis, and the rest of the bible, the true word, the world is really only about 6000 years old. The Bible talks of many different aspects of history, and in almost all cases has other historical weight behind its claims other to itself. If the Bible can be seen as a valid historical source, providing accurate evidence when it is read literally, it is only logical to read all its aspects with absolute trust. When this is done it works the world to be 6000 years old, therefore the world is about 6000 years old. You can't just pick and choose what to read literally and what not to. The meaning of the bible can't be used by humans like this, otherwise we could make it mean anything. The Bible is an instrument of teaching, as previously mentioned. If a history book for lessons was not to be taken literally, it would not be suitable for real learning, therefore the Bible must be taken literally for it to have any relavence whatsoever! I would argue it is not a matter of personal opinion as mentioned in a revious post by Futsunushi, something is simply written to be taken literally or allegorically, in this case it is literal. You do not read a book that was written to be read literally, in an allegorical fashion, if you took the personal opinion to read it like this you would be being stupid and illogical. End of story. --[[User:Badger15|Badger15]] 13:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I would have thought an empirical understanding of the universe was implicit in a rational debate. Laws of physics would have been broken, because snakes have no capacity for speech. I suppose I could have said laws of biology, but physics is a more accurate term. A snake's physical makeup simply cannot produce human vocalisations.
:::::"Lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either." This is called an argument from ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance], and really has no place in our discussion.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has supposedly disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement of salvation. Just as a virus checker is not a requirement of a computer connected to the Internet. But in both cases, they won't perform anywhere near as well. Just as computers can be "destroyed" by a virus, a belief in evolution has destroyed the faith of many people. Just as the purpose of a computer might be to communicate with others, not destroy viruses, the aim of a Christian is to witness to others, not to argue about creation. But just as destroying viruses is vital to achieving the purpose of communicating with others, demolishing anti-God arguments is vital in witnessing to others. As Paul said, ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Should we still believe it?==
Face it, the story was written thousands of years ago. Back in those days people believed in the Greek and Roman gods and other strange now disproved things. So, should we take it word for word or as just what people believed back in those days. In fact is it even important knowing the specifics; God made the earth, that is all that is important. --[[User:Ih8stuff|Ih8stuff]] 06:37, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: Yes, the story was written thousands of years ago. That is, much closer to the time it happened (or when it happened), so would be more likely accurate than one written today. Even today, people believe in strange and disproved things, such as astrology, mediums, and the like. So, should we take evolution word for word what people say today or as just what people believe today? If the fact that God made the Earth is the only thing that is important, why did He include all the rest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible==
As a Christian, I accept that Christ is the Son of God. I am and have always been concerned by the Biblical Literalism movement; in my opinion, proponents of this belief frequently elevate the Bible itself to an object of worship, which smacks uncomfortably of idolatry to me. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Whence comes the notion that everything in the Bible should be and must be read literally? We know that Christ taught through parables--parables that were NOT to be taken literally, but were instead to be taken as lessons for how His followers should live their own lives. Why would He adopt that method of teaching in His incarnation among us, but eschew it when revealing His Word to the prophets?

Moreover, there is the question of ''which'' Bible is infallible and literal truth. It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia. Typically, such translations and revisions were undertaken by rulers with secular agendas to push. Now: if we accept that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God, then any alteration must perforce make it other than complete. We must then ask which version is the true and unadulterated version. Is it the original texts of the original books of the Old and New Testament? If so, then we must acknowledge that there have been ''many'' changes; a little casual scholarship (or even a simple comparison with the Torah) reveals that. Is the whole and complete Word of God the modern King James Bible? In that case, we must question why He allowed His Word to remain flawed and incomplete for well over a thousand years.

The argument that the changes are only superficial, and don't represent a real change in the Word, simply don't hold water; again, study of Bible history will reveal that some of these changes were extremely significant. Up through relatively recent times, the Apocrypha still appeared in many Bibles; many Christians today are unaware that these texts even exist.

Further, there is the issue of selectivity. The majority of Christians who adhere to the notion that the Bible is the complete, literal, and immutable Word of God don't actually practice what they preach. They do not follow the Old Testament laws concerning foods, clothing, hair, and the disposal of wastes, just as an example. The standard defense for this is that these laws were rendered null and void by the New Covenant; however, I have yet to find any Bible passage that actually contains such a revocation. If the authority on which Bible adjurations are still valid and which are not does not, in fact, come from the Bible, then it comes from man--and is therefore not infallible.

For these reasons, and not without considerable soul-searching and earnest prayer, I find myself unable to accept the notion of Biblical literalism. The Bible is a good and holy book; it is, in fact, THE holy book. It contains the most profound wisdom ever set down in writing. What it is not, as far as I'm concerned, is a roadmap to Heaven. It is, instead, a map to the beginning of a road. That road is a rocky, steep, and narrow one. It's very hard to walk. It ends in a hill called Golgotha. However, Christ has made us a promise: He will walk that road with us...every step of the way.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)

:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip,
::The problem I see is that even those who claim to subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy engage in acts of judgement and evaluation. I honestly don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without doing so.

::Consider, for example, your assertion that the triune nature of God is clear "from a careful reading of the Bible." It wasn't so clear to many of the early scholars of the Church; as I'm sure you know, the debate over the nature of God, and over whether Christ was mortal man, was quite involved. While we may conclude that the scholars who could not reconcile themselves to the notion of the Trinity were mistaken, I think it would be unfair to suggest that they were mistaken based on a less-than-careful reading of the Scriptures.

::Likewise, the notion that it is evident from a careful reading of the Bible that the old covenant no longer applies is, I think, unfair. It is not evident to Messianic Jews, for example; nor do I think that the assumption can be made that no practitioners of Messianic Judaism have carefully read the Scriptures. Certainly, there are passages in the New Testament which can be read as indicating that the old law was fulfilled, and thus no longer in effect, but this is by definition interpretation. Mark 7:18, for instance, can be read as a declaration that all foods are now clean (though I will note that not all translations make that clear.) However, the passage taken in context discusses the practice of washing hands before a meal.

::There is also considerable evidence in the New Testament which would indicate the converse: that the old laws ARE still in effect...at least some of them, if not all. Christ did, after all, say that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. There is also the matter of Acts 15, wherein it is affirmed (by James, I believe, though I could be mistaken) that certain of the prohibitions on food apply to Gentiles coming to God--no blood, no animals that have been strangled, and so forth--but that these have been kept minimal in an effort to make the transition easier.

::My point in all of this is simply to demonstrate that it is possible to read the Bible carefully and mindfully and still reach interpretations that are different from those reached by other, equally careful and mindful readers. All readers, I would argue, engage in such judgement. I think it is also important to remember that the vast majority of them are engaging in such judgement based on modern texts--not on familiarity with the autographic manuscripts, or even with, for instance, Textus Receptus.

::Thus, the question remains: how do we determine with absolute certainty the intent of the original authors of the Scriptures, with respect to which sections were meant as factual history and which were meant as allegory? How can we be certain that, in making such judgements, we are not engaging in precisely the sort of selective analysis which you identify as perilous?

::Please understand: my skepticism is not entered into lightly. While I would never pretend to be a scholar of Scripture on a par with those who have debated these issues since the founding of the Church, I do base my beliefs and my understanding upon the most careful and thorough reading of which I am capable. In this, I confess to being at something of a handicap, as I am not a student of ancient languages (though an extremely patient friend who happens to be a rabbi is laboring with remarkable patience to teach me some Hebrew in our limited free time.) Ultimately, I can only work within my understanding, and hope through prayer and effort to come to a more complete understanding in time.

::''(As a side note, I would like to thank you for not taking me to issue for improperly conflating the concepts of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. I recognize that these are distinct, though related, concepts, and it was inexcusably sloppy writing and thinking on my part not to differentiate between them.)''

::Respectfully yours in Christ,

::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008

::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::...then, really, we're talking about different things here. It seems as if we agree on most points. We accept the truth (that should really probably be Truth) of the Bible; we both accept that certain portions of that Truth are literal and certain portions are allegory. We simply disagree as to the specifics of which is which.

::::I really don't think that you can characterize those with different interpretations as "small groups." Going back to the Apocrypha (and, yes, I realize that you consider them a distinct issue, but I think the issue of whether a given book is Scripture inspired by God and useful for training in righteousness is a pretty significant judgement call) consider the fact that the Roman Catholic canon embraces several books not considered canon by most Protestant denominations. No matter how you slice it, that's an interpretation which has led to a large group of people either wrongly embracing what should not be part of the canon, or wrongly excluding what should be part of the canon.

::::We can argue about whether practicing circumcision is in the "same league" as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth, but personally, I'd really rather not go down that road. I don't know how much weight God puts on one of His commandments over another. The consumption of shellfish doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me, but it's referred to as an abomination in Leviticus, and that's pretty strong language.

::::Your points above really highlight what I've been saying: nobody (at least to my knowledge) reads all of the injunctions in the Bible with the same weight. A literal reading of the Bible would tend to lead one to believe that the dome of the firmament is solid, and that (as it says in Genesis) it separates "the waters above" from "the waters below." This is by no means an interpretation limited to those who lack understanding of the Bible; St. Augustine and Martin Luther, for instance, explicitly ascribed to the notion of an impenetrable and solid firmament holding back the waters above.

::::Despite this, very few prominent voices today in the Christian community continue to support the notion of a solid firmament. Most seem to accept modern astronomy as factual. What we have, therefore, is a situation where something that was clearly and evidently literal truth to some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity is no longer clearly and evidently literal truth to many Christians today.

::::What are we to make of this? Is it that those who reject the solid firmament as literal truth are misguided? Or that even those who earnestly and painstakingly seek to know what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible may, at times, be mistaken?

::::For that same reason, I have always been leery of relying too heavily on "what the leading commentators say." The Pharisees were the leading commentators of their day; we know what Christ had to say about their leadership, and about what happened to those who chose to follow their commentary.

:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hmm. Well, I could suggest that God's commandments should be given at least as much weight as claimed fact, but then you'd probably (and rightly) point out that that's placing works before faith--so I'll concede the point.
::::::The mistranslation issue you raise, it seems to me, perfectly illustrates the point of concern I originally voiced. If one mistranslated word can lead the greatest religious thinkers of their time to a significantly incorrect conclusion about the nature of the universe, then doesn't that argue that issues of translation ''aren't'' trivial? I'm willing to concede the point that modern translations reflect the best efforts of the best scholars available to return to the intended sense of the original texts, but let's bear in mind that "best efforts" doesn't necessarily equal "perfect efforts." It's difficult to be certain that you've captured the sense of the autographic texts when, in many cases, the autographic texts simply aren't available.
::::::Ultimately, there's my sticking point. I'm just not convinced that post-Textus eclecticism has resulted in an edition totally free of potential "firmament/expanse" issues. Consequently, I cannot claim with confidence that I know which portions of the Bible reflect literal truth and which reflect allegorical truth. Nor, ultimately, am I certain that I need to. The Bible makes it clear that no man can know the mind of the Almighty; faith, at its heart, is not about knowledge and proof, but about trust.
::::::Thank you for the link to the article; it's fascinating reading. One interesting point of note is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force--and yet the Ten Commandments continue to hold a central position in many churches (and in many of the debates on religion currently being fought in this country.) I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue.
::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It's not the weight, it's the different types of things. Commandments can be changed. History cannot.
::::::: I never said that translation issues are trivial, and what I did say about translations was to do with modern translations. But even so, a mistranslation on this point may indeed have misled some, but this is hardly a major doctrinal point. Luther seems to have mentioned it almost in passing, and Augustine with not much more importance, from what I can determine from a Google search.
::::::: I'm not claiming that modern translations are error-free, but just because there is some small scope for errors does not mean that one can almost-arbitrarily dismiss clear teaching in order to accommodate secular thinking. True, no man can know the mind of God, but the very fact that God has given us a lot of information about Him shows that He knows we are capable of knowing ''that much'' about Him.
::::::: When I was growing up, I think that I believed that Ten Commandments had to be followed. But over the years I came to realise that Christians are not under the law, and that applies even with the Ten Commandment. However, even though Christians are not under the law, one of the several reasons for the law was to keep us within what could be called our "design parameters". So, for example, Christians don't have to observe every Saturday as the Sabbath (or even every Sunday), but we were not designed for continuous work; we were designed in such a way that we need to rest periodically, such as one day out of seven. So even though we are not obliged to observe the sabbath, it is still prudent to do so, or at least something equivalent (e.g. ministers work on the Sunday but take Monday or another day off instead). So the Ten Commandments in particular are still a useful guide to good practice, even though we are no longer required to observe them.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the validity of your first claim. If God exists outside time, then He can, in fact, change history; He is not bound by the linear progression of events. We would, however, likely be unaware of His alterations, as those of us bound by a linear perception of time would simply believe that history had always been that way (indeed, for us, it would be true.)
::::::::It's entirely possible that God is constantly changing history, and that we remain utterly unaware of it. Whether he would do so is another matter entirely; Descartes and his adherents, just for instance, would likely argue against such a notion. Ultimately, since there's no way of knowing, the best course of action is to accept Occam's Razor and assume that the history with which we're familiar is true and stable.
::::::::I'm honestly also not convinced that the age of the earth is more of a major doctrinal point than the nature of division between the heavens and the earth. I think it has been ''conflated'' with major doctrinal points--most specifically, Original Sin--but is not one and the same. It is possible to read the creation account as allegorical and still accept the doctrine of Original Sin.
::::::::Google is an appallingly poor resource for serious historical scholarship, sadly. Perhaps one day that will change. The majority of my library is still in boxes in the basement until I can get the new shelves put up in the study, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources to recommend with respect to the whole firmament issue; I know I have a good translation of Luther somewhere, though I don't believe I have a similarly-solid source for Augustine.
::::::::The Ten Commandments issue is interesting, and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a distinct topic dedicated to it. Several questions present themselves: if the Commandments aren't part of the new covenant, do Christian efforts to create monuments to them constitute idolatry? On the other hand, if it could be clearly established that the Ten Commandments are ''not'' part of modern Christian doctrine, then I think that would significantly alter the tenor of public debate over displays including them--they would thus be strictly historical, and a display dedicated to them would be no different in a legal sense than a display of the Justinian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Declaration of Independence.
::::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 15:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
If someone claims to be a christian but doubts the only source for such a belief what does that mean for their belief? It's too bad but it seems that many "Christians" really don't want to hold to the scripture that is the basis for Christianity. They would rather be able to pick and choose what things sound good to them not realizing they are undermining their very own "belief". I do not see how literal FAITH in Christ is possible if you do not have faith in the Bible. Yes you can believe some things the Bible says,a lot of people do, however if you dilute or disregard portions you don't like, the "faith" in Christ that is claimed is more than likely not the saving life changing faith the Bible speaks of but some man centered belief system that has no basis from scripture.

==Literalness of the Scripture==
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam

==Death before sin==
If God created a world full of death, and called it good, how can we be sure there won't be death in Heaven?
:Interesting question, but I don't think the one follows from the other. Plus, Jesus promised 'everlasting life', and it is hard to see how that would be reconciled with the presence of death.

:Death as it is here on Earth is a physical process. Heaven is a place for spiritual beings (God, angels, human souls) which do not die. Also, be sure not to be confused by the terms "spiritual death" and "second death." They are not like physical death, where a body ceases living and eventually rots away. Spiritual death is separation from God, but the spirit goes on existing. The second death is condemnation to Hell where, again, the spirit goes on existing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:07, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==My thoughts in favor of a literal reading==
First, the parts of the Bible that are intended to be read allegorically rather than literally are clearly identified as prophetic visions, songs, or parables. The first Genesis creation account is not. This is evidence for a literal reading.

Second, Our Lord referred to the first Genesis creation account, treating it as literal history rather than allegory. Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 clearly refer to Genesis 1:27 as literal truth. This is further evidence for a literal reading.

Third, where do we draw the line? I've read about magic-mushroom cultists who regarded the Gospels as allegories. If you say that the first Genesis creation account is an allegory, how do you explain to such people that the Gospels are not?

[[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:09, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

:Well put. To deny the Creation account as figurative is to ultimately trust man's wisdom and deny that the Bible is a preserved, infallible testimony given by God. It allows one to pick and choose from the Bible what they want to believe. But as Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

:Ultimately, it is not wrong to question Scripture, since Acts 17:11 calls noble those who questioned the Scriptures because they did so "with all readiness of mind... searching daily, whether those things were so." So long as we do so with an open mind and desire to find truth, looking honestly and diligently to give the Bible a fair chance to prove itself. As Jesus said, those who seek will find.

:Personally, I think those who deny the Genesis accounts do so out of mistaken belief Evolution is true, not having looked into the matter fully for themselves. I think Macroevolution specifically is incompatible with Genesis 1, and is more speculative than its adherents would like others to believe. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:08, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2012-06-04T07:08:41Z

Jzy: /* My thoughts in favor of a literal reading */

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Also, could I point out that you can't take one Biblical passage as proof of the truth of another. Nothing is proof of itself - you can't say "The Bible says that The Bible is correct, therefore The Bible is correct." [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 14:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

If one looks at the real evidence, the evidence being the book of Genesis, and the rest of the bible, the true word, the world is really only about 6000 years old. The Bible talks of many different aspects of history, and in almost all cases has other historical weight behind its claims other to itself. If the Bible can be seen as a valid historical source, providing accurate evidence when it is read literally, it is only logical to read all its aspects with absolute trust. When this is done it works the world to be 6000 years old, therefore the world is about 6000 years old. You can't just pick and choose what to read literally and what not to. The meaning of the bible can't be used by humans like this, otherwise we could make it mean anything. The Bible is an instrument of teaching, as previously mentioned. If a history book for lessons was not to be taken literally, it would not be suitable for real learning, therefore the Bible must be taken literally for it to have any relavence whatsoever! I would argue it is not a matter of personal opinion as mentioned in a revious post by Futsunushi, something is simply written to be taken literally or allegorically, in this case it is literal. You do not read a book that was written to be read literally, in an allegorical fashion, if you took the personal opinion to read it like this you would be being stupid and illogical. End of story. --[[User:Badger15|Badger15]] 13:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I would have thought an empirical understanding of the universe was implicit in a rational debate. Laws of physics would have been broken, because snakes have no capacity for speech. I suppose I could have said laws of biology, but physics is a more accurate term. A snake's physical makeup simply cannot produce human vocalisations.
:::::"Lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either." This is called an argument from ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance], and really has no place in our discussion.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has supposedly disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement of salvation. Just as a virus checker is not a requirement of a computer connected to the Internet. But in both cases, they won't perform anywhere near as well. Just as computers can be "destroyed" by a virus, a belief in evolution has destroyed the faith of many people. Just as the purpose of a computer might be to communicate with others, not destroy viruses, the aim of a Christian is to witness to others, not to argue about creation. But just as destroying viruses is vital to achieving the purpose of communicating with others, demolishing anti-God arguments is vital in witnessing to others. As Paul said, ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Should we still believe it?==
Face it, the story was written thousands of years ago. Back in those days people believed in the Greek and Roman gods and other strange now disproved things. So, should we take it word for word or as just what people believed back in those days. In fact is it even important knowing the specifics; God made the earth, that is all that is important. --[[User:Ih8stuff|Ih8stuff]] 06:37, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: Yes, the story was written thousands of years ago. That is, much closer to the time it happened (or when it happened), so would be more likely accurate than one written today. Even today, people believe in strange and disproved things, such as astrology, mediums, and the like. So, should we take evolution word for word what people say today or as just what people believe today? If the fact that God made the Earth is the only thing that is important, why did He include all the rest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible==
As a Christian, I accept that Christ is the Son of God. I am and have always been concerned by the Biblical Literalism movement; in my opinion, proponents of this belief frequently elevate the Bible itself to an object of worship, which smacks uncomfortably of idolatry to me. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Whence comes the notion that everything in the Bible should be and must be read literally? We know that Christ taught through parables--parables that were NOT to be taken literally, but were instead to be taken as lessons for how His followers should live their own lives. Why would He adopt that method of teaching in His incarnation among us, but eschew it when revealing His Word to the prophets?

Moreover, there is the question of ''which'' Bible is infallible and literal truth. It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia. Typically, such translations and revisions were undertaken by rulers with secular agendas to push. Now: if we accept that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God, then any alteration must perforce make it other than complete. We must then ask which version is the true and unadulterated version. Is it the original texts of the original books of the Old and New Testament? If so, then we must acknowledge that there have been ''many'' changes; a little casual scholarship (or even a simple comparison with the Torah) reveals that. Is the whole and complete Word of God the modern King James Bible? In that case, we must question why He allowed His Word to remain flawed and incomplete for well over a thousand years.

The argument that the changes are only superficial, and don't represent a real change in the Word, simply don't hold water; again, study of Bible history will reveal that some of these changes were extremely significant. Up through relatively recent times, the Apocrypha still appeared in many Bibles; many Christians today are unaware that these texts even exist.

Further, there is the issue of selectivity. The majority of Christians who adhere to the notion that the Bible is the complete, literal, and immutable Word of God don't actually practice what they preach. They do not follow the Old Testament laws concerning foods, clothing, hair, and the disposal of wastes, just as an example. The standard defense for this is that these laws were rendered null and void by the New Covenant; however, I have yet to find any Bible passage that actually contains such a revocation. If the authority on which Bible adjurations are still valid and which are not does not, in fact, come from the Bible, then it comes from man--and is therefore not infallible.

For these reasons, and not without considerable soul-searching and earnest prayer, I find myself unable to accept the notion of Biblical literalism. The Bible is a good and holy book; it is, in fact, THE holy book. It contains the most profound wisdom ever set down in writing. What it is not, as far as I'm concerned, is a roadmap to Heaven. It is, instead, a map to the beginning of a road. That road is a rocky, steep, and narrow one. It's very hard to walk. It ends in a hill called Golgotha. However, Christ has made us a promise: He will walk that road with us...every step of the way.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)

:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip,
::The problem I see is that even those who claim to subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy engage in acts of judgement and evaluation. I honestly don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without doing so.

::Consider, for example, your assertion that the triune nature of God is clear "from a careful reading of the Bible." It wasn't so clear to many of the early scholars of the Church; as I'm sure you know, the debate over the nature of God, and over whether Christ was mortal man, was quite involved. While we may conclude that the scholars who could not reconcile themselves to the notion of the Trinity were mistaken, I think it would be unfair to suggest that they were mistaken based on a less-than-careful reading of the Scriptures.

::Likewise, the notion that it is evident from a careful reading of the Bible that the old covenant no longer applies is, I think, unfair. It is not evident to Messianic Jews, for example; nor do I think that the assumption can be made that no practitioners of Messianic Judaism have carefully read the Scriptures. Certainly, there are passages in the New Testament which can be read as indicating that the old law was fulfilled, and thus no longer in effect, but this is by definition interpretation. Mark 7:18, for instance, can be read as a declaration that all foods are now clean (though I will note that not all translations make that clear.) However, the passage taken in context discusses the practice of washing hands before a meal.

::There is also considerable evidence in the New Testament which would indicate the converse: that the old laws ARE still in effect...at least some of them, if not all. Christ did, after all, say that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. There is also the matter of Acts 15, wherein it is affirmed (by James, I believe, though I could be mistaken) that certain of the prohibitions on food apply to Gentiles coming to God--no blood, no animals that have been strangled, and so forth--but that these have been kept minimal in an effort to make the transition easier.

::My point in all of this is simply to demonstrate that it is possible to read the Bible carefully and mindfully and still reach interpretations that are different from those reached by other, equally careful and mindful readers. All readers, I would argue, engage in such judgement. I think it is also important to remember that the vast majority of them are engaging in such judgement based on modern texts--not on familiarity with the autographic manuscripts, or even with, for instance, Textus Receptus.

::Thus, the question remains: how do we determine with absolute certainty the intent of the original authors of the Scriptures, with respect to which sections were meant as factual history and which were meant as allegory? How can we be certain that, in making such judgements, we are not engaging in precisely the sort of selective analysis which you identify as perilous?

::Please understand: my skepticism is not entered into lightly. While I would never pretend to be a scholar of Scripture on a par with those who have debated these issues since the founding of the Church, I do base my beliefs and my understanding upon the most careful and thorough reading of which I am capable. In this, I confess to being at something of a handicap, as I am not a student of ancient languages (though an extremely patient friend who happens to be a rabbi is laboring with remarkable patience to teach me some Hebrew in our limited free time.) Ultimately, I can only work within my understanding, and hope through prayer and effort to come to a more complete understanding in time.

::''(As a side note, I would like to thank you for not taking me to issue for improperly conflating the concepts of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. I recognize that these are distinct, though related, concepts, and it was inexcusably sloppy writing and thinking on my part not to differentiate between them.)''

::Respectfully yours in Christ,

::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008

::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::...then, really, we're talking about different things here. It seems as if we agree on most points. We accept the truth (that should really probably be Truth) of the Bible; we both accept that certain portions of that Truth are literal and certain portions are allegory. We simply disagree as to the specifics of which is which.

::::I really don't think that you can characterize those with different interpretations as "small groups." Going back to the Apocrypha (and, yes, I realize that you consider them a distinct issue, but I think the issue of whether a given book is Scripture inspired by God and useful for training in righteousness is a pretty significant judgement call) consider the fact that the Roman Catholic canon embraces several books not considered canon by most Protestant denominations. No matter how you slice it, that's an interpretation which has led to a large group of people either wrongly embracing what should not be part of the canon, or wrongly excluding what should be part of the canon.

::::We can argue about whether practicing circumcision is in the "same league" as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth, but personally, I'd really rather not go down that road. I don't know how much weight God puts on one of His commandments over another. The consumption of shellfish doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me, but it's referred to as an abomination in Leviticus, and that's pretty strong language.

::::Your points above really highlight what I've been saying: nobody (at least to my knowledge) reads all of the injunctions in the Bible with the same weight. A literal reading of the Bible would tend to lead one to believe that the dome of the firmament is solid, and that (as it says in Genesis) it separates "the waters above" from "the waters below." This is by no means an interpretation limited to those who lack understanding of the Bible; St. Augustine and Martin Luther, for instance, explicitly ascribed to the notion of an impenetrable and solid firmament holding back the waters above.

::::Despite this, very few prominent voices today in the Christian community continue to support the notion of a solid firmament. Most seem to accept modern astronomy as factual. What we have, therefore, is a situation where something that was clearly and evidently literal truth to some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity is no longer clearly and evidently literal truth to many Christians today.

::::What are we to make of this? Is it that those who reject the solid firmament as literal truth are misguided? Or that even those who earnestly and painstakingly seek to know what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible may, at times, be mistaken?

::::For that same reason, I have always been leery of relying too heavily on "what the leading commentators say." The Pharisees were the leading commentators of their day; we know what Christ had to say about their leadership, and about what happened to those who chose to follow their commentary.

:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hmm. Well, I could suggest that God's commandments should be given at least as much weight as claimed fact, but then you'd probably (and rightly) point out that that's placing works before faith--so I'll concede the point.
::::::The mistranslation issue you raise, it seems to me, perfectly illustrates the point of concern I originally voiced. If one mistranslated word can lead the greatest religious thinkers of their time to a significantly incorrect conclusion about the nature of the universe, then doesn't that argue that issues of translation ''aren't'' trivial? I'm willing to concede the point that modern translations reflect the best efforts of the best scholars available to return to the intended sense of the original texts, but let's bear in mind that "best efforts" doesn't necessarily equal "perfect efforts." It's difficult to be certain that you've captured the sense of the autographic texts when, in many cases, the autographic texts simply aren't available.
::::::Ultimately, there's my sticking point. I'm just not convinced that post-Textus eclecticism has resulted in an edition totally free of potential "firmament/expanse" issues. Consequently, I cannot claim with confidence that I know which portions of the Bible reflect literal truth and which reflect allegorical truth. Nor, ultimately, am I certain that I need to. The Bible makes it clear that no man can know the mind of the Almighty; faith, at its heart, is not about knowledge and proof, but about trust.
::::::Thank you for the link to the article; it's fascinating reading. One interesting point of note is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force--and yet the Ten Commandments continue to hold a central position in many churches (and in many of the debates on religion currently being fought in this country.) I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue.
::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It's not the weight, it's the different types of things. Commandments can be changed. History cannot.
::::::: I never said that translation issues are trivial, and what I did say about translations was to do with modern translations. But even so, a mistranslation on this point may indeed have misled some, but this is hardly a major doctrinal point. Luther seems to have mentioned it almost in passing, and Augustine with not much more importance, from what I can determine from a Google search.
::::::: I'm not claiming that modern translations are error-free, but just because there is some small scope for errors does not mean that one can almost-arbitrarily dismiss clear teaching in order to accommodate secular thinking. True, no man can know the mind of God, but the very fact that God has given us a lot of information about Him shows that He knows we are capable of knowing ''that much'' about Him.
::::::: When I was growing up, I think that I believed that Ten Commandments had to be followed. But over the years I came to realise that Christians are not under the law, and that applies even with the Ten Commandment. However, even though Christians are not under the law, one of the several reasons for the law was to keep us within what could be called our "design parameters". So, for example, Christians don't have to observe every Saturday as the Sabbath (or even every Sunday), but we were not designed for continuous work; we were designed in such a way that we need to rest periodically, such as one day out of seven. So even though we are not obliged to observe the sabbath, it is still prudent to do so, or at least something equivalent (e.g. ministers work on the Sunday but take Monday or another day off instead). So the Ten Commandments in particular are still a useful guide to good practice, even though we are no longer required to observe them.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the validity of your first claim. If God exists outside time, then He can, in fact, change history; He is not bound by the linear progression of events. We would, however, likely be unaware of His alterations, as those of us bound by a linear perception of time would simply believe that history had always been that way (indeed, for us, it would be true.)
::::::::It's entirely possible that God is constantly changing history, and that we remain utterly unaware of it. Whether he would do so is another matter entirely; Descartes and his adherents, just for instance, would likely argue against such a notion. Ultimately, since there's no way of knowing, the best course of action is to accept Occam's Razor and assume that the history with which we're familiar is true and stable.
::::::::I'm honestly also not convinced that the age of the earth is more of a major doctrinal point than the nature of division between the heavens and the earth. I think it has been ''conflated'' with major doctrinal points--most specifically, Original Sin--but is not one and the same. It is possible to read the creation account as allegorical and still accept the doctrine of Original Sin.
::::::::Google is an appallingly poor resource for serious historical scholarship, sadly. Perhaps one day that will change. The majority of my library is still in boxes in the basement until I can get the new shelves put up in the study, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources to recommend with respect to the whole firmament issue; I know I have a good translation of Luther somewhere, though I don't believe I have a similarly-solid source for Augustine.
::::::::The Ten Commandments issue is interesting, and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a distinct topic dedicated to it. Several questions present themselves: if the Commandments aren't part of the new covenant, do Christian efforts to create monuments to them constitute idolatry? On the other hand, if it could be clearly established that the Ten Commandments are ''not'' part of modern Christian doctrine, then I think that would significantly alter the tenor of public debate over displays including them--they would thus be strictly historical, and a display dedicated to them would be no different in a legal sense than a display of the Justinian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Declaration of Independence.
::::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 15:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
If someone claims to be a christian but doubts the only source for such a belief what does that mean for their belief? It's too bad but it seems that many "Christians" really don't want to hold to the scripture that is the basis for Christianity. They would rather be able to pick and choose what things sound good to them not realizing they are undermining their very own "belief". I do not see how literal FAITH in Christ is possible if you do not have faith in the Bible. Yes you can believe some things the Bible says,a lot of people do, however if you dilute or disregard portions you don't like, the "faith" in Christ that is claimed is more than likely not the saving life changing faith the Bible speaks of but some man centered belief system that has no basis from scripture.

==Literalness of the Scripture==
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam

==Death before sin==
If God created a world full of death, and called it good, how can we be sure there won't be death in Heaven?
:Interesting question, but I don't think the one follows from the other. Plus, Jesus promised 'everlasting life', and it is hard to see how that would be reconciled with the presence of death.

:Death as it is here on Earth is a physical process. Heaven is a place for spiritual beings (God, angels, human souls) which do not die. Also, be sure not to be confused by the terms "spiritual death" and "second death." They are not like physical death, where a body ceases living and eventually rots away. Spiritual death is separation from God, but the spirit goes on existing. The second death is condemnation to Hell where, again, the spirit goes on existing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:07, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==My thoughts in favor of a literal reading==
First, the parts of the Bible that are intended to be read allegorically rather than literally are clearly identified as prophetic visions, songs, or parables. The first Genesis creation account is not. This is evidence for a literal reading.

Second, Our Lord referred to the first Genesis creation account, treating it as literal history rather than allegory. Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 clearly refer to Genesis 1:27 as literal truth. This is further evidence for a literal reading.

Third, where do we draw the line? I've read about magic-mushroom cultists who regarded the Gospels as allegories. If you say that the first Genesis creation account is an allegory, how do you explain to such people that the Gospels are not?

[[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:09, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

:Well put. To deny the Creation account is figurative is to ultimately trust man's wisdom and deny that the Bible is a preserved, infallible testimony given by God. It allows one to pick and choose from the Bible what they want to believe. But as Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

:Ultimately, it is not wrong to question Scripture, since Acts 17:11 calls noble those who questioned the Scriptures because they did so "with all readiness of mind... searching daily, whether those things were so." So long as we do so with an open mind and desire to find truth, looking honestly and diligently to give the Bible a fair chance to prove itself. As Jesus said, those who seek will find.

:Personally, I think those who deny the Genesis accounts do so out of mistaken belief Evolution is true, not having looked into the matter fully for themselves. I think Macroevolution specifically is incompatible with Genesis 1, and is more speculative than its adherents would like others to believe. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:08, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2012-06-04T07:08:15Z

Jzy: /* My thoughts in favor of a literal reading */

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Also, could I point out that you can't take one Biblical passage as proof of the truth of another. Nothing is proof of itself - you can't say "The Bible says that The Bible is correct, therefore The Bible is correct." [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 14:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

If one looks at the real evidence, the evidence being the book of Genesis, and the rest of the bible, the true word, the world is really only about 6000 years old. The Bible talks of many different aspects of history, and in almost all cases has other historical weight behind its claims other to itself. If the Bible can be seen as a valid historical source, providing accurate evidence when it is read literally, it is only logical to read all its aspects with absolute trust. When this is done it works the world to be 6000 years old, therefore the world is about 6000 years old. You can't just pick and choose what to read literally and what not to. The meaning of the bible can't be used by humans like this, otherwise we could make it mean anything. The Bible is an instrument of teaching, as previously mentioned. If a history book for lessons was not to be taken literally, it would not be suitable for real learning, therefore the Bible must be taken literally for it to have any relavence whatsoever! I would argue it is not a matter of personal opinion as mentioned in a revious post by Futsunushi, something is simply written to be taken literally or allegorically, in this case it is literal. You do not read a book that was written to be read literally, in an allegorical fashion, if you took the personal opinion to read it like this you would be being stupid and illogical. End of story. --[[User:Badger15|Badger15]] 13:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I would have thought an empirical understanding of the universe was implicit in a rational debate. Laws of physics would have been broken, because snakes have no capacity for speech. I suppose I could have said laws of biology, but physics is a more accurate term. A snake's physical makeup simply cannot produce human vocalisations.
:::::"Lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either." This is called an argument from ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance], and really has no place in our discussion.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has supposedly disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement of salvation. Just as a virus checker is not a requirement of a computer connected to the Internet. But in both cases, they won't perform anywhere near as well. Just as computers can be "destroyed" by a virus, a belief in evolution has destroyed the faith of many people. Just as the purpose of a computer might be to communicate with others, not destroy viruses, the aim of a Christian is to witness to others, not to argue about creation. But just as destroying viruses is vital to achieving the purpose of communicating with others, demolishing anti-God arguments is vital in witnessing to others. As Paul said, ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Should we still believe it?==
Face it, the story was written thousands of years ago. Back in those days people believed in the Greek and Roman gods and other strange now disproved things. So, should we take it word for word or as just what people believed back in those days. In fact is it even important knowing the specifics; God made the earth, that is all that is important. --[[User:Ih8stuff|Ih8stuff]] 06:37, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: Yes, the story was written thousands of years ago. That is, much closer to the time it happened (or when it happened), so would be more likely accurate than one written today. Even today, people believe in strange and disproved things, such as astrology, mediums, and the like. So, should we take evolution word for word what people say today or as just what people believe today? If the fact that God made the Earth is the only thing that is important, why did He include all the rest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible==
As a Christian, I accept that Christ is the Son of God. I am and have always been concerned by the Biblical Literalism movement; in my opinion, proponents of this belief frequently elevate the Bible itself to an object of worship, which smacks uncomfortably of idolatry to me. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Whence comes the notion that everything in the Bible should be and must be read literally? We know that Christ taught through parables--parables that were NOT to be taken literally, but were instead to be taken as lessons for how His followers should live their own lives. Why would He adopt that method of teaching in His incarnation among us, but eschew it when revealing His Word to the prophets?

Moreover, there is the question of ''which'' Bible is infallible and literal truth. It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia. Typically, such translations and revisions were undertaken by rulers with secular agendas to push. Now: if we accept that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God, then any alteration must perforce make it other than complete. We must then ask which version is the true and unadulterated version. Is it the original texts of the original books of the Old and New Testament? If so, then we must acknowledge that there have been ''many'' changes; a little casual scholarship (or even a simple comparison with the Torah) reveals that. Is the whole and complete Word of God the modern King James Bible? In that case, we must question why He allowed His Word to remain flawed and incomplete for well over a thousand years.

The argument that the changes are only superficial, and don't represent a real change in the Word, simply don't hold water; again, study of Bible history will reveal that some of these changes were extremely significant. Up through relatively recent times, the Apocrypha still appeared in many Bibles; many Christians today are unaware that these texts even exist.

Further, there is the issue of selectivity. The majority of Christians who adhere to the notion that the Bible is the complete, literal, and immutable Word of God don't actually practice what they preach. They do not follow the Old Testament laws concerning foods, clothing, hair, and the disposal of wastes, just as an example. The standard defense for this is that these laws were rendered null and void by the New Covenant; however, I have yet to find any Bible passage that actually contains such a revocation. If the authority on which Bible adjurations are still valid and which are not does not, in fact, come from the Bible, then it comes from man--and is therefore not infallible.

For these reasons, and not without considerable soul-searching and earnest prayer, I find myself unable to accept the notion of Biblical literalism. The Bible is a good and holy book; it is, in fact, THE holy book. It contains the most profound wisdom ever set down in writing. What it is not, as far as I'm concerned, is a roadmap to Heaven. It is, instead, a map to the beginning of a road. That road is a rocky, steep, and narrow one. It's very hard to walk. It ends in a hill called Golgotha. However, Christ has made us a promise: He will walk that road with us...every step of the way.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)

:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip,
::The problem I see is that even those who claim to subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy engage in acts of judgement and evaluation. I honestly don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without doing so.

::Consider, for example, your assertion that the triune nature of God is clear "from a careful reading of the Bible." It wasn't so clear to many of the early scholars of the Church; as I'm sure you know, the debate over the nature of God, and over whether Christ was mortal man, was quite involved. While we may conclude that the scholars who could not reconcile themselves to the notion of the Trinity were mistaken, I think it would be unfair to suggest that they were mistaken based on a less-than-careful reading of the Scriptures.

::Likewise, the notion that it is evident from a careful reading of the Bible that the old covenant no longer applies is, I think, unfair. It is not evident to Messianic Jews, for example; nor do I think that the assumption can be made that no practitioners of Messianic Judaism have carefully read the Scriptures. Certainly, there are passages in the New Testament which can be read as indicating that the old law was fulfilled, and thus no longer in effect, but this is by definition interpretation. Mark 7:18, for instance, can be read as a declaration that all foods are now clean (though I will note that not all translations make that clear.) However, the passage taken in context discusses the practice of washing hands before a meal.

::There is also considerable evidence in the New Testament which would indicate the converse: that the old laws ARE still in effect...at least some of them, if not all. Christ did, after all, say that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. There is also the matter of Acts 15, wherein it is affirmed (by James, I believe, though I could be mistaken) that certain of the prohibitions on food apply to Gentiles coming to God--no blood, no animals that have been strangled, and so forth--but that these have been kept minimal in an effort to make the transition easier.

::My point in all of this is simply to demonstrate that it is possible to read the Bible carefully and mindfully and still reach interpretations that are different from those reached by other, equally careful and mindful readers. All readers, I would argue, engage in such judgement. I think it is also important to remember that the vast majority of them are engaging in such judgement based on modern texts--not on familiarity with the autographic manuscripts, or even with, for instance, Textus Receptus.

::Thus, the question remains: how do we determine with absolute certainty the intent of the original authors of the Scriptures, with respect to which sections were meant as factual history and which were meant as allegory? How can we be certain that, in making such judgements, we are not engaging in precisely the sort of selective analysis which you identify as perilous?

::Please understand: my skepticism is not entered into lightly. While I would never pretend to be a scholar of Scripture on a par with those who have debated these issues since the founding of the Church, I do base my beliefs and my understanding upon the most careful and thorough reading of which I am capable. In this, I confess to being at something of a handicap, as I am not a student of ancient languages (though an extremely patient friend who happens to be a rabbi is laboring with remarkable patience to teach me some Hebrew in our limited free time.) Ultimately, I can only work within my understanding, and hope through prayer and effort to come to a more complete understanding in time.

::''(As a side note, I would like to thank you for not taking me to issue for improperly conflating the concepts of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. I recognize that these are distinct, though related, concepts, and it was inexcusably sloppy writing and thinking on my part not to differentiate between them.)''

::Respectfully yours in Christ,

::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008

::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::...then, really, we're talking about different things here. It seems as if we agree on most points. We accept the truth (that should really probably be Truth) of the Bible; we both accept that certain portions of that Truth are literal and certain portions are allegory. We simply disagree as to the specifics of which is which.

::::I really don't think that you can characterize those with different interpretations as "small groups." Going back to the Apocrypha (and, yes, I realize that you consider them a distinct issue, but I think the issue of whether a given book is Scripture inspired by God and useful for training in righteousness is a pretty significant judgement call) consider the fact that the Roman Catholic canon embraces several books not considered canon by most Protestant denominations. No matter how you slice it, that's an interpretation which has led to a large group of people either wrongly embracing what should not be part of the canon, or wrongly excluding what should be part of the canon.

::::We can argue about whether practicing circumcision is in the "same league" as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth, but personally, I'd really rather not go down that road. I don't know how much weight God puts on one of His commandments over another. The consumption of shellfish doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me, but it's referred to as an abomination in Leviticus, and that's pretty strong language.

::::Your points above really highlight what I've been saying: nobody (at least to my knowledge) reads all of the injunctions in the Bible with the same weight. A literal reading of the Bible would tend to lead one to believe that the dome of the firmament is solid, and that (as it says in Genesis) it separates "the waters above" from "the waters below." This is by no means an interpretation limited to those who lack understanding of the Bible; St. Augustine and Martin Luther, for instance, explicitly ascribed to the notion of an impenetrable and solid firmament holding back the waters above.

::::Despite this, very few prominent voices today in the Christian community continue to support the notion of a solid firmament. Most seem to accept modern astronomy as factual. What we have, therefore, is a situation where something that was clearly and evidently literal truth to some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity is no longer clearly and evidently literal truth to many Christians today.

::::What are we to make of this? Is it that those who reject the solid firmament as literal truth are misguided? Or that even those who earnestly and painstakingly seek to know what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible may, at times, be mistaken?

::::For that same reason, I have always been leery of relying too heavily on "what the leading commentators say." The Pharisees were the leading commentators of their day; we know what Christ had to say about their leadership, and about what happened to those who chose to follow their commentary.

:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hmm. Well, I could suggest that God's commandments should be given at least as much weight as claimed fact, but then you'd probably (and rightly) point out that that's placing works before faith--so I'll concede the point.
::::::The mistranslation issue you raise, it seems to me, perfectly illustrates the point of concern I originally voiced. If one mistranslated word can lead the greatest religious thinkers of their time to a significantly incorrect conclusion about the nature of the universe, then doesn't that argue that issues of translation ''aren't'' trivial? I'm willing to concede the point that modern translations reflect the best efforts of the best scholars available to return to the intended sense of the original texts, but let's bear in mind that "best efforts" doesn't necessarily equal "perfect efforts." It's difficult to be certain that you've captured the sense of the autographic texts when, in many cases, the autographic texts simply aren't available.
::::::Ultimately, there's my sticking point. I'm just not convinced that post-Textus eclecticism has resulted in an edition totally free of potential "firmament/expanse" issues. Consequently, I cannot claim with confidence that I know which portions of the Bible reflect literal truth and which reflect allegorical truth. Nor, ultimately, am I certain that I need to. The Bible makes it clear that no man can know the mind of the Almighty; faith, at its heart, is not about knowledge and proof, but about trust.
::::::Thank you for the link to the article; it's fascinating reading. One interesting point of note is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force--and yet the Ten Commandments continue to hold a central position in many churches (and in many of the debates on religion currently being fought in this country.) I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue.
::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It's not the weight, it's the different types of things. Commandments can be changed. History cannot.
::::::: I never said that translation issues are trivial, and what I did say about translations was to do with modern translations. But even so, a mistranslation on this point may indeed have misled some, but this is hardly a major doctrinal point. Luther seems to have mentioned it almost in passing, and Augustine with not much more importance, from what I can determine from a Google search.
::::::: I'm not claiming that modern translations are error-free, but just because there is some small scope for errors does not mean that one can almost-arbitrarily dismiss clear teaching in order to accommodate secular thinking. True, no man can know the mind of God, but the very fact that God has given us a lot of information about Him shows that He knows we are capable of knowing ''that much'' about Him.
::::::: When I was growing up, I think that I believed that Ten Commandments had to be followed. But over the years I came to realise that Christians are not under the law, and that applies even with the Ten Commandment. However, even though Christians are not under the law, one of the several reasons for the law was to keep us within what could be called our "design parameters". So, for example, Christians don't have to observe every Saturday as the Sabbath (or even every Sunday), but we were not designed for continuous work; we were designed in such a way that we need to rest periodically, such as one day out of seven. So even though we are not obliged to observe the sabbath, it is still prudent to do so, or at least something equivalent (e.g. ministers work on the Sunday but take Monday or another day off instead). So the Ten Commandments in particular are still a useful guide to good practice, even though we are no longer required to observe them.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the validity of your first claim. If God exists outside time, then He can, in fact, change history; He is not bound by the linear progression of events. We would, however, likely be unaware of His alterations, as those of us bound by a linear perception of time would simply believe that history had always been that way (indeed, for us, it would be true.)
::::::::It's entirely possible that God is constantly changing history, and that we remain utterly unaware of it. Whether he would do so is another matter entirely; Descartes and his adherents, just for instance, would likely argue against such a notion. Ultimately, since there's no way of knowing, the best course of action is to accept Occam's Razor and assume that the history with which we're familiar is true and stable.
::::::::I'm honestly also not convinced that the age of the earth is more of a major doctrinal point than the nature of division between the heavens and the earth. I think it has been ''conflated'' with major doctrinal points--most specifically, Original Sin--but is not one and the same. It is possible to read the creation account as allegorical and still accept the doctrine of Original Sin.
::::::::Google is an appallingly poor resource for serious historical scholarship, sadly. Perhaps one day that will change. The majority of my library is still in boxes in the basement until I can get the new shelves put up in the study, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources to recommend with respect to the whole firmament issue; I know I have a good translation of Luther somewhere, though I don't believe I have a similarly-solid source for Augustine.
::::::::The Ten Commandments issue is interesting, and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a distinct topic dedicated to it. Several questions present themselves: if the Commandments aren't part of the new covenant, do Christian efforts to create monuments to them constitute idolatry? On the other hand, if it could be clearly established that the Ten Commandments are ''not'' part of modern Christian doctrine, then I think that would significantly alter the tenor of public debate over displays including them--they would thus be strictly historical, and a display dedicated to them would be no different in a legal sense than a display of the Justinian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Declaration of Independence.
::::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 15:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
If someone claims to be a christian but doubts the only source for such a belief what does that mean for their belief? It's too bad but it seems that many "Christians" really don't want to hold to the scripture that is the basis for Christianity. They would rather be able to pick and choose what things sound good to them not realizing they are undermining their very own "belief". I do not see how literal FAITH in Christ is possible if you do not have faith in the Bible. Yes you can believe some things the Bible says,a lot of people do, however if you dilute or disregard portions you don't like, the "faith" in Christ that is claimed is more than likely not the saving life changing faith the Bible speaks of but some man centered belief system that has no basis from scripture.

==Literalness of the Scripture==
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam

==Death before sin==
If God created a world full of death, and called it good, how can we be sure there won't be death in Heaven?
:Interesting question, but I don't think the one follows from the other. Plus, Jesus promised 'everlasting life', and it is hard to see how that would be reconciled with the presence of death.

:Death as it is here on Earth is a physical process. Heaven is a place for spiritual beings (God, angels, human souls) which do not die. Also, be sure not to be confused by the terms "spiritual death" and "second death." They are not like physical death, where a body ceases living and eventually rots away. Spiritual death is separation from God, but the spirit goes on existing. The second death is condemnation to Hell where, again, the spirit goes on existing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:07, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==My thoughts in favor of a literal reading==
First, the parts of the Bible that are intended to be read allegorically rather than literally are clearly identified as prophetic visions, songs, or parables. The first Genesis creation account is not. This is evidence for a literal reading.

Second, Our Lord referred to the first Genesis creation account, treating it as literal history rather than allegory. Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 clearly refer to Genesis 1:27 as literal truth. This is further evidence for a literal reading.

Third, where do we draw the line? I've read about magic-mushroom cultists who regarded the Gospels as allegories. If you say that the first Genesis creation account is an allegory, how do you explain to such people that the Gospels are not?

[[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:09, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Well put. To deny the Creation account is figurative is to ultimately trust man's wisdom and deny that the Bible is a preserved, infallible testimony given by God. It allows one to pick and choose from the Bible what they want to believe. But as Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

Ultimately, it is not wrong to question Scripture, since Acts 17:11 calls noble those who questioned the Scriptures because they did so "with all readiness of mind... searching daily, whether those things were so." So long as we do so with an open mind and desire to find truth, looking honestly and diligently to give the Bible a fair chance to prove itself. As Jesus said, those who seek will find.

Personally, I think those who deny the Genesis accounts do so out of mistaken belief Evolution is true, not having looked into the matter fully for themselves. I think Macroevolution specifically is incompatible with Genesis 1, and is more speculative than its adherents would like others to believe. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:08, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?

2012-06-04T07:01:30Z

Jzy: /* Only Sorrow is compatible */

Ok, the question is simple. There are many believers of many different faiths in this world, and they all, more or less, believe in some sort of "afterlife". With this in mind, is the faith in an afterlife compatible with the grief that we often feel when someone dear to us dies, or with the fear that most of us feel when thinking about dying? Wouldn't happiness be a more suitable emotion, for instance, when someone who we loved - and who was a virtuous person in life - dies? Shouldn't we be eager to die, if we have a clear conscience? Does our attitude towards death show that we doubt the existence of an afterlife, or is it acceptable and justifiable even from a religious point of view?

Express your ideas, please :)

== Yes, they are compatible ==
Yes they are. You may have true faith but still are afraid of death because, even if you expect [[Heaven]] in the afterlife, you may fear that you haven't finished your work on Earth. And still, there are people staying on Earth that you might miss. 
You might as well feel sorrow for the exact same reason you feel sorrow when someone you love leave for a long time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:06, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Only Sorrow is compatible ==
Not only is sorrow Biblically compatible, it's preferable to laughter in certain cases. Biblically, you increase sorrow by increasing wisdom, and we are called to be wise.
{{cquote|Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.}}

However, fear of death is something Christians should not have. It is a slavery that as Christians we are called to be free of:
{{cquote|Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.}}
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:59, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

== No, they are not compatible ==
 
 

----

...and to inspire you, here is the famous soliloquy of Hamlet, by Shakespeare, which also deals with this issue :)

 
To be or not to be– that is the question: 
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer 
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, 
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles 
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep 
No more – and by a sleep to say we end 
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks 
That flesh is heir to – ‘tis a consummation 
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep 
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub, 
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, 
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, 
Must give us pause. There's the respect 
That makes calamity of so long life. 
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, 
Th’ oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, 
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay, 
The insolence of office, and the spurns 
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes, 
When he himself might his quietus make 
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, 
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, 
But that the dread of something after death, 
The undiscovered country from whose bourn 
No traveler returns, puzzles the will 
And makes us rather bear those ills we have 
Than fly to others that we know not of? 
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, 
And thus the native hue of resolution 
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, 
And enterprises of great pitch and moment 
With this regard their currents turn awry, 
And lose the name of action.

(William Shakespeare, ''Hamlet'', Act III, scene 1)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Yes, they certainly are, and Christ helps us know it. Even with the knowledge that He was the Son of God, was sinless and guiltless and would rise to sit at the Right Hand of God; even knowing all this, Jesus wept while in prayer on the Mount of Olives and asked that His necessary fate be removed from Him. More than this, as He died on the Cross, He asked, "Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Since Christ was perfect and He had such moments Himself, how can we as preordained sinners,who cannot be perfect, but will always be stained and guilty be expected to have perfect faith? The makeup of man from the moment of birth will not allow it. As Paul pointed out, God made us sinful so that He might forgive us. No minister will ever convince me that I'm in danger because I don't have rock-solid faith. How can you be a sinner and have perfect faith? Imperfect faith is just another sin of which we are absolutely forgiven by the blood, sacrifice and love of Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice was so GREAT that he showed signs of an imperfect faith Himself. But who could endure perfectly taking on the sins of the entire world-past, present and future?

Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?

2012-06-04T07:01:09Z

Jzy: /* Only Sorrow is compatible */

Ok, the question is simple. There are many believers of many different faiths in this world, and they all, more or less, believe in some sort of "afterlife". With this in mind, is the faith in an afterlife compatible with the grief that we often feel when someone dear to us dies, or with the fear that most of us feel when thinking about dying? Wouldn't happiness be a more suitable emotion, for instance, when someone who we loved - and who was a virtuous person in life - dies? Shouldn't we be eager to die, if we have a clear conscience? Does our attitude towards death show that we doubt the existence of an afterlife, or is it acceptable and justifiable even from a religious point of view?

Express your ideas, please :)

== Yes, they are compatible ==
Yes they are. You may have true faith but still are afraid of death because, even if you expect [[Heaven]] in the afterlife, you may fear that you haven't finished your work on Earth. And still, there are people staying on Earth that you might miss. 
You might as well feel sorrow for the exact same reason you feel sorrow when someone you love leave for a long time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:06, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Only Sorrow is compatible ==
Not only is sorrow Biblically compatible, it's preferable to laughter in certain cases. Biblically, you increase sorrow by increasing wisdom, and we are called to be wise.

{{cquote|Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.}}

However, fear of death is something Christians should not have. It is a slavery that as Christians we are called to be free of:

{{cquote|Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.}}
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:59, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

== No, they are not compatible ==
 
 

----

...and to inspire you, here is the famous soliloquy of Hamlet, by Shakespeare, which also deals with this issue :)

 
To be or not to be– that is the question: 
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer 
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, 
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles 
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep 
No more – and by a sleep to say we end 
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks 
That flesh is heir to – ‘tis a consummation 
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep 
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub, 
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, 
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, 
Must give us pause. There's the respect 
That makes calamity of so long life. 
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, 
Th’ oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, 
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay, 
The insolence of office, and the spurns 
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes, 
When he himself might his quietus make 
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, 
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, 
But that the dread of something after death, 
The undiscovered country from whose bourn 
No traveler returns, puzzles the will 
And makes us rather bear those ills we have 
Than fly to others that we know not of? 
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, 
And thus the native hue of resolution 
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, 
And enterprises of great pitch and moment 
With this regard their currents turn awry, 
And lose the name of action.

(William Shakespeare, ''Hamlet'', Act III, scene 1)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Yes, they certainly are, and Christ helps us know it. Even with the knowledge that He was the Son of God, was sinless and guiltless and would rise to sit at the Right Hand of God; even knowing all this, Jesus wept while in prayer on the Mount of Olives and asked that His necessary fate be removed from Him. More than this, as He died on the Cross, He asked, "Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Since Christ was perfect and He had such moments Himself, how can we as preordained sinners,who cannot be perfect, but will always be stained and guilty be expected to have perfect faith? The makeup of man from the moment of birth will not allow it. As Paul pointed out, God made us sinful so that He might forgive us. No minister will ever convince me that I'm in danger because I don't have rock-solid faith. How can you be a sinner and have perfect faith? Imperfect faith is just another sin of which we are absolutely forgiven by the blood, sacrifice and love of Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice was so GREAT that he showed signs of an imperfect faith Himself. But who could endure perfectly taking on the sins of the entire world-past, present and future?

Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?

2012-06-04T06:59:18Z

Jzy:

Ok, the question is simple. There are many believers of many different faiths in this world, and they all, more or less, believe in some sort of "afterlife". With this in mind, is the faith in an afterlife compatible with the grief that we often feel when someone dear to us dies, or with the fear that most of us feel when thinking about dying? Wouldn't happiness be a more suitable emotion, for instance, when someone who we loved - and who was a virtuous person in life - dies? Shouldn't we be eager to die, if we have a clear conscience? Does our attitude towards death show that we doubt the existence of an afterlife, or is it acceptable and justifiable even from a religious point of view?

Express your ideas, please :)

== Yes, they are compatible ==
Yes they are. You may have true faith but still are afraid of death because, even if you expect [[Heaven]] in the afterlife, you may fear that you haven't finished your work on Earth. And still, there are people staying on Earth that you might miss. 
You might as well feel sorrow for the exact same reason you feel sorrow when someone you love leave for a long time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:06, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Only Sorrow is compatible ==
Not only is sorrow Biblically compatible, it's preferable to laughter in certain cases. Biblically, you increase sorrow by increasing wisdom, and we are called to be wise.

{{cquote|Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.}}
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:59, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

== No, they are not compatible ==
 
 

----

...and to inspire you, here is the famous soliloquy of Hamlet, by Shakespeare, which also deals with this issue :)

 
To be or not to be– that is the question: 
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer 
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, 
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles 
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep 
No more – and by a sleep to say we end 
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks 
That flesh is heir to – ‘tis a consummation 
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep 
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub, 
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, 
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, 
Must give us pause. There's the respect 
That makes calamity of so long life. 
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, 
Th’ oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, 
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay, 
The insolence of office, and the spurns 
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes, 
When he himself might his quietus make 
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, 
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, 
But that the dread of something after death, 
The undiscovered country from whose bourn 
No traveler returns, puzzles the will 
And makes us rather bear those ills we have 
Than fly to others that we know not of? 
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, 
And thus the native hue of resolution 
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, 
And enterprises of great pitch and moment 
With this regard their currents turn awry, 
And lose the name of action.

(William Shakespeare, ''Hamlet'', Act III, scene 1)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Yes, they certainly are, and Christ helps us know it. Even with the knowledge that He was the Son of God, was sinless and guiltless and would rise to sit at the Right Hand of God; even knowing all this, Jesus wept while in prayer on the Mount of Olives and asked that His necessary fate be removed from Him. More than this, as He died on the Cross, He asked, "Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Since Christ was perfect and He had such moments Himself, how can we as preordained sinners,who cannot be perfect, but will always be stained and guilty be expected to have perfect faith? The makeup of man from the moment of birth will not allow it. As Paul pointed out, God made us sinful so that He might forgive us. No minister will ever convince me that I'm in danger because I don't have rock-solid faith. How can you be a sinner and have perfect faith? Imperfect faith is just another sin of which we are absolutely forgiven by the blood, sacrifice and love of Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice was so GREAT that he showed signs of an imperfect faith Himself. But who could endure perfectly taking on the sins of the entire world-past, present and future?

Debate:Who created God?

2012-06-04T06:53:17Z

Jzy:

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros

Why is it necessary for God to have been created? God could always have existed. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]]

:I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact ''created'' time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
: That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
:* As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
:* ''Something'' (or someone) ''must be'' eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
::::::I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

::::::: God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&diff=504256&oldid=504017 earlier post] of mine.
::::::: If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something ''non''-physical.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? [[User:ChillinBM]]

:I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
:You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

::No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the ''natural'' (or physical) and the ''supernatural'' (or non-physical). That is, ''physical'' and ''non-physical'' are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
:: If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there ''must'' be "truth". What you are getting confused with is ''scientific proof''. In that you are correct; science can only ''disprove'', it can't ''prove''. But that's different to ''truth'', which ''must'' exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].
:: I can't prove ''scientifically'' that God exists, but I can prove it ''logically'' by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
:: We know that the ''physical'' must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the ''supernatural'' must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that ''time'' is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, ''time'' does not exist. Which means that talking about a ''beginning'' for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
:: Deducing that ''something'' supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't ''study'' the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
:: "''Before you can claim something you need to prove it.''": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things ''can't'' be proved.
:: I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is ''you'' who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is ''nothing'' exploding and becoming everything. So I ask ''you'', "how did this nothingness create something?".

:: Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and ''study'' implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
:: Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a ''different'' infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
:::It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

:::: Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot ''scientifically'' test those claims, but one ''can'' look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes ''evidence'' (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)

:::::: Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
:::::: Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention ''life'', you are begging the question, and evolution ''can't'' explain it.
:::::: The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is ''against''. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life ''could not'' occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons ''against'' a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a ''problem'' for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply ''missing'', but ''opposed'' to a naturalistic explanations.
:::::: The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
:::::: Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392]
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life ''as we know it'' requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
: Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it ''did'' occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
: Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. [[Information]] is something that conveys ''meaning''. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new ''information'' is created? None. Rather, the information has been ''damaged'' (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly ''could have'' created new information if I had ''intelligently designed'' the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
: Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive ''evidence'' opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life ''as we know it'', but then it is this ''life that we know'' that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ''ad hoc'' speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely ''prove'' anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce ''evidence'' against a naturalistic explanation.
: Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
: As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See [[Great Flood]] for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from ''Noah'', not Moses.
: The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf this].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
::True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
::Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
::Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
::Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
::Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
::Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To '''Jirby''':

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.

To '''ChillinBM''':

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.

:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.

:- God doesn't exist.

:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.

:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?

:::Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.

:::The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Arguing with me is fine, but i wont be able to show the evidence as well as the people on the forum i just submited as well because i do not study the topics as well as them. If you dont want to go there, its you choice, but it shows that you dont want to deal with who really knows more information. Just so you know, I study both, i've seen the christian view, went to church and christian school for my elementary years. Just doesn't seem logical to me, too many contradictions.

By the model of god put from the bible god should be omnipotent, and omniscience, there should be NOTHING that exists that can be more powerful than him. In which case, he cannot exists, because if he did exist, he wouldn't have the most power, because if something were to create the universe from a nonexistance, it would be more powerful than him.

By the way, I love your responses, quoting everything i say and put a simple 'nonsense' or 'doesn't make sense' next to it. Maybe thats how we should explain everything in the world.

Science is the simple step of anylizing anything. In this case, this 'anything' is supposedly nothing. I have a question for those who say that we cannot examine god. If it cannot be examed, how can it happen? Logically, if something is afflicted by god, god has to use something existing, or physical to alter what is happening in the physical world, in which case, non of it has been found nor detected in any manner.

And we seem to still miss the question, If god has been here from the beginning of time, who created time? Who created God? How come people can always say 'well what happend before the big bang?' but yet they cant face thier own problem of 'well what happend before god?'

:As mentioned above, there was nothing before God, for two reasons. Firstly, God is eternal. Secondly, God invented and created the timestream. "Before" refers to something that existed in the timestream before God, but God is outside of the timestream entirely, therefore this question doesn't apply to him. [[User:DavidBG|David]] [[User talk:DavidBG|Talk]] 14:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

== No one ==
There is no God. Life came from molecules, which evolved to make life diverse as it is today. The Big Bang was created by a singularity. Time as we perceive it could have well began after the Big Bang. The belief in the Judeo Christian God is irrational because of Judges 1:19, "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron". The Judeo Christian God is less powerful than iron chariots? Belief in any benevolent omnipotent God is irrational because if God was both benevolent and omnipotent than he would stop all suffering in the world. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 15:07, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
:First, you need to prove there is no God; second, you need to prove that life evolved as you specified above; third, you need to prove whether or not it was God who was "less powerful" then the iron chariots, or the tribe of Judah. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

God is eternal and cannot be created, as the Bible confirms. Since God is eternal and has always been in existence, and since he is outside of time, there can never be a time to create God. John 1 clarifies this as plenty of other verses. (Nash)
:If God exists, he didn't have to necessarily be created. He could have always existed. Likewise, it's not necessary that the universe had to be created. It could have also always existed. When you get to this level (ie the period before the current incarnation of the universe), God and Universe are really the same thing, and we won't ever know (unless God is real and tells everybody about it). Time goes forward indefinitely, there's no reason it can't also go back indefinitely. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:50, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:''"Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation"''
:There are a few things wrong with that statement.
:#Theories are supported by evidence. There is no scientific evidence for any higher beings. Creation is a hypothesis - a guess. It is not a theory.
:#Is is not rational to defy Occam's Razor (which one does when they say Creation is a better alternative to chance and known, testable physical laws).
:#It is not the ''only'' <s>rational</s> explanation. There are a handful of scientific models that are consistent with current data on how the universe began. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 21:19, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who created God? - the alternate point of view==
Man appeared on the face of the Earth, after a while he tried to understand the really important stuff like why the sun shone, and the tides came in and went out. He thought about this long and hard. Maybe there was a sun god that hauled the sun across the sky each day, he thought. Many thousands of years later, man decided that maybe God had created everything, and once a critical number of humans (more than one, as it is not infradig to believe one's own hallucinations, but when two or more share them, then maybe it's real after all) started believing in this God, he came into being. The conditions were right for this to happen. God, having now appeared realized he had to do a major retcon on everything. The first was changing man to look like God, as he had made man in his own image.[[User:Pinkfloyd|Pinkfloyd]] 22:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)

:Not bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:38, 2 March 2011 (EST)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

==No One - Physics Explanation==
This assumes God is subject to the laws of physics but that God controls physics and the supernatural is by definition outside such laws, therefore our understanding, if God exists, is insufficient to know all laws that exist. Physics is insufficient to explain how our universe could exist at all, because all matter decays according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and requires a beginning. Matter is temporal and not self-existent, therefore, the laws of physics cannot explain how we exist at all.

Only by positing someone outside the laws of physics and another dimension, such as a spiritual realm, can you explain how we come to exist. Numerous attempts to explain a self-existent universe apart from a Creator have failed miserably, such as the Steady State model. See Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God" for a good breakdown of this. Science ultimately can't explain where the particles required for a Big Bang could have come from.

But a spiritual Creator would not be subject to physical laws that require a beginning and decay, He could be self-existent and all-powerful, much as that might boggle our puny minds. And apart from such a possibility, there is no explanation currently workable for how life could presently exist and matter occur at all. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:53, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?

2012-06-04T06:47:39Z

Jzy: /* No */

==Yes==
I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).

In order to save our economy, we must criminalize homosexuality. Punishing them by death is a bit too extreme, as we Americans need to show that we are more moral than those who punish homosexuality through death. Instead, I suggest we ''deport'' them any communist/socialist state (Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea). These countries are definitely more tolerant towards their gay population since there is never any communist state that criminalizes homosexuality. Or maybe we should send the entire gay population in America to Japan. Since many anime portray homosexuals in a more positive light and Japan happens to be the gay friendliest country in the world, we deport homosexuals there instead.--[[User:JacobMS|JacobMS]] 23:42, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:I am afraid to say that unfortunately JacobMS, you seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:22, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Homosexuality wasn't legalised until well into the 1970s in Britain, the empire was crumbling well before then [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:48, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Christianity clearly prohibits homosexuality, and since America is a CHRISTIAN country, we need to outlaw homosexuality to protect the country from sin. ---[[User:DennisRifkin|DennisR]] 07:32, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::According to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, America is not a Christian nation. See: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html. And I quote: "Art. 11. The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" From the founding fathers themselves, practically. John Adams was president at the time and proudly signed and announced it, and it, along with the rest of the treaty of course, was unanimously agreed upon by the senate. I needed to point that out. --[[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:28, 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

Yes. After Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas is the worst Supreme Court Decision in the history of the United States. It needs to be overturned and a federal anti-Homosexuality law passed. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]], [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] and [[Homosexuality and health]]. When one looks at the [[homosexuality and health]] article, it is really not that surprising that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undP3-0yEn8 Indian lady Christian dancers are far more graceful] than the [[Lesbianism and obesity|obesity infested lesbian population.]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH4ZTSUZQWM&list=PLFD5B143F743EB6B1] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's also [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] and [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:28, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OliviaB, you are being redundant. Is that not covered under [[Homosexuality and health]]? (you are probably not the first parodist guilty of being redundant) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).
:I believe ''white people'' are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that ''doesn't have many white people'', and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized ''being white'' or have more liberal "white folks." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of ''white people'' (Every place colonized by Spain and England before 1900).
:I think you're onto something. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

The last thing we need in this country are more liberal, nanny state policies like this. The only thing criminalization of homosexuality would accomplish is more spending on law enforcement and increased governmental control of our lives. There would also be no way to enforce it, since making love in the street is already illegal, and homosexuals could just claim public displays of affection as political statements protected by the first amendment, which would clog our court systems even worse than they already are. There is no objective way to prove homosexuality outside the bedroom, so that throws a giant wrench into any possibility of enforcement.

Government control is a slippery slope. It starts with the criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and before you know it, the government is controlling who breeds with who and when. Homosexuality may be sinful and immoral, but it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:19, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Technically, Homosexuality is not in major violation of the majority of the country's morals, and so there's not reason to criminalize it. What happens in the bedrooms of a loving, consensual couple should not be of any concern to anyone else. [[User:Geosurgeon|Geosurgeon]] 16:19 PM August 28, 2011 (EDT)

No. Even if I did agree that homosexuality is wrong(which I don't), I don't think it could make it through the house or senate. Evidence from both sides is way too shaky, and the religious motive behind it would be dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It would also bring up many comparisons to Nazi Germany, where they criminalized homosexuality, by punishment of death, and while I'm fully aware that even if such legislation was to be written up, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible as Nazi Germany, the comparison would stick the moment it became public. Furthermore, the amount of money such legislation would cost(sinking money into already overzealous law enforcement, and the prison system for a completely ridiculous piece of legislation would be a terrible idea no matter how you look at it) in the end would be enormous and a terribly unnecessary and unaffordable burden on America and Americans in today's economic climate. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:37 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

No. We should prevent homosexual marriage, but while America was founded a Christian nation (see [http://creationwiki.org/William_Penn William Penn]), it was founded on the understanding that other views should be allowed to coexist. As Thomas Jefferson said in the [http://creationwiki.org/Virginia_statute_for_religious_freedom Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom],
{{cquote|"Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time...
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;"}}
Jefferson believed that while government should imitate the style of the Bible, God did not force others to believe through coercion, and neither should we. So long as their lifestyles don't affect the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they should be allowed to live as they please. Marriage should not be allowed because it affects the public sphere but what they do in the privacy of their own homes ought to be their business.

If you look at what the Bible says, it says we can't justly judge others according to the Mosaic Law because by it, we ourselves are guilty. Only God can judge by such a Law, because we ourselves are all guilty of death before God, and cannot expect God to forgive us if we can't forgive others. We cannot cast the first stone without being sinless ourselves.
{{cquote|Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.}}

Homosexuality is just one of a number of sexual sins that include divorce, adultery, and lusting after the wives of others in one's heart. All are guilty of death before God, and cannot cast the first stone if not sinless themselves. Those who judge others according to the Law will not be forgiven by God their own guilt; and all are guilty. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:45, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?

2012-06-04T06:47:16Z

Jzy: /* No */

==Yes==
I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).

In order to save our economy, we must criminalize homosexuality. Punishing them by death is a bit too extreme, as we Americans need to show that we are more moral than those who punish homosexuality through death. Instead, I suggest we ''deport'' them any communist/socialist state (Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea). These countries are definitely more tolerant towards their gay population since there is never any communist state that criminalizes homosexuality. Or maybe we should send the entire gay population in America to Japan. Since many anime portray homosexuals in a more positive light and Japan happens to be the gay friendliest country in the world, we deport homosexuals there instead.--[[User:JacobMS|JacobMS]] 23:42, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:I am afraid to say that unfortunately JacobMS, you seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:22, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Homosexuality wasn't legalised until well into the 1970s in Britain, the empire was crumbling well before then [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:48, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Christianity clearly prohibits homosexuality, and since America is a CHRISTIAN country, we need to outlaw homosexuality to protect the country from sin. ---[[User:DennisRifkin|DennisR]] 07:32, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::According to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, America is not a Christian nation. See: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html. And I quote: "Art. 11. The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" From the founding fathers themselves, practically. John Adams was president at the time and proudly signed and announced it, and it, along with the rest of the treaty of course, was unanimously agreed upon by the senate. I needed to point that out. --[[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:28, 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

Yes. After Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas is the worst Supreme Court Decision in the history of the United States. It needs to be overturned and a federal anti-Homosexuality law passed. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]], [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] and [[Homosexuality and health]]. When one looks at the [[homosexuality and health]] article, it is really not that surprising that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undP3-0yEn8 Indian lady Christian dancers are far more graceful] than the [[Lesbianism and obesity|obesity infested lesbian population.]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH4ZTSUZQWM&list=PLFD5B143F743EB6B1] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's also [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] and [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:28, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OliviaB, you are being redundant. Is that not covered under [[Homosexuality and health]]? (you are probably not the first parodist guilty of being redundant) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).
:I believe ''white people'' are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that ''doesn't have many white people'', and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized ''being white'' or have more liberal "white folks." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of ''white people'' (Every place colonized by Spain and England before 1900).
:I think you're onto something. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

The last thing we need in this country are more liberal, nanny state policies like this. The only thing criminalization of homosexuality would accomplish is more spending on law enforcement and increased governmental control of our lives. There would also be no way to enforce it, since making love in the street is already illegal, and homosexuals could just claim public displays of affection as political statements protected by the first amendment, which would clog our court systems even worse than they already are. There is no objective way to prove homosexuality outside the bedroom, so that throws a giant wrench into any possibility of enforcement.

Government control is a slippery slope. It starts with the criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and before you know it, the government is controlling who breeds with who and when. Homosexuality may be sinful and immoral, but it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:19, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Technically, Homosexuality is not in major violation of the majority of the country's morals, and so there's not reason to criminalize it. What happens in the bedrooms of a loving, consensual couple should not be of any concern to anyone else. [[User:Geosurgeon|Geosurgeon]] 16:19 PM August 28, 2011 (EDT)

No. Even if I did agree that homosexuality is wrong(which I don't), I don't think it could make it through the house or senate. Evidence from both sides is way too shaky, and the religious motive behind it would be dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It would also bring up many comparisons to Nazi Germany, where they criminalized homosexuality, by punishment of death, and while I'm fully aware that even if such legislation was to be written up, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible as Nazi Germany, the comparison would stick the moment it became public. Furthermore, the amount of money such legislation would cost(sinking money into already overzealous law enforcement, and the prison system for a completely ridiculous piece of legislation would be a terrible idea no matter how you look at it) in the end would be enormous and a terribly unnecessary and unaffordable burden on America and Americans in today's economic climate. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:37 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

No. We should prevent homosexual marriage, but while America was founded a Christian nation (see [http://creationwiki.org/William_Penn William Penn]), it was founded on the understanding that other views should be allowed to coexist. As Thomas Jefferson said in the [http://creationwiki.org/Virginia_statute_for_religious_freedom Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom],
{{cquote|"Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time...
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;"}}
Jefferson believed that while government should imitate the style of the Bible, God did not force others to believe through coercion, and neither should we. So long as their lifestyles don't affect the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they should be allowed to live as they please. Marriage should not be allowed because it affects the public sphere but what they do in the privacy of their own homes ought to be their business.

If you look at what the Bible says, it says we can't justly judge others according to the Mosaic Law because by it, we ourselves are guilty. Only God can judge by such a Law, because we ourselves are all guilty of death before God, and cannot expect God to forgive us if we can't forgive others. We cannot cast the first stone without being sinless ourselves.
{{cquote|Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.}}

Homosexuality is just one of a number of sexual sins that include divorce, adultery, and lusting after the wives of others in one's heart. All are guilty of death before God, and cannot cast the first stone if not sinless themselves. Those who judges others according to the Law will not be forgiven by God their own guilt; and all are guilty. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:45, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?

2012-06-04T06:46:41Z

Jzy: /* No */

==Yes==
I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).

In order to save our economy, we must criminalize homosexuality. Punishing them by death is a bit too extreme, as we Americans need to show that we are more moral than those who punish homosexuality through death. Instead, I suggest we ''deport'' them any communist/socialist state (Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea). These countries are definitely more tolerant towards their gay population since there is never any communist state that criminalizes homosexuality. Or maybe we should send the entire gay population in America to Japan. Since many anime portray homosexuals in a more positive light and Japan happens to be the gay friendliest country in the world, we deport homosexuals there instead.--[[User:JacobMS|JacobMS]] 23:42, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:I am afraid to say that unfortunately JacobMS, you seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:22, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Homosexuality wasn't legalised until well into the 1970s in Britain, the empire was crumbling well before then [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:48, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Christianity clearly prohibits homosexuality, and since America is a CHRISTIAN country, we need to outlaw homosexuality to protect the country from sin. ---[[User:DennisRifkin|DennisR]] 07:32, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::According to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, America is not a Christian nation. See: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html. And I quote: "Art. 11. The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" From the founding fathers themselves, practically. John Adams was president at the time and proudly signed and announced it, and it, along with the rest of the treaty of course, was unanimously agreed upon by the senate. I needed to point that out. --[[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:28, 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

Yes. After Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas is the worst Supreme Court Decision in the history of the United States. It needs to be overturned and a federal anti-Homosexuality law passed. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]], [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] and [[Homosexuality and health]]. When one looks at the [[homosexuality and health]] article, it is really not that surprising that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undP3-0yEn8 Indian lady Christian dancers are far more graceful] than the [[Lesbianism and obesity|obesity infested lesbian population.]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH4ZTSUZQWM&list=PLFD5B143F743EB6B1] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's also [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] and [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:28, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OliviaB, you are being redundant. Is that not covered under [[Homosexuality and health]]? (you are probably not the first parodist guilty of being redundant) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).
:I believe ''white people'' are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that ''doesn't have many white people'', and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized ''being white'' or have more liberal "white folks." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of ''white people'' (Every place colonized by Spain and England before 1900).
:I think you're onto something. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

The last thing we need in this country are more liberal, nanny state policies like this. The only thing criminalization of homosexuality would accomplish is more spending on law enforcement and increased governmental control of our lives. There would also be no way to enforce it, since making love in the street is already illegal, and homosexuals could just claim public displays of affection as political statements protected by the first amendment, which would clog our court systems even worse than they already are. There is no objective way to prove homosexuality outside the bedroom, so that throws a giant wrench into any possibility of enforcement.

Government control is a slippery slope. It starts with the criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and before you know it, the government is controlling who breeds with who and when. Homosexuality may be sinful and immoral, but it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:19, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Technically, Homosexuality is not in major violation of the majority of the country's morals, and so there's not reason to criminalize it. What happens in the bedrooms of a loving, consensual couple should not be of any concern to anyone else. [[User:Geosurgeon|Geosurgeon]] 16:19 PM August 28, 2011 (EDT)

No. Even if I did agree that homosexuality is wrong(which I don't), I don't think it could make it through the house or senate. Evidence from both sides is way too shaky, and the religious motive behind it would be dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It would also bring up many comparisons to Nazi Germany, where they criminalized homosexuality, by punishment of death, and while I'm fully aware that even if such legislation was to be written up, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible as Nazi Germany, the comparison would stick the moment it became public. Furthermore, the amount of money such legislation would cost(sinking money into already overzealous law enforcement, and the prison system for a completely ridiculous piece of legislation would be a terrible idea no matter how you look at it) in the end would be enormous and a terribly unnecessary and unaffordable burden on America and Americans in today's economic climate. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:37 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

No. We should prevent homosexual marriage, but while America was founded a Christian nation (see [http://creationwiki.org/William_Penn William Penn]), it was founded on the understanding that other views should be allowed to coexist. As Thomas Jefferson said in the [http://creationwiki.org/Virginia_statute_for_religious_freedom Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom],
{{cquote|"Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time...
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;"}}
Jefferson believed that while government should imitate the style of the Bible, God did not force others to believe through coercion, and neither should we. So long as their lifestyles don't affect the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they should be allowed to live as they please. Marriage should not be allowed because it affects the public sphere but what they do in the privacy of their own homes ought to be their business.

If you look at what the Bible says, it says we can't justly judge others according to the Mosaic Law because by it, we ourselves are guilty. Only God can judge by such a Law, because we ourselves are all guilty of death before God, and cannot expect God to forgive us if we can't forgive others. We cannot cast the first stone without being sinless ourselves.

{{cquote|Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.}}

Homosexuality is just one of a number of sexual sins that include divorce, adultery, and lusting after the wives of others in one's heart. All are guilty of death before God, and cannot cast the first stone if not sinless themselves. Those who judges others according to the Law will not be forgiven by God their own guilt; and all are guilty. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:45, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?

2012-06-04T06:45:46Z

Jzy: /* No */

==Yes==
I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).

In order to save our economy, we must criminalize homosexuality. Punishing them by death is a bit too extreme, as we Americans need to show that we are more moral than those who punish homosexuality through death. Instead, I suggest we ''deport'' them any communist/socialist state (Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea). These countries are definitely more tolerant towards their gay population since there is never any communist state that criminalizes homosexuality. Or maybe we should send the entire gay population in America to Japan. Since many anime portray homosexuals in a more positive light and Japan happens to be the gay friendliest country in the world, we deport homosexuals there instead.--[[User:JacobMS|JacobMS]] 23:42, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:I am afraid to say that unfortunately JacobMS, you seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:22, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Homosexuality wasn't legalised until well into the 1970s in Britain, the empire was crumbling well before then [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:48, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Christianity clearly prohibits homosexuality, and since America is a CHRISTIAN country, we need to outlaw homosexuality to protect the country from sin. ---[[User:DennisRifkin|DennisR]] 07:32, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::According to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, America is not a Christian nation. See: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html. And I quote: "Art. 11. The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" From the founding fathers themselves, practically. John Adams was president at the time and proudly signed and announced it, and it, along with the rest of the treaty of course, was unanimously agreed upon by the senate. I needed to point that out. --[[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:28, 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

Yes. After Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas is the worst Supreme Court Decision in the history of the United States. It needs to be overturned and a federal anti-Homosexuality law passed. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]], [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] and [[Homosexuality and health]]. When one looks at the [[homosexuality and health]] article, it is really not that surprising that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undP3-0yEn8 Indian lady Christian dancers are far more graceful] than the [[Lesbianism and obesity|obesity infested lesbian population.]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH4ZTSUZQWM&list=PLFD5B143F743EB6B1] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's also [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] and [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:28, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OliviaB, you are being redundant. Is that not covered under [[Homosexuality and health]]? (you are probably not the first parodist guilty of being redundant) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).
:I believe ''white people'' are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that ''doesn't have many white people'', and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized ''being white'' or have more liberal "white folks." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of ''white people'' (Every place colonized by Spain and England before 1900).
:I think you're onto something. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

The last thing we need in this country are more liberal, nanny state policies like this. The only thing criminalization of homosexuality would accomplish is more spending on law enforcement and increased governmental control of our lives. There would also be no way to enforce it, since making love in the street is already illegal, and homosexuals could just claim public displays of affection as political statements protected by the first amendment, which would clog our court systems even worse than they already are. There is no objective way to prove homosexuality outside the bedroom, so that throws a giant wrench into any possibility of enforcement.

Government control is a slippery slope. It starts with the criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and before you know it, the government is controlling who breeds with who and when. Homosexuality may be sinful and immoral, but it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:19, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Technically, Homosexuality is not in major violation of the majority of the country's morals, and so there's not reason to criminalize it. What happens in the bedrooms of a loving, consensual couple should not be of any concern to anyone else. [[User:Geosurgeon|Geosurgeon]] 16:19 PM August 28, 2011 (EDT)

No. Even if I did agree that homosexuality is wrong(which I don't), I don't think it could make it through the house or senate. Evidence from both sides is way too shaky, and the religious motive behind it would be dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It would also bring up many comparisons to Nazi Germany, where they criminalized homosexuality, by punishment of death, and while I'm fully aware that even if such legislation was to be written up, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible as Nazi Germany, the comparison would stick the moment it became public. Furthermore, the amount of money such legislation would cost(sinking money into already overzealous law enforcement, and the prison system for a completely ridiculous piece of legislation would be a terrible idea no matter how you look at it) in the end would be enormous and a terribly unnecessary and unaffordable burden on America and Americans in today's economic climate. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:37 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

No. We should prevent homosexual marriage, but while America was founded a Christian nation (see [http://creationwiki.org/William_Penn William Penn]), it was founded on the understanding that other views should be allowed to coexist. As Thomas Jefferson said in the [http://creationwiki.org/Virginia_statute_for_religious_freedom Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom],
{{cquote|"Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time...
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;"}}
Jefferson believed that while government should imitate the style of the Bible, God did not force others to believe through coercion, and neither should we. So long as their lifestyles don't affect the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they should be allowed to live as they please. Marriage should not be allowed because it affects the public sphere but what they do in the privacy of their own homes ought to be their business.

If you look at what the Bible says, it says we can't justly judge others according to the Mosaic Law because by it, we ourselves are guilty. Only God can judge by such a Law, because we ourselves are all guilty of death before God, and cannot expect God to forgive us if we can't forgive others. We cannot cast the first stone without being sinless ourselves.

{{cquote|Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.}}

Homosexuality is just one of a number of sexual sins that include divorce, adultery, and lusting after the wives of others in one's heart. All are guilty of death before God, and cannot cast the first stone if not sinless themselves. Those who judges others according to the Law will not be forgiven by God their own guilt; and all are guilty. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:45, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-06-04T06:18:26Z

Jzy: /* Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org */

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-05-29T14:16:16Z

Jzy: /* Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-05-29T14:14:45Z

Jzy: /* Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org */

User:Jzy

2012-05-29T14:09:22Z

Jzy:

[http://creationwiki.org/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] from CreationWiki. I'm not here to edit (especially since you guys don't want me here anyway apparently). My old account here, [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua], got deleted recently (I hadn't edited for 2 years so I have no idea why it would have been - inactivity maybe?). I'm not here to cause trouble, just to talk on Talk Pages and express some concerns I have. Kind of ironic that it got deleted right as I checked back. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:58, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Basically just was curious about the banning/deletion spree lately and figured I'd drop by, mention a few things. If you guys really want to ban this that's your prerogative, as it's all the same to me. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:09, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Jzy

2012-05-29T14:04:26Z

Jzy:

User:Jzy

2012-05-29T14:00:45Z

Jzy:

[http://creationwiki.org/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] from CreationWiki. I'm not really here to edit. My old account here, [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua], got deleted recently (I hadn't edited for 2 years so I have no idea why it would have been - inactivity maybe?). I'm not here to cause trouble, just to talk on Talk Pages and express some concerns I have. Kind of ironic that it got deleted right as I checked back. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:58, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Jzy

2012-05-29T13:58:08Z

Jzy:

Jzyehoshua from CreationWiki. I'm not really here to edit. My old account here, Jzyehoshua, got deleted recently (I hadn't edited for months so I have no idea why it would have been - inactivity maybe?). I'm not here to cause trouble, just to talk on Talk Pages and express some concerns I have. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:58, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Jzy

2012-05-29T13:54:06Z

Jzy: Created page with "Jzyehoshua"

Jzyehoshua

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-05-29T13:52:43Z

Jzy: /* Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org */ new section