Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2017-06-29T02:34:05Z

Keepscases: /* On proper grammar, or, did you know that most of the population of Texas is homosexual? */ ::Yes. ~~~~

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

[[Community Portal/Archives]]

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

== On proper grammar, or, did you know that most of the population of Texas is homosexual? ==

I have chided Cons repeatedly on proper punctuation, particularly regarding subordinate clauses and compound sentences. For a sample, see [[User_talk:SamHB#Re:_Aburke]].

Well, it turns out that the same errors can show up in unexpected places, like the Texas Republican party’s official platform. It has:
{{cquote|Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.}}

See [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/majority-of-texas-gay_us_573e88bfe4b0613b5129e31d this].

Watch those commas!!!! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
:Wow. And shouldn't it be "have been ordained" rather than "has been ordained"? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith| Pat Nixon for President]] 13:12, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
::Yes. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 22:34, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== States and Governors ==

I mentioned this earlier, but nothing happened - here are the U.S. states with red-linked governors:
{|
!state
!governor
!ann
|-
|[[Alaska]]|| [[Bill Walker]] ||
|-
|[[Arizona]]|| [[Doug Ducey]] ||
|-
|[[Arkansas]]|| [[Asa Hutchinson]] ||
|-
|[[Hawaii]]|| [[David Ige]] ||
|-
|[[Illinois]]|| [[Bruce Rauner]] ||
|-
|[[Maryland]]|| [[Larry Hogan]] || Thank you, [[User:DavidB4]]!
|-
|[[Montana]]|| [[Steve Bullock]] ||
|-
|[[Nebraska]]|| [[Pete Ricketts]] ||
|-
|[[New Hampshire]]|| [[Maggie Hassan]] ||
|-
|[[North Carolina]]|| [[Pat McCrory]] ||
|-
|[[Pennsylvania]]|| [[Tom Wolf]] ||
|-
|[[Rhode Island]]|| [[Gina Raimondo]] ||
|-
|[[Washington]]|| [[Jay Inslee]]
|}

It seems that [[Doug Ducey]] even isn't any longer governor of Arizona! The overall look of the articles on the smaller states is quite abysmal - and often outdated. As I am not American, I do not feel up to editing these articles in detail, but I have to ask: If they cannot use Conservapedia even to check who the governor of an U.S. state is, what will high-school pupils think of it? They have to rely on Wikipedia to get up-dated information!

It would be nice to have articles on the governors, too, just to check their political priorities. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:11, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

:I know a fair amount about political concepts, people I can have a hand in electing, and other well-known political figures. However, I know little about--if you'll pardon the expression--lesser politicians, who have little significance to me. Therefore, I'm sorry to say that I know almost nothing about these governors. However, I've done a little on a couple of them. I may do more, but all I can do is research then write based on what I find. It could be hopelessly inaccurate, but I have no way of knowing. For this reason, I'm trying not to add too much detail, since I don't want to make fa lse statements. If anyone else knows anything about them, please add to or revise what I've written! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 11:01, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

::Well spoken, David. Speak of what you know; not of what some website wants you to believe. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (EDT)
== One column footnoting vs. two column footnoting and mobile devices ==

For this article [[Operation Compass]] I added footnoting code at the bottom of the article for the new editor.

If you look at the article, you will see that the footnoting is one column footnoting and not two column footnoting.

I think I recall reading that one column footnoting is better for mobile device readers, but I am not sure. Do you know if this is the case or not?

Also, if you look at my edit which is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Compass&diff=1224027&oldid=1224024 HERE], you will see that my column width is colwidth=30em . I think this might be better for mobile devices as well, but I am not sure.

If I am right about these two matters, I think Conservapedia's manual of style should be updated. Also, we might want to clean up our most high traffic articles so one column format is used.

Does anyone know about these matters? I ask because a lot of people are using mobile devices now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:11, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

:I don't know, but I have a testing platform I might be able to use tomorrow, if no one else knows either. It would have sense that single columns would be better, but the Wiki software comes with a mobile mode, so this might counteract columns. I'll try to get back to you on this. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 23:26, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
::I'll do some real-world testing tomorrow, but if you click the "Mobile View" link in CP's footer ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Compass&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile here's the direct link]), you can see that columns are removed completely. Therefore, it seems that it shouldn't matter what we do for columns. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
:::A big problem with 2 column footnotes is that if there are a small number of footnotes, it will break them up with only one or two words in the second column. It does not have code to put the column break between two different footnotes. Thank you DavidB for cleaning this up. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 04:39, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
::::I'm not very good at designing templates for Wikis, but I wonder if someone could fix that. Anyway, I did a little testing and all the mobile platforms I tried did load the wiki's mobile view, with the single column of references. I even tried the [[Atheism]] article, with its three columns and had the same result, even if it was painfully slow due to the size of the page. It looks like we can do columns for computers only without worrying about mobile viewing. If you have anything else you want me to check, though, let me know! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:32, 6 June 2016 (EDT)

== Is Trump the new Zachary Taylor? ==

That's what this article argues: "[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935 How an outsider president killed a party]." Taylor, elected president in 1848, was the ultimate outsider candidate, even more so than Trump. He had no political experience whatsoever, and he proudly boasted that he had never even voted. When he was nominated by the Whig Party, he was known only as the commander who defeated the Mexicans at Buena Vista. But I can't agree with the article's headline. Taylor was not the guy responsible for the downfall of the Whigs. That would be Millard Fillmore, Taylor's vice president. If Taylor was the non-ideological celebrity candidate of 1848, Fillmore was a true believer, a Whig version of Ted Cruz. Whig ideology called for the president to defer to Congress. Taylor died in office after a year. When Fillmore succeed, the long-frustrated "ultra Whigs" finally got their day in the sun. It was a disaster. Although personally opposed to slavery, Fillmore deferred to Congress as a good Whig. This meant strictly enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It was a combination of views made him hugely unpopular, both in the North and in the South. The party collapsed in 1852. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:50, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

== They're at it again ==

Is there anyone around who can block these people? There still creating accounts. Maybe we should add "1.888.811.4532" to the spam filter. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

:Blocked--finally. You're right, they keep using text from the same crawls of Amazon and Quickbooks. It should be easy to add temporary entries to the spam filter. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:14, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

::They're still at it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:48, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

== Is the server clock messed up? ==

The clock seems to be a few hours fast. According to what it says, I'm going to try to repair the E=mc^2 article at about 04:30. It is now 00:46 EDT. Or have you switched to UTC? I thought CP was on EST/EDT. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (EDT)

Never mind. It's back on EDT now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 1 October 2016 (EDT)
==Fair use images==
What is our policy on fair use of copyrighted or trademark-protected images? Please take a look at: [[File:Pajamas Media logo.gif]]. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:29, 9 November 2016 (EST)

:I am not aware of a specific, written code to follow regarding this on CP. In general, I think most people here try to avoid copyrighted images. However, some use them as WP does (any image, anytime, anywhere can be uses under Fair Use, it seems is their policy), and no one here seems to object. Personal, I try to avoid copyrights except when the copyright is help by an organization friendly to CP. Answers In Genesis I have no problem with, because it is my assumption that I probably have the legal right, but in any case I expect they appreciate friendly publicity. I could always be wrong, though... 
:Trademark laws are a little less restrictive, and since we are not selling a product under their trademark, it is my understanding that it is usually acceptable to use these images. However, if they are also copyrighted, I usually will not. Even in court, Fair Use is a pain, because it is ambiguous, but I'd advise that you err on the side of caution. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that for the most part, each person does what they think is right. (Perhaps like "...every man did that which was right in his own eyes." -Judges 21:25?) 
:I'll stop rambling in just a moment, but a pseudo-legal definition I've heard is "Spontaneous usage of a portion of a work for a purpose which generates no profit for the user, nor takes profit from the owner." Other definitions I've heard almost always also include some element of spontaneity, such as a teacher sees an article online, prints off a page or two of it, and hands it out to the class for study in class. I don't know where to draw the line, though. As you probably know better than I, WP seems to assume that anything is fine to use, since it is for education purposes and does not directly generate revenue for them (though nice articles tend to lead to more donations). It may be alright to use this policy since they get away with it, but I personally prefer not to risk it for the most part. Perhaps an admin here knows more on the topic. I know I've spoken to Jpatt about copyright issues before, so you could always try asking him directly, if you don't get a satisfactory answer here. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:31, 19 November 2016 (EST)

::This is the guidelines for images here:[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Images] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:45, 19 November 2016 (EST)

== Hillary's Downfall ==

The original (and still hysterically funny) version is [http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2/hillarys-downfall-from-jamesadomian?_cc=__d___&_ccid=083fa30c-ba08-42dd-808c-3f889f16dab6 here]. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYyMF7IZ9Dw This version] is updated for 2016. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (EST)

== Browser search engine: Conservapedia ==

It seems that most browsers have Wikipedia listed as one of the available search engines. It occurs to me that some might find the same useful for CP. What do you all think? I've stared [[User:DavidB4/search conservapedia|a page]] to show what I'm thinking. Can I get some input? 
One important factor is that I don't think this can be easily set up for Internet Explorer. Also, Firefox is being a problem, but I may be able to assemble an XML file that works. Is something like this worth publishing? (see: [[User:DavidB4/search conservapedia]]) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:36, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Math conundrum ==
This meme started in Japan and is confounding people across the Internet:
:<big><big>x=9-3÷⅓+1</big></big> [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
::Are you suggesting that if a high school student read CP, he could not find what he needs to answer this correctly? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (EST)
==Was Hitler a Catholic?==
The article [[Liberal myths]] says "They claim Hitler was a Catholic." The article [[Christian In Name Only]] says "Despite being raised Roman Catholic and claiming that Jesus was his inspiration, Hitler was only using Christianity to gain favor with the German people. His true beliefs were based off of his social darwinistic views." It also includes "The Catholic Church" as all being XINO. What are we trying to communicate here? That liberals are wrong in claiming that Hitler was a Catholic in name only, or that because Hitler was raised a Catholic, even if Hitler had remained a faithful practitioner of Catholicism, he would still be just a XINO? Or that liberals claim that Hitler was true to the teaching and spirit of the Catholic Church in his every thought and deed? Or is it a liberal myth that the complexity of Christianity can be reduced to a short list of XINOs? Please help! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:My beliefs may differ from CPs, but as I understand it, Hitler claimed to be a catholic to win favor. He was not (he was actually very involved in the occult) but even if he had been, it would have been questionable whether he was a Christian or not. His actions proved he was not a Christian or a catholic, however, so I suppose you could say he was two-fold Christian in name only. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:32, 29 December 2016 (EST)

::Many secular liberals like to claim that Hitler was a Christian or a Roman Catholic in order to blame Christianity for the Holocaust, as well as every other evil in the world. That's all it is. Hitler clearly opposed Christianity,[http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html][https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/] believed in evolution, [https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/hitler-and-evolution/] and tried to modify Protestantism in Germany into a XINO organization that adhered to Nazi beliefs.[https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/the-results-of-evolution/] (I also read somewhere that Hitler wished that Islam were the dominant religion in Europe because it was "stronger" and he thus could use it better). I think what the article is saying is that Hitler, like the R.C.C., claimed to be Christian, but in reality had beliefs far from biblical Christianity. His denomination does not appear to really matter. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Historians have generally viewed the Pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy as being complicit in spreading anti-Semitism and being supportive of the Holocaust. However, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have changed a lot since 1939, particularly for blaming the Jews for Christ's death. I believe that it is probably a mistake to list the entire Roman Catholic Church as XINO, and the terse "They claim Hitler was a Catholic." is too condensed to help the reader. There are many ways to criticize liberals, and this one is probably so weak that most people would not list it. If the Roman Catholic Church is XINO, what about the Mormons? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::::I (and probably the person who added the R.C.C.) believe the R.C.C. is XINO because of theological reasons rather than promoting politically left-wing ideology (even though I could name some R.C. clergy who would be better characterized as leftist activists). On issues such as the way to salvation (the most important one), the R.C.C. follows doctrine that the Bible not only does not support, but also speaks against. Same with the Mormons. That is why the R.C.C. is listed here.
::::Also, because so many Roman Catholics edit CP, I should make myself clear that I have nothing against Catholics or Mormons, and I think many of them are great people. I say what I say not to bash them but to point out that many of their doctrines are false and unbiblical. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::I also enjoy working with Catholics and Mormons. I find religion to be very deep and textured. At this point in my life, when I look back at all of the decisions and judgments that I have made, I no longer can tell where religion ends and my personal ethics takes over -- everything was baked together. I think that wikis or general encyclopedias are not suited for religious teaching or debate. So, I cringe when I read the stuff on [[Liberal myths]] and [[Christian In Name Only]]. It is like trying to publish a book called "Religion for Dummies." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::::::Yes, it can be a problem when people with very different theological beliefs (despite the same political and cultural views) edit articles like that. I do think, however, that both Roman Catholics and Protestants have no problem with the material on "Liberal myths." I could be wrong, but the XINO article seems to have been quite stable over the years, which is quite remarkable, considering the disagreements of our editors. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::::Hitler was from Austria. At that time, everyone in Austria was Catholic. So he was Catholic in the sense that he didn't publicaly break with the faith. ''Hitler's Table Talk'' records what he said in private dinner conversations. He's real views was Nietzschean and social Darwinist, according to the book. He thought Christianity is for weaklings, and so forth. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::::::::New book says [https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Religion-Twisted-Beliefs-Drove/dp/1621575004 Hitler was a ''pantheist''.] That puts him in bed witbh Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawking. Which makes sense. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:23, 30 December 2016 (EST)
:Hitler already made clear that he did not adhere to Catholicism at all, nor in point of fact, had he ever practiced the faith. He left the Catholic Church a long time prior to becoming Fuhrer, and UNLIKE Protestants, we Catholics don't adhere to the "Once Saved, Always Saved" ideology. Any "claims" to being Christian, Catholic or Protestant was typical cynical politics being displayed, no different than when Barack Obama or the Clintons claimed they were Christians, or Josef Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II. So far as the R.C.C. being XINO, are you seriously telling me that the Roman Catholic Church, which BTW had direct ties to Saint Peter, the first Pope (which is even directly alluded to with the passage of "Upon this rock you would find my Church"), is Christian in Name Only? They had direct ties to the founding of Christianity in the form of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. If you're going to call us XINOs, you might as well call THEM that as well, and I don't think people would take kindly towards anyone implying that Saints are XINOs. Them and the Eastern Orthodox, I should add. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:37, 3 May 2017 (EDT)
::Not all Protestants believe that once God, by His grace alone and not by our works, saves us, that we're always saved. It's part of the whole Arminian/Calvinist dispute. I agree with the Calvinists, who believe that someone who God has chosen to elect unto salvation will always be elected. It's theology, not ideology. See [https://www.gotquestions.org/once-saved-always-saved.html this article], which further explains my position.
::Regarding apostolic succession, the short answer is that along the way in history (around 500-1200 AD) unbiblical teachings started penetrating the church, and its leadership accepted those views. Theologically, they did not believe the same things as the apostles. It was the Reformers who, when they read Scripture (''all independenly from each other:'' Peter Waldo, John Wycliff, Jan Hus, Luther, Zwingli, etc.), who again taught what the apostles received. But make no mistake: the gospel was being proclimed throughout the Middle Ages (Waldo, etc.). Articles that better explain my position: [https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html][https://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html]
::But I agree with you regarding Hitler. Like other politicians, he would try to associate himself publically with a Christian denomination, in this case, the R.C.C. In public, he tried to persuade his audience he was a Christan, but he also appeased his atheistic friends by criticizing Christianity. His plan was to replace Christianity with his own pagan Nazi religion once he won the war. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

== Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter ==

See [[Top conservatives on Twitter]] for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative. Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still in existence, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2016.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
|+ Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016 (top 20 each category)
|+
!Twitter poster
!Increase in followers 2016
!Percent increase in followers
|-
|align="left"|Pres.-Elect [[Donald J. Trump]]
|align="right"|+13,053,000
|align="right"|+237%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Ben Carson]]
|align="right"|+1,475,000
|align="right"|+136%
|-
|align="left"|[[Michelle Malkin]]
|align="right"|+943,000
|align="right"|+105%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sean Hannity]]
|align="right"|+697,000
|align="right"|+56%
|-
|align="left"|[[Laura Ingraham]]
|align="right"|+550,000
|align="right"|+89%
|-
|align="left"|[[Ann Coulter]]
|align="right"|+463,000
|align="right"|+63%
|-
|align="left"|Judge [[Jeanine Pirro]]
|align="right"|+292,000
|align="right"|+222%
|-
|align="left"|[[Franklin Graham]]
|align="right"|+277,000
|align="right"|+59%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sarah Palin]]
|align="right"|+226,000
|align="right"|+20%
|-
|align="left"|[[Tucker Carlson]]
|align="right"|+224,000
|align="right"|+89%
|-
|align="left"|[[Steven Crowder]]
|align="right"|+180,000
|align="right"|+122%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dinesh D'Souza]]
|align="right"|+166,000
|align="right"|+69%
|-
|align="left"|[[Mark Levin]]
|align="right"|+157,000
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[James O'Keefe]]
|align="right"|+147,000
|align="right"|+198%
|-
|align="left"|[[Katie Pavlich]]
|align="right"|+145,000
|align="right"|+70%
|-
|align="left"|[[Allen West]]
|align="right"|+137,000
|align="right"|+29%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Charles Krauthammer]]
|align="right"|+121,000
|align="right"|+20%
|-
|align="left"|[[Monica Crowley]]
|align="right"|+114,000
|align="right"|+42%
|-
|align="left"|[[Linda Suhler]], Ph. D.
|align="right"|+90,000
|align="right"|+48%
|-
|align="left"|Gov. [[Greg Abbott]]
|align="right"|+65,000
|align="right"|+40%
|-
|align="left"|[[John Nolte]]
|align="right"|+46,000
|align="right"|+74%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dennis Prager]]
|align="right"|+28,000
|align="right"|+50%
|-
|align="left"|[[Hugh Hewitt]]
|align="right"|+42,000
|align="right"|+47%
|-
|align="left"|[[Nikki Haley]]
|align="right"|+57,000
|align="right"|+47%
|-
|align="left"|Sen. [[Tim Scott]]
|align="right"|+51,000
|align="right"|+45%
|-
|}

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:A better example of conservatism actually selling is Milo's book deal with Simon & Schuster.[http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/3/14119080/milo-yiannopoulos-book-deal-simon-schuster-dangerous-boycott] Historically, the only conservatives the "big five" book publishers dealt with were those with bankable personalities, i.e. people who had a built-in audiences due to regular appearances on Fox News or whatever. Only Regnery would publish books by lesser-known conservatives. Liberals think Al Franken is a great comedian because he wrote ''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot''. Why can't they see the humor in “[http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good-science/ Science Proves It: Fat-Shaming Works]”? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:09, 4 January 2017 (EST)

== Alexa rank ==

User:Conservative was "crowing" about how Conservapedia in April of last year had reached 100,000 on the Alexa world rank. As of today [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com], it's reached a global ranking of 55,877.

Is this a new record? Does the increase reflect only a seasonal factor or impressive growth? Do you suppose people around the world want to know more about conservatism now that conservatives have outvoted the opposition to help elect their preference to be the next President? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:18, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:We're sorely lacking in new content. All that new traffic to read many articles which are outdated and have not been maintained. I don't know... [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 07:42, 9 January 2017 (EST)

::The graph makes it look like a record. As a site grows, the number does usually drop, so this seems to be a good sign. RobS has a point, though--we have a lot of outdated content, so at the very least we need to spiff it up so we don't loose traffic.
::On a side note, I am suspicious of the 7.5% of traffic from China. Firstly, we don't have any significant Chinese content, secondly the "great firewall of china" probably blocks citizens form accessing CP, and thirdly China is notorious for their cyber attacks as of late. Oh well... --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:47, 9 January 2017 (EST)

:::I should note that we are still growing internationally, but we are starting to shrink in the U.S. (after a long period of growth and reaching what likely was a record high, of course). In mid-December, we were at 12,535 in the U.S., but now we are at 16,553. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 9 January 2017 (EST)
::::Forty percent of our traffic is from search engines. Nine percent of the search engine traffic goes to the [[Poe's law]] article. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:50, 9 January 2017 (EST)
:::::@DavidB, so what do you think? Putin is routing traffic through Chinese servers to influence French and German elections? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 10:34, 10 January 2017 (EST)
::::::@RobS Don't say that too loud, or the MSM will start screaming it! It sounds just like something they would say. I assume your comment was in jest but text doesn't carry inflection, so just to be clear, no I don't think that! I'm not sure what to think about that traffic--it seems odd, and I'm not sure how to explain it. It could be genuine, but I'd sooner suspect something synthetic...Chinese hacking???? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:06, 10 January 2017 (EST)
:::::::Either hacking or the Chinese are interested in American politics because of the election. I sure hope its not the first one! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (EST)

::::::::I hope so too. The website is still here, so that's a good sign at least. (Although realistically, they usually gather information rather than destroy it.) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:16, 10 January 2017 (EST)
:::::::::Whoever it is, their culling for ideas. CP has become pivotal in the global struggle against [[globalization]] and the [[New World Order]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 12:25, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Given the number of web pages that Conservapedia has, I doubt that 9% of Conservapedia's search engine traffic comes from the Poe's law article. Alexa is wrong about this matter. I largely wrote the Poe's Law article and my guess is that only a very small percentage of Conservapedia's search engine traffic comes from this article. If you look at the total page views of Conservapedia and then look at the view counter for the Poe's law article, you will probably come to the same conclusion that I have made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

== Unlock Template:Infobox person? ==

Could I get someone to unlock the [[:Template:Infobox person]] page? It should have some more elements, and perhaps be merged with [[:Template:Infobox person2]]. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:24, 12 January 2017 (EST)
==New templates to mark direction of changes==
I have added five new templates, which I hope will gain widespread adoption. These templates show icons to indicate increase or decrease, such as ranking in a list or company profit.

* {{Increase}}: {{tl|Increase}}, to show an increase or going up in rankings
* {{Decrease}}: {{tl|Decrease}}, to show a decrease or going down in rankings
* {{Steady}}: {{tl|Steady}} = to show no change

An optional first argument alters the tooltip comment. For example, <nowiki>{{Decrease|-5%}} </nowiki>produces -5%.

In cases where a symbol is needed to represent an increase that is "bad" or a decrease that is "good", such as a rise or fall in road accident fatalities, the following should be used:

* {{IncreaseNegative}}:{{tl|IncreaseNegative}}, to show an increase which is actually bad.
* {{DecreasePositive}}: {{tl|DecreasePositive}}, to show a decrease which is actually good.
Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:13, 27 January 2017 (EST)
==Political directory==
A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like [[Elizabeth Warren]], the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected [[Ohio]], but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

:I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
::In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:::This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <nowiki><s>State</s></nowiki>.
{| class="wikitable"
|
* [[Alabama]]: Dec. 14, 1819
* <s>[[Alaska]]: Jan. 3, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Arizona]]: Feb. 14, 1912</s>
* <s>[[Arkansas]]: Jun. 15, 1836</s>
* <s>[[California]]: Sep. 9, 1850</s>
* <s>[[Colorado]]: Aug. 1, 1876</s>
* <s>[[Connecticut]]: Jan. 9, 1788</s>
* [[Delaware]]: Dec. 7, 1787
* <s>[[Florida]]: Mar. 3, 1845</s>
* <s>[[Georgia]]: Jan. 2, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Hawaii]]: Aug. 21, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Idaho]]: Jul. 3, 1890</s>
* [[Illinois]]: Dec. 3, 1818
* <s>[[Indiana]]: Dec. 11, 1816</s>
* <s>[[Iowa]]: Dec. 28, 1846</s>
* <s>[[Kansas]]: Jan. 29, 1861</s>
* [[Kentucky]]: Jun. 1, 1792
* <s>[[Louisiana]]: Apr. 30, 1812</s>
* <s>[[Maine]]: Mar. 15, 1820</s>
* [[Maryland]]: Apr. 28, 1788
* <s>[[Massachusetts]]: Feb. 6, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Michigan]]: Jan. 26, 1837</s>
* <s>[[Minnesota]]: May 11, 1858</s>
* <s>[[Mississippi]]: Dec. 10, 1817</s>
* [[Missouri]]: Aug. 10, 1821
|
* <s>[[Montana]]: Nov. 8, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Nebraska]]: Mar. 1, 1867</s>
* <s>[[Nevada]]: Oct. 31, 1864</s>
* <s>[[New Hampshire]]: Jun. 21, 1788</s>
* <s>[[New Jersey]]: Dec. 18, 1787</s>
* <s>[[New Mexico]]: Jan. 6, 1912 </s>
* <s>[[New York]]: Jul. 26, 1788</s>
* [[North Carolina]]: Nov. 21, 1789
* <s>[[North Dakota]]: Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* [[Ohio]]: Mar. 1, 1803
* <s>[[Oklahoma]]: Nov. 16, 1907</s>
* <s>[[Oregon]]: Feb. 14, 1859</s>
* <s>[[Pennsylvania]]: Dec. 12, 1787</s>
* <s>[[Rhode Island]]: May 29, 1790</s>
* <s>[[South Carolina]]: May 23, 1788</s>
* <s>[[South Dakota]]: Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Tennessee]]: Jun. 1, 1796</s>
* [[Texas]]: Dec. 29, 1845
* <s>[[Utah]]: Jan. 4, 1896</s>
* [[Vermont]]: Mar. 4, 1791
* [[Virginia]]: Jun. 25, 1788
* <s>[[Washington]]: Nov. 11, 1889</s>
* [[West Virginia]]: Jun. 20, 1863
* [[Wisconsin]]: May 29, 1848
* <s>[[Wyoming]]: Jul. 10, 1890</s>
|}
Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

'''Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers''' listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <nowiki><s>state</s> to state</nowiki>. Many thanks! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

:I recommend adding the phrase "As of 2017" to the "Elected officials" sections of each state. With this, we will know the exact date when these officials were all in power, and we will hopefully be more compelled to update the list later. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:01, 18 February 2017 (EST)
::That may work unless there is a mid-year vacancy. I am troubled that some of these pages were not updated for 4 or more years. I am also looking for references to folks that made recent moves, for example we have a new Alabama Attorney General, because the old one joined the Senate to fill Jeff Session's seat. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:56, 18 February 2017 (EST)

== Conservapedia IRC channel ==

Our [[Internet Relay Chat]] article claims that we have channel on freenode. However, it has not been used for quite some time (last used April 6th, 2008 at 17:52:59, to be exact). Has the channel been moved, or does CP no longer have IRC? If it exists, I'd like to join it. If not, someone should delete that statement from the IRC article. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:48, 16 February 2017 (EST)
:I don't think the IRC channel is active anymore.

:I could be wrong, but I think IRC channels make your computer very susceptible to malware attacks. I think a weekly or biweekly Skype conference chat would be better for those who are interested. Skype is a very secular network. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:02, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
::Thanks for the response! I've responded on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

== Uncategorized images ==

All the images on the page [[Railway track]] are uncategorized. Could they please be added to a category, such as [[:Category:Rail transport]]. I cannot add them myself because they are protected. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 11:29, 23 February 2017 (EST)

:That's a good idea. I've been pushing for a image categorizing project for a while, but the problem is that only full admins can unprotect images. That would be a massive undertaking, and they have other more time-sensitive things to work on. Therefore, this just doesn't get done. The site software automatically generates a list of images which as not categorized here: [[Special:UncategorizedFiles]]. If you can make progress with this, that would be great. However, you will need a full administrator to do it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&editsOnly=1&creationSort=1&limit=100 Here] is a list of registered admins, but most of them seem inactive now. Jpatt, Karajou, Aschlafly, Conservative, TerryH, and Ed Poor are the only once I can remember seeing contribute in the recent past. You could ask them, but you may have the same luck as me. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (EST)

::Thank you. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (EST)

:::I have created an index to the Uncategorized images at [[Uncategorized files]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (EST)
::::Wow. What a task. Thanks for doing that. We should post reminders wherever neccessary, and Andy should emphasize before granting upload priveleges, to please add a category when uploading, rather than leaving the burden to somebody else later. Too many editors with upload privileges are in the habit of uploading in haste and creating massive redundancy and confusion for the whole project later.

::::Is there a program or extension that would stop an upload until a category is added? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 14:19, 25 February 2017 (EST)

:::::Thanks, Desmonduk!
:::::The greater problem now is not that the images were uploaded this way, but that they were locked, so only an admin can unlock and edit them. I must dig for sometimes 10-15 minutes before I can find an unprotected uncategorized file which I can deal with. It's a terrible waste of time. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:52, 25 February 2017 (EST)

::::::You are welcome. I am enjoying editing Conservapedia because I don't get the abuse I used to get on Wikipedia. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (EST)

==Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]]==

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no longer a conservative tweeter. Is it because he is no longer a conservative? By no means—rather it is because he is no longer a tweeter. Sessions deleted his account very recently, with all likelihood because of his preparation for, and because of his changed priorities in, carrying out his weighty new responsibilities. I will keep an eye out for his Twitter presence in case he returns and hope the Conservapedia community will do so as well. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (EST)

== User:ChristopherW ==

I am a little concerned about the blocking of User:ChristopherW - see [[Special:Contributions/ChristopherW]]. It is not clear to me what he has done wrong. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 20:13, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
:As far as ChristoherW's edit to the microevolution article which was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&diff=prev&oldid=1324198 "They are, needless to say, wrong."], would a print encyclopedia say something that is needless to say? No, they would not. It was obviously snarky trolling. There were other signs of snarky trolling as well.

:I do realize that he made some useful edits. That is what the smarter parodist/trolls do.

:Conservapedia has had a handful of parodists who have uncloaked themselves and indicated that were parodists after contributing more than a perfunctory amount of content. In each and every case, I told fellow admins my suspicions and I was right 100% of the time. Their parody type material (or other unsuitable material) was quickly deleted as they went along. In some cases I put them to work as I knew they were smart enough to create quality articles. I got User: Rodweathers to create the [[Atheism and beliefs]] article and User: Bible Sherman to create the [[Soviet atheism]] article.

:Unfortunately, User:ChristopherW was either unable or unwilling to create quality articles. His article on a Koran topic was a horrible article.

:After all is said and done, I will not unblock him. The costs outweigh the benefits. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

::Noted, thank you. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 18:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I improved the [[microevolution]] article. I added the necessary additional material which supposedly was unnecessary to say. :) My guess is that User: ChristopherW was probably ignorant on the topic of microevolution vs. macroevolution and if he got in a public debate with a creationist he would very likely lose (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Vaccination ==

I am thinking of creating an article: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. Wikipedia is fanatically pro-vaccination. This is very apparent in the Wikipedia article Vaxxed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed]. It is allegedly about the film "Vaxxed" but is actually a potentially libelous character assassination of Dr Andrew Wakefield. My own view is that parents should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to have their children vaccinated. Is this in line with Conservapedia policy? [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

:As long as you stick to the facts and cite you sources, as always, I don't see a problem. Vaccination is something liberals like to push, often using the "herd mentality" (if you don't do this, others will suffer, and by doing this, you help everyone). There are definitely some reasons not to take vaccinations, so an article like this makes sense. I haven't read WP's article, but probably they are ignoring the inconvenient truths of how destructive and ineffective vaccines can be, as they tend to do on other topics as well. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:11, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

::Thank you. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

:::One tip: when citing the Wikipedia articles as evidence, please be sure to use the permanent links, as the article content can change. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:35, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

::::Thank you. I have created the article at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

==Changing a username==
I tried to find out how to change my User Name but was unsuccessful. Can anyone help me? -Unsigned comment by [[User:BertSchlossberg]]
:I could be wrong, but I don't think the wiki software permits username changes. Other than creating a new account and switching to that, I don't think there is a way. However, if anyone here would know, [[User:Aschlafly]] probably would; you could ask him directly. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:43, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
::Changes in user names are allowed by the wiki software, but an admin has to rename the account. Your contribution history and watch list moves over to the renamed account. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:18, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

== Deplorable state of science ==

A while back I was shocked to learn that when an investigator performing a trial of a sample of scientific journal articles whose scientific procedures supported a conclusion, half the studies' conclusions could not be reproduced when the procedures were repeated.

I noted that reproducibility is an essential element of scientific knowledge, and that those journal articles that didn't share that quality, didn't deserve to be called science, a word that originally meant "highly established knowledge". Instead, the most it deserved to be called was empirical opinion.

Now I have become horrified to learn that ''more than 99% of scientific studies in journals did not follow the scientific method!''<ref>Bokhari, Allum (March 31, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/31/j-scott-armstrong-no-one-asks-researchers-scientific-method "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: 'No one asks' researchers to follow scientific method"]. Interview with Dr. J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green. Breitbart/Radio website.</ref> I at least thought that the studies described above at least ''pretended'' to follow the scientific method and not that the now-so-called scientific community had abandoned the scientific method wholesale!

Fortunately a big player in scientific journals, Public Library of Science One (PLOS) is trying to turn this around, but we ought to expect this library will face the same time difficulties they would face if they were to attempt to turn a large ship around.

They have revived the definition of the scientific method and reduced the method to eight minimum responsibilities:

#Test multiple reasonable hypotheses
#Provide useful findings
#Fully disclose methods, data, and other relevant information
#Conduct a comprehensive review of prior knowledge
#Use valid and comparable data
#Use valid and simple methods
#Provide any experimental evidence
#Reach conclusions consistent with the evidence

The author of the article, Allum Bokhari, reported that one of the scientists, J. Scott Armstrong noted that "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violates all eight of his checklist for following the scientific method. 'If you don't believe me, you can go and look at their work and you can use that checklist.'"

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:25, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

===References===
{{reflist}}

== Conservapedia's insights ==

Over the years, Andrew Schlafly came up with some insights about the Bible, which are now aggregated at [[Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible]]. These are introduced as
{{cquote|Conservapedia has produced a growing list of insights about the Bible:}}
Though ''Conservapedia'' and ''Andrew Schlafly'' are often one and the same, I think at this place it should be made clear that these are Andrew Schlafly's ''personal'' insights, which - as far as I can see - are not shared with many editors. Therefore, I propose the introduction:
{{cquote|On Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly has produced a growing list of personal insights about the Bible:}}
I don't want to get into an edit war about this, so I ask for guidance.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:39, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
:They're personal insights, but Andy shares the insights with others using something called ''language''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:20, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
::Thanks, VargasMilan. I say "Conservapedia's insights" because they developed on Conservapedia with the assistance of others, including even August!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:43, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
:::President Obama shared his insights with us using language, too. That doesn't make them "American Insights". Is here engaged conservapedian but Andrew Schlafly - perhaps one of the sysops - who supports these insights? I may have helped to erase some embarrassing obvious ''basic'' errors in the translations, but I cannot follow most of Andrew Schlafly's conclusions. Anyone?--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 11:52, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Anyone? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 12:48, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::I specifically agree with # 1, 2, and 7. Given what I know, I somewhat disagree with 4, 6, and 8. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with any certainty on the other points, and given my lack of significant multilingual skills, I could be wrong.
:::::To #4 I say: In English, this may seem like a small change, but a switch from possessive to adjective seems significant. I doubt every bible translator would have been mistaken on this.

:::::To #6: That seems rather like a stretch. The general meaning of actions over words is there, but I very much doubt the manuscripts had the equivalent of "liberal claptrap" on them.

::::: #8: With all of the checking and rechecking, it is difficult for portion to simply be inserted. Sure, scribal notes have been integrated, but that's different. Her sin was punishable by death, but it seems that Jesus was trying to use her as an example to show the radical change he was teaching. He was not in any way condoning adultery, but he was demonstrating that even the most grievous sin can be forgiven. Those who thought themselves righteous were shown to be in a worse place than her, because she was (presumably) repentant, while they were clearly not repentant of their sins. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

::::::I also question #5. It's true that Jesus sometimes spoke about himself in the third person, but if he was risen from the dead, would he really need to explain the history of himself in third person? He could just open their eyes and show them, rather than going to the work of explaining it. I don't know--no one does, but this sound questionable to me. Besides, on the road to Amadeus, it says he "talked with them" and answered questions. Hebrews is a one-sided speech or letter, not a conversation. I know people took much longer durations in conversation to speak before giving others their turn to speak, but this is a non-stop message. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:42, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::::DavidB4, I really appreciate your feedback about this. Starting with #8, that was fully vetted here on Conservapedia in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. The crime was not punishable by stoning at the time, and there are numerous other historical flaws to the story. Virtually all scholars agree the story is a fabrication inserted later into the [[Bible]]. Most versions acknowledge this with a footnote. Yet [[liberal]]s are more likely to cite this story than any other - which is another reason to be skeptical about its authenticity. Thanks for your interest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

Personally, I have no great problem with the general statement on the Bible - like #1, #2, #7. But the moment, Andrew Schlafly addresses a specific verse, problems arise. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

:Mr. Schlafly, I appreciate the info. I'll do some more study on the matter when I get the chance. I think this is the first time I've heard it challenged, so it is somewhat surprising to hear that so many people question it. I'll do some reading on the matter when I find the time. What I don't quite understand is, why do liberal like to cite it? Because it implies sin is okay? Because it suggests Jesus is not offended by transgression? Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:34, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
::Also, regarding adultery not being punishable by death, am I mistaken, or was that the penalty under levitical law? Even though the Romans were the only ones who could ''legally'' pronounce the death sentence, it could be claimed that the Jews were so engaged that they were going to do it anyway. Of course, I have no idea if this is actually the case, but it is a possible explanation. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:48, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

:::It's all explained in the entry [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. Adultery was punishable by death, but not by stoning. Liberals love the story because says sinners cannot punish anyone, and certainly never the [[death penalty]]. Also, the story says no one even has to ask for forgiveness!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:11, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Andy, you write: "The adulteress story is a phony insertion by liberals" Who were these phony time-travelling liberals who inserted the story before the 4th century? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:55, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

:Yeah, and besides, considering that even the Douay-Rheims bible (the oldest version of the bible known to man) includes the passage, it's unlikely that it was just inserted in, and more likely than not was genuine. Now, I do agree that I don't like it when Liberals abuse that passage, but that doesn't mean we should reject it as a forgery. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:49, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

== Please check fake news article ==

I and JDano have differing opinions of how the article [[Fake News]] should be organized and what information it should include and where. I request that other editors give their opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

== STOP! Stop Balkanizing the categories! ==

There seems to be an intense push to reorganize categories, apparently to put all categories in a "tree" structure, and to arrange that a given article is in only one category, that being the lowest appropriate category in the tree. Much of the recent work in this area is being done my new and hard-working contributors, but much of it is wrong. '''Don't do this.'''

While there are are topics for which the "bottom-of-the-tree-only" doctrine may be correct, there are topics for which it is most emphatically not. I particularly refer to physics and chemistry.

Here's the scenario: We are trying to make this place an encyclopedia that school-age students will come to for trustworthy information. (Well, many of us are. Others are just filling up the place with pages about what countries have problems with bestiality, what demographic changes are taking place in various countries relating to evangelical Christianity, and how the traffic on Richard Dawkins' web site is doing. I don't care what categories pages like that are in.) But suppose I'm a junior high school student wanting to read about interesting topics in physics. The place to look is the category. One effectively goes "shopping" there, sort of like a shopping mall. One looks for things that might be interesting. "Oh, look. Articles on protons, neutrons, and electrons. Let's take a look." "Oh, look. Lagrangian dynamics. I've always wanted to know how that stuff works." Or I'm in the Chemistry category and see that I can read about Nitric acid.

But we don't have the big shopping lists. We have huge trees of categories and subcategories. I have to go clicking through the tree. This is ridiculous. If I'm looking at the Physics category, the only way I will get to protons is to see the Subatomic Physics category, click on it, then see the Subatomic Particles category and click on it. How am I supposed to know that? And how am I supposed to have the patience to go through all that?

Similarly, in the Chemistry category, I can't see Nitric acid except by clicking on the Acid–base chemistry category and then the Acids category.
And to get to the Electromagnetic wave article from the Physics category, I first have to click on the Electromagnetism category. No. Electromagnetic waves, and Maxwell's equations, are fundamental topics in physics.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

:Agreed. TAR caused the oposite problem, so I'm reluctant to say it, but there is such a thing as too few categories as well. It's okay to have several "leaf" categories, if applicable, or to have a few categories from different "branches". I haven't been closely watching the recategorization efforts lately, but you're right.
:This is probably a bad time to bring it up, but I have noticed a few crossovers where there shouldn't be, still. For example, I ran a recursive category check on Technology, and got some strange results. Genocide, Genrikh Yagoda, George Davis, Mental illness, National Park, and even Plant were a few of the pages which showed up under the category "Technology." Perhaps rather than pulling pages out of categories, we should focus on cleaning up the categories themselves, which keeping in mind that multiple categories are sometimes okay.
: P.S. You made me go look up Balkanize. :) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
::There is always a happy medium. Unlike WP, we grow articles at a very slow rate, so few categories at this point may be better. I suggest that when we hit 100 articles in a category, it might be time to adjust it into subcategories. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
:::My apologies about that - I mistook the {{Large category}} template for a call for help. The categories were somewhat difficult to form, anyways.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 09:26, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
::::I think Abcqwe has done good work. Some of these categories are quite large, and they should be split up. Of course, not too many sub-categories should be made, but I think it is easier to find articles if one doesn't have to look in a single cateogry with thousands of articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:06, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::I would also like to add my apologies. Like Abcqwe, I saw the large category template so decided i could help by moving things but now i see that it wasn't the best idea. I shall refrain from recategorising pages.
:::::On a side note, would it be useful to briefly describe each sub category page on the sub category page or the main physics page? [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 11:55, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

First, I totally appreciate the hard work that Abcqwe and FredericBernard ‎have done. I'm not denying that in the least, and I apologize if I sounded overly critical. Deciding on a category tree, and creating the categories, is not easy. (I myself don't know how to do it.) My only objection was in taking articles ''out'' of the top category, not in putting them into the lower categories.

A dictionary is an enormous book. But it's alphabetized, so you can find things rapidly. And if you just like to browse (perhaps you're a Scrabble player) you can do that too. If you have a dictionary of physics, it's all there, from acceleration to Z-boson. Scroll through the pages with their alphabetized sections, and look at whatever suits your fancy.

I think the "Large category" flag is appropriate for many topics, but is inappropriate for some things, like physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Some categories just list an unwieldy number of very similar things. So, a category of birds, or Civil War battles, very well might benefit from being split up. But the items in physics are very disparate. You might be able to figure out, from the battle of Antietam, that the battle of Bull Run is in there too. But you'd never guess, from [[angular momentum]], that [[Maxwell's equations]] is in there too, if you have to search blindly through all the other categories.

All these other categories are great. But please leave things in the main physics category if you think they ought to appear in an "Encyclopedeia of Physics".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:09, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

:But SamHB, what worth is it when editors do not move pages into subcategories and then the existing categories end up having hundreds or even thousands of articles? I personally think having some subcategories is more navigatable. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:19, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

::I assume that, by "move into subcategories" you mean list the subcategory in the list at the bottom of the article, ''and remove the higher category''. I'm simply arguing for keeping both, for topics like physics, chemistry, and mathematics. The subcategories are still navigable, if that's the way you like to have the stuff presented. The subcategories are always listed at the top of the category page. You can click on those and explore the tree. My point is that, if you want to see the article on Maxwell's equations, you might not know how to navigate down the tree. But it will be there, under "M". You may have to scroll down a bit, but you will see it. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:29, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

:::The problem with that, is that it is basically what TAR was doing. A page on a Glock would be in in the categories Weapons, Firearms, Survivalism, Glocks, Technology, Equipment, Firearms Glossary, and many more. Since it is a Glock, perhaps the "Glocks" category would be right. However, all of those categores do to some extent apply. It's just that everywhere you go, you find the page "glock." If we only do one or two leaf categories and a root category, it would be better. However, it still could get messy. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

::::Okay, just an update: I went back through my "contributions" list to see all the chemistry things and physics things I changed and changed the categories back. I think that's the most recats I've done in one hour. Next I think I'll say something on the template. Sorry for the 100-cat mistake.--Nathan--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::Where is the link posted that is the Portal to Categories? Giving that link higher visibility somewhere will help the page designer as well as the student. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]`

== Internet Relay Chat ==

After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that we start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know who here uses IRC or is interested in doing so, but everyone is welcome, and anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Everyone is welcome to come and chat, or simply "hang out." This can be a great place to collaborate, ask and answer questions, and just chat. If nothing else, visitors to Conservapedia can potentially be sent there to discuss any questions they may have. Of course, this depends on how many people choose to use it in the first place. 

The IRC channel is: '''#conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net''' 
The web client can be used (quite easily!) [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 here] 
I am also making a page detailing the use of the chat channel called [[Conservapedia:Using IRC]] 
Let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Template:Infobox Television ==

I'd like to start including the [[Template:Infobox Television|television infobox template]] in editing some TV shows, but as it looks right now (I tried including it in a show I was editing and the infobox didn't look that good as it is now), it may need fixing up to make it look similar to the [[Template:Infobox Film|movie infobox]]. Since I can't do it myself due to the page being locked, would someone else with extended editing privileges be able to fix the TV infobox? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (EDT)

== Let's avoid infinite blocking ==

I have noticed that some of the blockers do infinite blocks. This can cause problems down the block potentially.

The average person moves about every 7 years I heard. And most vandals are younger than the average person's age so they probably move more frequently (college students, etc.). Plus, a lot of vandals are loser/drifters probably so they may move even more frequently.

I block for about 5 years. I don't see why people have to block longer.

Any input from blockers would be welcome. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:47, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:That makes sense for IPs, but not accounts. Most of the accounts that we block need to stay blocked forever, whereas the IP addresses used to create those accounts should not be blocked forever. IP addresses are a different animal, because even static IP addresses eventually get reassigned. The indefinite blocks of bad accounts are common practice on wikis, except wikis run by liberal morons. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:53, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
::When you block accounts, sometimes does it also block the IPs? I seem to recall having to unblock an IP after after someone blocked the persons account even after the account was unblocked. Or was their just overlap and someone may have blocked that IP since the user account was blocked? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Although I see your point regarding some users needing to be permanently banned, speaking as someone who had to fairly recently endure an infinite block on one of the wikis, it also comes at the risk of the mods coming across as people who view themselves as above the law and blocking anyone for even giving criticism for some decisions being made by them (namely, citing how a Complete Monster trope is downright broken and especially protesting the removal of one character due to their actions not being "heinous enough" to qualify despite a lot of those character's actions truly qualifying as heinous.). Had a huge amount of distrust of mods to be honest, due to actually encountering several mods and admins on forums who banned me for "flaming" despite the fact that I was reacting to them flaming, and their not being banned simply because they were a mod (in fact, I distrust them to such an extent that I outright refuse to accept modship or adminship precisely BECAUSE I fear turning out like them), and, not to imply any of you are like that, but the less mods like that and the less opportunities for mods to act like that, the better. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:24, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

== Potential policy: Conservapedia topic bans/main page talk bans ==

Looking for feedback on this potential policy: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans]].

I thought this policy might make it easier to manage the website and prevent overly broad bans.

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

:I think that if an editor is clearly not making constructive edits here, they should be blocked. How would we enforce such a ban, and under what circumstances would such a ban be implemented rather than a full block? In my opinion, it might be harder to manage CP with this policy, because we would have to watch more editors much more closely. On the bright side, we could use this topic ban on our good-faith liberal editors. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::I created this new policy based on feedback from Andy Schlafly via email. I also added a sentence at the end of the policy due to feedback from 1990sguy.

::There were Sysops who wanted to take stricter measures with problem editors, but I thought this more surgical approach would be better. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

:::Would you please add [[:Category:Conservapedia Policy]] to the new policy article? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:34, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

::::OK. I was about to do this anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

:::::Unrelated, would you please move [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sanctuary_Cities&redirect=no Sanctuary Cities] redirect to redirect to [[Sanctuary city]]? Right now it is a double redirect. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::Two more things: would you please add [[:Category:Conservapedia Policy]], ''rather than'' [[:Category:Conservapedia]], as it is more direct? Also, you have not answered my concern that this new policy will actually make CP harder to manage. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:43, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

::::::It sounds like something which could in certain cases be useful. However, I can't see it being regularly used. My main concern is the same as 1990'sguy's. How would this be enforced? If we could get or create a wiki plugin which actually blocked users from editing in pages with certain category tags, this could be a nice thing to have in the toolbox. However, if this will all be done manually, I would say it is probably not a very practical idea. One or two users might be manageable, but if we get 20 "topic banned" users, how would we ever keep track of it all, and make sure no one is doing what they shouldn't?
::::::The only way I can see this being somewhat practical without digital support is a "non-controversial" restriction. People who keep adding a LPoV might be banned from editing anything regarding politics or anything else liberalism has infiltrated. If they want to write a page on how cars are manufactured, then that's fine. However, they would not be allowed to change anything on the "evolution" article.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:10, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
DavidB4, thanks. You gave me an idea on how to better enforce the topic ban. But in most cases, it will probably be the blocker who enforces the topic ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:16, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::So one troll creates 20 sockpuppets and ties the hands of the blocker. We've been thru this before. And all it leads to is the blocker controlling and fighting off his enemy, a fight over a page no nuetral third party wants to go near to contribute to or resolve problems.
::Just keep page protect at an advanced level of scrutiny were user has to earn their rights to engage in discussion. Open up the rest to opening editing.
::What's needed are committees to hand out tasks and assignments to committee members. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:22, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

:Conservative, just a reminder, I have two requests, one unrelated to this topic ban. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
If warranted, an admin could tell other admins about a topic ban via email. But in most cases, it would be enforced by the blocker or by other blockers who notice the topic ban on a user's talk page. Also, if needed down the pike, a page called [[Conservapedia: List of users with topic bans]] could be created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::The main purpose of the topic bans is for editor retention purposes. In certain cases, if topic bans were be used instead of a broader block of editing the entire wiki, the editor would be retained rather than permanently lost or lost for an extended period. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:34, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Also, a blocker can create a resource such as this: [[User:Conservative/My topic bans]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:43, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::::It's like being a guidance counsellor, you have to help an editor find his/her/their/its niche, and channel their energies into into it. Some editors may excel at content, other's could have organizational skills serving on a committee to regulate proofreading, quality control, template and page design, dispute resolution, disciplinary action, policy development, etc etc etc. To build a community, you gotta lift the 90/10 rule to allow user interaction and collaboration. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]`

=== The beauty of the topic ban ===

Here is the beauty of the topic ban:

A brand new liberal editor joins Conservapedia and begins to posting foolish, liberal tripe on talk pages.

According to [[Conservapedia:Topic bans]], "If an editor is a new editor and has not built up a reputation of quality edits, the topic ban may be imposed quickly if the low quality of his edit/edits merits it." Also, "Editors who receive topic bans may incur them due to their article edits and/or their talk page edits." Also, "For example, such an editor may be asked to refrain from editing political/religious/history articles or various other kinds of articles." Also, "Also, if the matter merely requires an editor to be better educated about a topic, the editor in question may be asked to create an article in draft space. If the draft article is of sufficient quality, it will be moved to Conservapedia article space." In addition, "In particularly egregious cases, where an editor engages in a clear bad faith edit(s), the editor may be banned from Conservapedia for a specified period of time rather than incur a topic ban."

So a new liberal editor who nearly always post liberal tripe to talk pages, can immediately be given a draft page writing assignment or can be told he can only post to non-ideological articles. Since promotion of the leftist narrative is all-important to hard core leftists, this immediately shuts them down.

For example, a militant leftist joins Conservapedia. He can immediately be assigned to create a draft article. For example, [[User: Hardcoreleftist/Soviet historical revisionism]] or [[User: Hardcoreleftist/Decline of the secular left in the 21st century]]. And if the articles are of good quality, they can be moved to article space. For example, the aforementioned draft articles could be move to [[Soviet historical revisionism]] and [[Decline of the secular left in the 21st century]]. The possibilities are endless! The left engages in denialism when it comes to radical Islam, so a draft article could be assigned about [[Growth of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century]].

Or if his first post is to a talk page and of low quality, he can be immediately banned.

For the record, I am not against people on the left posting legitimate information in articles or talk pages. I am merely against the willful posting of false/misleading information.

In short, the topic ban is a conservative iron fist in a velvet glove approach to handling dishonest hard core leftist ideologues! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:53, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
:You still gotta keep an eye on them if their ''intent'' is to subvert. They figure every one minute trolling is one minute less production of conservative propaganda (their minds are like Hitler, their creative impulses are bent to destroy, not to produce anything lasting). Nothing is to stop them, for example, putting in the 1919 Red Sox roster under 2016 New England Patriots, only proving what deceptive lying little *#@&%es they are - and everything we say about them is true. They are not intelluctual in any sense, they are lost little children, seeking attention by being mischievous. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 14:46, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

== Cool article ==

I found a cool [http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-bless-this-food-except-for-the-atheist-at-table-12 article about atheism in the National Post]. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
==Error==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_Presidential_Election,_2016 Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Trump now is fighting back against the coup plotters'']] 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Overly long articles==
From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as [[Alger Hiss]], [[Elvis Presley]], and [[Barack Hussein Obama]], are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
:I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
::These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
:::If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by [[User:FOIA]]. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
::::Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
::::::That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
== Confession ==

Maybe things belongs on the [[Conservapedia:Community Portal|community portal]], but I know no one reads that, so I'm saying it here:
:I'm a liberal. I've vandalized the encyclopedia. I've lied to everyone here.
Okay, so -liberalism? Well, I thought I was almost as far right as one could be, agnostic in regards to macroevolution and global warming. Now, there's denial of complex numbers and relativity? I can't doubt that imaginaries and complexes have some uses in math - I'll doubt the p-adic numbers, maybe, but not relativity. Sure, I've thought that Trump could bring about good things, and that people deserve the right to own guns, and that the Oscars are inane, and that feminists show a double standard, and that vouchers for private schools are a good thing, and that if scientists think religion should survive without government support like private enterprise, then they should stop appealing for government funding themselves and see how useless they are to taxpayers, and that a Christian baker should not be forced to bake a gay-themed wedding cake so long as he still bakes regular cakes for gay people ... but denying relativity, Michelle Obama's womanhood, and re-writing the Bible? I'm just not [[User:Conservative|''that'' conservative]].
:But vandalism?
Yes - twice. Once just to check response time, under the name Clickyourheels (now my IP is blocked and I need this account to edit at all). The other time, I added a little joke to one of the pages, and it wasn't the [[Conservative jokes]] page. Of course, the joke was a fallacious statement. Where is it? Among hundreds of other author biographies no one will ever read. Even worse, the joke isn't funny if you haven't seen WKRP.
:And lying?
My name never was Nathan. When I made a "Nathan" e-mail account (nathancp314@gmail.com) to reply to Conservative, I realized the indignity of a fake name. Now I've wasted another slot for someone named Nathan with middle and last initials CP.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::That's big of you to allow bakers to not bake cakes for "marriages" of homosexuals so long as they bake regular cakes for them as customers. So much for "We have the right to refuse service to anyone." You spelled it out yourself: the consequences are that if the bakers ''do'' refuse on that basis, they should be "forced" to do even more. That's the kind of argument and rules of jurisprudence we've come to expect from those who live on or orbit "planet gay".

::But who are we talking to this time? A user with three? four? accounts whose real agenda is to use them to eventually feign a consensus? Or at least one who spreads the opposition to conservatism among accounts that would have faced a categorical and swift rebuke if presented by one account? I for one have no desire to help you make Conservapedia participate in the cruel shell game that the subtext of your audacious announcement openly bears as an interpretation—nor in the things we can reasonably expect to follow under the designs to which these aforementioned suspicious behaviors already point. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:08, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

==Religion in America==
After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

=== My feedback ===

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestant]] churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing/]

I hope the helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

== Is this article appropriate to cite? ==

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/media-ignores-imported-female-genital-mutilation/ this article] is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing [[female genital mutilation]] on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
:*Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
:*There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
:*That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
:*That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
:*That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
:*The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
:I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think it is an appropriate article to cite. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
::For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect ([http://religionnews.com/2017/04/27/the-splainer-what-is-female-genital-mutilation-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-islam/ the Dawoodi Bohra sect]) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
::::The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in [[Obamagate timeline]] have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted ''clearly'' are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, ''The Hill'', wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/214242-will-obama-keep-his-promise-to-end-fgm-in-the-us] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/25/female-genital-mutilation-epidemic-obama-administration-hiding/]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano ==

I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in [[Donald Trump achievements]].

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:JDano's objections to [[Richard Dawkins' health]] have been adequately answered at [[Talk:Richard Dawkins' health]]. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.

:On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.

:I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the [[Obama's religion]] article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.

:Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.

:[[Sun Tzu]] said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.

:Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

::Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.

::JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.

::Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.

::When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.

::It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.

::Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.

::::JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the Trump Twitter account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So:
1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution.
2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you.
3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

===Just the facts, ma'am===
::Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over ''why'' Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1353941 here.] The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. [https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/fact-sheet-on-female-genital-mutilation-or-cutting.html State Dept. Fact Sheet] Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)[[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::::Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJDano&diff=1354127&oldid=1353746 talk page] rather than on this page. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

===policy vs law===
JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. ''What is the difference between policy and law?''. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and
Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

:JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/how-lindsey-graham-stomped-the-tea-party/372521/] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.

:The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.

:Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.

:You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Man if you lost ''nobs'' then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::Conservative was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 this edit] and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

=== History of FGM in the United States ===

*[http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/02/10/16/00001/schubert_k.pdf FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF LAWS AND POLICIES]

*[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1162/152651603766436324 Cutting History, Cutting Culture: Female Circumcision in the United States]

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

===My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted===
It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 several other edits that I reverted] because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? ''If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator.'' '''Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.'''

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, ''there's no source''. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but '''there MUST be a source.'''

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add ''constructive'' edits to the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

:Edit conflict ;)

:JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
:If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::Lindsey Graham was in on the [[Arab_Spring#McCain_onboard|Operation Zero Footprint]] coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in [[Obama war crimes]]. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

== Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable? ==

{{welcome}}

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

=== Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible ===

[[File:Plate of cookies.jpg|thumb|300px|Some cookies to welcome you! [[File:Face-smile.svg|25px]]]] [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome to Wikipedia]], Conservative! I am [[User:This lousy T-shirt|This lousy T-shirt]] and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Knox490|your contributions]]. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], or feel free to leave me a message on [[User talk:This lousy T-shirt|my talk page]] or type ''{{tl|helpme}}'' at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_Simple_Rules_for_Editing_Wikipedia Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia].
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Also, when you post on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] you should [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
==Donald Trump's tweets==
We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages. So, I have started a page [[Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting?]] and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

== Request for Conservative or another admin ==

You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto [[User:1990'sguy/Sandbox]]? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

:I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes [[anti-Trump]] gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

::Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.) The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1. He has block powers. But I have attempted to alert him to this. He can't '''possibly''' be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.

Can someone put a stop to this? Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:

<big><big><big>BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!</big></big></big>

What the Hell are you doing????? You have block rights!

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Block]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

:OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not. My answer to the "how long?" question is:
:*Correct answer: Infinite. That kind of stuff is infinite.
:*Acceptable answer: 1 day. That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
:*Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up. Non-violently, of course. :-)
:Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine. See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here. I think we have improved.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== If you see something, say something ==

More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.

I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals. Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes. I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page. The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying. The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it. He even reverted my warning. I sent private mail to Andy. Finally Ed Poor did the deed.

Assistants have the power to block vandals. Use it. That's what it's for. Don't just let vandalism sprees go on. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate. They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:::I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes! Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help. I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for. I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am. Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::::This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the [[Taylor Swift]] article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

User:Keepscases

2017-06-29T02:26:44Z

Keepscases: Created

Hi. I joined Conservapedia in May 2010, but the majority of my experience is at Wikipedia and other wikis. I am proud to be an American, I believe in law and order, and I support the military's aim in maintaining our freedom.

Essay:Our beliefs

2011-03-15T21:42:06Z

Keepscases: improved - see talk

== Narrowly-held beliefs related to Christianity ==
We believe in the following things or ideas which the majority of mainstream [[Christians]] do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*[[Young Earth Creationism]], a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old
*[[Literal interpretation of the Bible]]
*[[Fundamentalist Christianity]]

== Narrowly-held beliefs not related to Christianity ==
We believe in the following things or ideas which the majority of mainstream [[Americans]] do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*Criticism of [[Wikipedia]]

== Controversial beliefs ==
We believe in the following controversial things or ideas which many people do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*One true [[God]]
*[[Heterosexual]] [[vaginal]] union between a [[man]] and [[woman]] within [[marriage]] for the purpose of [[procreation]] is the only form of [[sexual activity]] between [[human beings]] endorsed by [[God]] as His Word as revealed in the [[Bible]], and there must be no other sexual activity between human beings
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] have human rights and are [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[conception]]; they must never be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s must not be used for [[stem-cell research]]; government money should never be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must not be legal (the [[pro-life]] viewpoint)
*The [[Republican Party]] in the United States
*[[Fiscal conservatism]]
*Reducing [[government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Charity]]
*[[Morality as a foundation of law]]
*[[Family values]]
*[[Lower taxes]]
*[[Lower government spending]]
* Teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* [[Regressive taxation]]
* [[Flat taxation]]
* Privately-funded and privately-controlled [[private education]]
* Inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women not be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[Lower taxes]] and [[reduced spending]]
* Certain [[freedoms]]
* [[Abstinence]]
* Teaching [[abstinence]] from sex rather than teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education"
* A "[[static Constitution]]" that is interpreted how it was intended, rather than reinterpreted as liberals prefer
* Government programs to [[warehouse criminals|warehouse]] and [[punish criminals]]
* The [[death penalty]]
* [[Isolationism]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[God]]
* [[Monotheism]]
* [[Full private property rights]]
* Domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Support for our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.

== Opposed controversial beliefs ==
We oppose the following controversial things or ideas which many people believe in, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Gun control]]
* [[Obscenity]]
* [[Pornography]]
* [[Income redistribution]]
* [[Progressive taxation]]
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* [[Same-sex marriage]]
* [[Affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Labor union]]s in favor of [[management]]
* [[Promiscuity]]
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* The [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[Atheism]]

== Narrowly-opposed beliefs ==
We believe that the following things or ideas which many people believe in are bad, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Wikipedia]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual lifestyle]]
*[[Sex for pleasure]]
*[[Pre-marital sex]]
*[[Extra-marital sex]]
*[[Adultery]]
*[[Homosexual sex]]
*[[Buggery]] ([[sodomy]] and [[bestiality]])
*[[Liberalism]]
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] do not yet have human rights and are not yet [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[birth]]; they can be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s may be used for [[stem-cell research]]; government money should be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must be legal (the [[pro-abortion]] or [[pro-choice]] viewpoint)
*The [[Democratic Party]] in the United States
*[[Social welfare]]
*[[Redistribution of wealth]]
*[[Government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social equality]]
*[[Higher taxes]]
*[[Higher government spending]]
*[[Socialism]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Tax and spend
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Essay:Our beliefs

2011-03-15T21:39:56Z

Keepscases: replied

Interesting observations, and good as an essay! A couple of notes: I would say that "criticism of Wikipedia" has little to do with Christianity, so you might want to put that under a different heading.

Also, you imply that we want "social inequality". That's not exactly accurate. We don't support government redistribution of wealth, but that does not mean that we want "social inequality". You have to admit that there's a different there.

Good essay!

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:21, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Thanks! I'm going to respond using bullet points and signatures below that can be easily responded to separately. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 17:39, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
:*"Criticism of [[Wikipedia]]" has been moved to a new "Narrowly-held beliefs not related to Christianity" section and the old section has been renamed "Narrowly-held beliefs related to Christianity". [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 17:39, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
:*"[[Social inequality]]" has been changed to "[[Charity]]" (I need help defining "don't support government redistribution of wealth" more concisely in a positive way); "[[Income redistribution]]" is already in "Opposed controversial beliefs"; and we don't have articles on "social inequality" and "social equality". [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 17:39, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

User:TraptInABlueState

2011-03-08T14:37:19Z

Keepscases: compensated with {{User gay rights}}; fixed {{User Christian1}}

No welfare, abortion, illegals, PC, but save the Earth. Conservatives The way we ought To Be
My Creations
1. [[Demographics]]
2. [[Backmasking]]
{{User Political Compass|7.88|4.56}} |{{User Christian1}}{{User therealdonut}}|{{User Reagan}}|{{User Clintonlied}} {{User gay rights}} {{User American}}{{User Evo}}{{User postmodernlieforend}} {{User tolerancecompromisetruth}} {{User noracists}} {{User Godbigbang}} {{User cows tasty}} {{User environment}}

User:SpinnakerMagic

2011-03-08T14:33:52Z

Keepscases: compensated with {{User gay rights}}

{{userboxtop|SpinnakerMagic}}
{{Userbox |white|white|[[Image:Lion_rampant.png‎ ]]|This User is proud to be Scottish (Wha's Like Us?)}}
{{Userbox |white|white|[[Image:Bike_symbol.gif‎ ‎ ]]|This User is a diehard cyclist}}
{{User Political Compass|-7.5|-6.41}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User en-UK}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Template talk:·

2011-03-08T14:23:23Z

Keepscases: Deletion

== Deletion ==

This template is in use on over 100 pages - why was it deleted? [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 09:23, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Template talk:User

2011-03-08T14:21:15Z

Keepscases: Deletion

== Deletion ==

This template is in use on over 50 pages - why was it deleted? [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 09:21, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2011-03-08T01:00:43Z

Keepscases: /* Redirects */ newlines, indents, and bullets (sorry)

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg or its smaller replacement [http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== Redirects ==

Protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]] redirects to [[Jesus Christ]] for an unknown reason, and protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetic website resources]] redirects to [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]], creating a double redirect. Double redirects are bad for any project; a list of them can be found at [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. I was able to fix nine of the 29 that were there; the rest are protected, so I would like some help or permission to fix them. Thank you. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 00:04, 28 December 2010 (EST)

: Unprotected the two you identify, and can unprotect any others you list also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 28 December 2010 (EST)

::Thanks, there are now 58 redirects on [[Special:DoubleRedirects]] to unprotect, as follows:
::*1.[[Talk:Essay: Another atheist pothead]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Another agnostic pothead]] →‎ [[Atheism]]
::*2.[[Talk:Essay: James Randi and peanut butter]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheist James Randi and peanut butter]] →‎ [[Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter]]
::*3.[[Talk:Essay: Feeding time at the atheist zoo]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline]]
::*4.[[Talk:Essay: Atheists and evolutionists helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline]]
::*5.[[Talk:Essay: Atheist meetings]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheists' meetings]] →‎ [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]
::*6.[[Talk:Essay: Atheist pet owners]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Obese atheist pet owners]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*7.[[Talk:Essay: Obese atheist heaven]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Obese atheists heaven]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*8.[[Talk:Essay: PZ Myers embarrassing himself at the Creation Museum]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*9.[[Talk:Essay: Please don't eat evolutionary speculation junk food!]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Please don't eat evolutionary speculation junk food]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*10.[[Talk:Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win!]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win]] →‎ [[Atheism]]
::*11.[[Talk:Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails applied biology]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*12.[[Talk:Essay: Atheism - Weighed on the scales and found wanting]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*13.[[Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign!]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*14.[[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*15.[[Talk:Essay: Sharing your creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet
::*16.[[Talk:Essay: Slim atheists convention]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Slim atheists' convention]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*17.[[Talk:Essay: Atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheism and science blues]]
::*18.[[Talk:Essay: The Flying kitty series]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Flying Kitty series]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*19.[[Talk:Essay: Flying kitty series]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Flying kitty series]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Flying Kitty series]]
::*20.[[Talk:Essay: The Atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*21.[[Talk:Essay: Atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Atheism]]
::*22.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal flying kitty]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?]]
::*23.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*24.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying pig]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying pig?]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*25.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional species the flying dog]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional species the flying dog?]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*26.[[Talk:Essay: Western atheists sumo wresting - survival of the fattest?]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Western atheists sumo wrestling - survival of the fattest?]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*27.[[Talk:Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works...]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
::*28.[[Talk:Obese atheists comedy and satire]] →‎ [[Talk:Overweight atheists comedy and satire]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
::*29.[[User talk:Conservative/Conservapediarunningstats-all]] →‎ [[User talk:Conservative/Conservapedia-running-stats-all]] →‎ [[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]
::Also, why would we want to have redirects from the talk namespace to the article namespace, specifically to articles [[Atheism]], [[Atheism and obesity]], and [[Evolution]]? Thanks again! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 19:58, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Clarify first paragraph? ==

The end of the first paragraph says, "Jesus then personally set the ultimate example for mankind by triumphing over the greatest evil imaginable, the Roman scourging and crucifixion." It reads as if the greatest evils imaginable were scourging and crucifixion, which of course is untrue. I suggest, "Jesus triumped over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will." [[User:NHope|NHope]] 23:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:21, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2011-03-08T00:58:31Z

Keepscases: /* Redirects */ replied

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg or its smaller replacement [http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== Redirects ==

Protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]] redirects to [[Jesus Christ]] for an unknown reason, and protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetic website resources]] redirects to [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]], creating a double redirect. Double redirects are bad for any project; a list of them can be found at [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. I was able to fix nine of the 29 that were there; the rest are protected, so I would like some help or permission to fix them. Thank you. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 00:04, 28 December 2010 (EST)

: Unprotected the two you identify, and can unprotect any others you list also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 28 December 2010 (EST)

::Thanks, there are now 58 redirects on [[Special:DoubleRedirects]] to unprotect, as follows:
1.[[Talk:Essay: Another atheist pothead]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Another agnostic pothead]] →‎ [[Atheism]]
2.[[Talk:Essay: James Randi and peanut butter]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheist James Randi and peanut butter]] →‎ [[Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter]]
3.[[Talk:Essay: Feeding time at the atheist zoo]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline]]
4.[[Talk:Essay: Atheists and evolutionists helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline]]
5.[[Talk:Essay: Atheist meetings]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Atheists' meetings]] →‎ [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]
6.[[Talk:Essay: Atheist pet owners]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Obese atheist pet owners]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
7.[[Talk:Essay: Obese atheist heaven]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Obese atheists heaven]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
8.[[Talk:Essay: PZ Myers embarrassing himself at the Creation Museum]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
9.[[Talk:Essay: Please don't eat evolutionary speculation junk food!]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Please don't eat evolutionary speculation junk food]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
10.[[Talk:Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win!]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win]] →‎ [[Atheism]]
11.[[Talk:Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails applied biology]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
12.[[Talk:Essay: Atheism - Weighed on the scales and found wanting]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
13.[[Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign!]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
14.[[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
15.[[Talk:Essay: Sharing your creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet
16.[[Talk:Essay: Slim atheists convention]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Slim atheists' convention]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
17.[[Talk:Essay: Atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheism and science blues]]
18.[[Talk:Essay: The Flying kitty series]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Flying Kitty series]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
19.[[Talk:Essay: Flying kitty series]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Flying kitty series]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The Flying Kitty series]]
20.[[Talk:Essay: The Atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheism and science blues]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
21.[[Talk:Essay: Atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline]] →‎ [[Atheism]]
22.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal flying kitty]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?]]
23.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
24.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying pig]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional animal the flying pig?]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
25.[[Talk:Essay: The transitional species the flying dog]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: The transitional species the flying dog?]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
26.[[Talk:Essay: Western atheists sumo wresting - survival of the fattest?]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: Western atheists sumo wrestling - survival of the fattest?]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
27.[[Talk:Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works...]] →‎ [[Talk:Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works]] →‎ [[Evolution]]
28.[[Talk:Obese atheists comedy and satire]] →‎ [[Talk:Overweight atheists comedy and satire]] →‎ [[Atheism and obesity]]
29.[[User talk:Conservative/Conservapediarunningstats-all]] →‎ [[User talk:Conservative/Conservapedia-running-stats-all]] →‎ [[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]
::Also, why would we want to have redirects from the talk namespace to the article namespace, specifically to articles [[Atheism]], [[Atheism and obesity]], and [[Evolution]]? Thanks again! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 19:58, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Clarify first paragraph? ==

The end of the first paragraph says, "Jesus then personally set the ultimate example for mankind by triumphing over the greatest evil imaginable, the Roman scourging and crucifixion." It reads as if the greatest evils imaginable were scourging and crucifixion, which of course is untrue. I suggest, "Jesus triumped over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will." [[User:NHope|NHope]] 23:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:21, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Owen Josephus Roberts

2011-03-08T00:06:15Z

Keepscases: resolved double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Owen Roberts]]

Talk:Christian apologetics websites

2011-03-08T00:05:10Z

Keepscases: removed redirect and converted to a talk page.

== Redirect ==
This is the talk page for article [[Christian apologetics website resources]]. It used to redirect to article [[Jesus Christ]]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 19:05, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Essay:Our beliefs

2011-03-07T04:55:39Z

Keepscases: /* Narrowly-opposed beliefs */ rm extra and

== Narrowly-held beliefs ==
We believe in the following things or ideas which the majority of mainstream [[Christians]] do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*[[Young Earth Creationism]], a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old
*Criticism of [[Wikipedia]]
*[[Literal interpretation of the Bible]]
*[[Fundamentalist Christianity]]

== Controversial beliefs ==
We believe in the following controversial things or ideas which many people do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*One true [[God]]
*[[Heterosexual]] [[vaginal]] union between a [[man]] and [[woman]] within [[marriage]] for the purpose of [[procreation]] is the only form of [[sexual activity]] between [[human beings]] endorsed by [[God]] as His Word as revealed in the [[Bible]], and there must be no other sexual activity between human beings
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] have human rights and are [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[conception]]; they must never be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s must not be used for [[stem-cell research]]; government money should never be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must not be legal (the [[pro-life]] viewpoint)
*The [[Republican Party]] in the United States
*[[Fiscal conservatism]]
*Reducing [[government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social inequality]]
*[[Morality as a foundation of law]]
*[[Family values]]
*[[Lower taxes]]
*[[Lower government spending]]
* Teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* [[Regressive taxation]]
* [[Flat taxation]]
* Privately-funded and privately-controlled [[private education]]
* Inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women not be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[Lower taxes]] and [[reduced spending]]
* Certain [[freedoms]]
* [[Abstinence]]
* Teaching [[abstinence]] from sex rather than teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education"
* A "[[static Constitution]]" that is interpreted how it was intended, rather than reinterpreted as liberals prefer
* Government programs to [[warehouse criminals|warehouse]] and [[punish criminals]]
* The [[death penalty]]
* [[Isolationism]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[God]]
* [[Monotheism]]
* [[Full private property rights]]
* Domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Support for our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.

== Opposed controversial beliefs ==
We oppose the following controversial things or ideas which many people believe in, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Gun control]]
* [[Obscenity]]
* [[Pornography]]
* [[Income redistribution]]
* [[Progressive taxation]]
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* [[Same-sex marriage]]
* [[Affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Labor union]]s in favor of [[management]]
* [[Promiscuity]]
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* The [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[Atheism]]

== Narrowly-opposed beliefs ==
We believe that the following things or ideas which many people believe in are bad, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Wikipedia]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual lifestyle]]
*[[Sex for pleasure]]
*[[Pre-marital sex]]
*[[Extra-marital sex]]
*[[Adultery]]
*[[Homosexual sex]]
*[[Buggery]] ([[sodomy]] and [[bestiality]])
*[[Liberalism]]
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] do not yet have human rights and are not yet [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[birth]]; they can be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s may be used for [[stem-cell research]]; government money should be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must be legal (the [[pro-abortion]] or [[pro-choice]] viewpoint)
*The [[Democratic Party]] in the United States
*[[Social welfare]]
*[[Redistribution of wealth]]
*[[Government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social equality]]
*[[Higher taxes]]
*[[Higher government spending]]
*[[Socialism]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Tax and spend
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Essay:Our beliefs

2011-03-07T04:54:32Z

Keepscases: /* Controversial beliefs */ rm extra and

== Narrowly-held beliefs ==
We believe in the following things or ideas which the majority of mainstream [[Christians]] do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*[[Young Earth Creationism]], a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old
*Criticism of [[Wikipedia]]
*[[Literal interpretation of the Bible]]
*[[Fundamentalist Christianity]]

== Controversial beliefs ==
We believe in the following controversial things or ideas which many people do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*One true [[God]]
*[[Heterosexual]] [[vaginal]] union between a [[man]] and [[woman]] within [[marriage]] for the purpose of [[procreation]] is the only form of [[sexual activity]] between [[human beings]] endorsed by [[God]] as His Word as revealed in the [[Bible]], and there must be no other sexual activity between human beings
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] have human rights and are [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[conception]]; they must never be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s must not be used for [[stem-cell research]]; government money should never be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must not be legal (the [[pro-life]] viewpoint)
*The [[Republican Party]] in the United States
*[[Fiscal conservatism]]
*Reducing [[government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social inequality]]
*[[Morality as a foundation of law]]
*[[Family values]]
*[[Lower taxes]]
*[[Lower government spending]]
* Teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* [[Regressive taxation]]
* [[Flat taxation]]
* Privately-funded and privately-controlled [[private education]]
* Inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women not be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[Lower taxes]] and [[reduced spending]]
* Certain [[freedoms]]
* [[Abstinence]]
* Teaching [[abstinence]] from sex rather than teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education"
* A "[[static Constitution]]" that is interpreted how it was intended, rather than reinterpreted as liberals prefer
* Government programs to [[warehouse criminals|warehouse]] and [[punish criminals]]
* The [[death penalty]]
* [[Isolationism]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[God]]
* [[Monotheism]]
* [[Full private property rights]]
* Domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Support for our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.

== Opposed controversial beliefs ==
We oppose the following controversial things or ideas which many people believe in, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Gun control]]
* [[Obscenity]]
* [[Pornography]]
* [[Income redistribution]]
* [[Progressive taxation]]
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* [[Same-sex marriage]]
* [[Affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Labor union]]s in favor of [[management]]
* [[Promiscuity]]
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* The [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[Atheism]]

== Narrowly-opposed beliefs ==
We believe that the following things or ideas which many people believe in are bad, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Wikipedia]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual lifestyle]]
*[[Sex for pleasure]]
*[[Pre-marital sex]]
*[[Extra-marital sex]]
*[[Adultery]]
*[[Homosexual sex]]
*[[Buggery]] ([[sodomy]] and [[bestiality]])
*[[Liberalism]]
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] do not yet have human rights and are not yet [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[birth]]; they can be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s may be used for [[stem-cell research]]; and government money should be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must be legal (the [[pro-abortion]] or [[pro-choice]] viewpoint)
*The [[Democratic Party]] in the United States
*[[Social welfare]]
*[[Redistribution of wealth]]
*[[Government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social equality]]
*[[Higher taxes]]
*[[Higher government spending]]
*[[Socialism]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Tax and spend
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Essay:Our beliefs

2011-03-07T04:53:27Z

Keepscases: created, based on my previous work at Conservapedia:Platform, Democracy, many other articles here, and experience

== Narrowly-held beliefs ==
We believe in the following things or ideas which the majority of mainstream [[Christians]] do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*[[Young Earth Creationism]], a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old
*Criticism of [[Wikipedia]]
*[[Literal interpretation of the Bible]]
*[[Fundamentalist Christianity]]

== Controversial beliefs ==
We believe in the following controversial things or ideas which many people do not believe in, and actively encourage them and discourage their opposites:
*One true [[God]]
*[[Heterosexual]] [[vaginal]] union between a [[man]] and [[woman]] within [[marriage]] for the purpose of [[procreation]] is the only form of [[sexual activity]] between [[human beings]] endorsed by [[God]] as His Word as revealed in the [[Bible]], and there must be no other sexual activity between human beings
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] have human rights and are [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[conception]]; they must never be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s must not be used for [[stem-cell research]]; and government money should never be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must not be legal (the [[pro-life]] viewpoint)
*The [[Republican Party]] in the United States
*[[Fiscal conservatism]]
*Reducing [[government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social inequality]]
*[[Morality as a foundation of law]]
*[[Family values]]
*[[Lower taxes]]
*[[Lower government spending]]
* Teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* [[Regressive taxation]]
* [[Flat taxation]]
* Privately-funded and privately-controlled [[private education]]
* Inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women not be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[Lower taxes]] and [[reduced spending]]
* Certain [[freedoms]]
* [[Abstinence]]
* Teaching [[abstinence]] from sex rather than teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education"
* A "[[static Constitution]]" that is interpreted how it was intended, rather than reinterpreted as liberals prefer
* Government programs to [[warehouse criminals|warehouse]] and [[punish criminals]]
* The [[death penalty]]
* [[Isolationism]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[God]]
* [[Monotheism]]
* [[Full private property rights]]
* Domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Support for our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.

== Opposed controversial beliefs ==
We oppose the following controversial things or ideas which many people believe in, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Gun control]]
* [[Obscenity]]
* [[Pornography]]
* [[Income redistribution]]
* [[Progressive taxation]]
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* [[Same-sex marriage]]
* [[Affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Labor union]]s in favor of [[management]]
* [[Promiscuity]]
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* The [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[Atheism]]

== Narrowly-opposed beliefs ==
We believe that the following things or ideas which many people believe in are bad, and actively discourage them and encourage their opposites:
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Wikipedia]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual lifestyle]]
*[[Sex for pleasure]]
*[[Pre-marital sex]]
*[[Extra-marital sex]]
*[[Adultery]]
*[[Homosexual sex]]
*[[Buggery]] ([[sodomy]] and [[bestiality]])
*[[Liberalism]]
*[[Unborn]] [[human beings]] do not yet have human rights and are not yet [[alive]]; their [[Life (biology)|life]] begins at [[birth]]; they can be [[aborted]]; their [[cell]]s may be used for [[stem-cell research]]; and government money should be used to support their [[abortion]]s; and their [[abortion]]s must be legal (the [[pro-abortion]] or [[pro-choice]] viewpoint)
*The [[Democratic Party]] in the United States
*[[Social welfare]]
*[[Redistribution of wealth]]
*[[Government regulation of the economy]]
*[[Social equality]]
*[[Higher taxes]]
*[[Higher government spending]]
*[[Socialism]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Tax and spend
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Fundamentalist Christianity

2011-03-06T18:33:28Z

Keepscases: #REDIRECT Fundamentalism

#REDIRECT [[Fundamentalism]]

Sexual activity

2011-03-06T17:22:31Z

Keepscases: #REDIRECT Sex

#REDIRECT [[Sex]]

Lust

2011-03-06T16:49:28Z

Keepscases: References

[[Image:Lust, Jacob Matham.png|right|thumb|120px|A personification of lust.]]
'''Lust''' is "craving sexually what God has forbidden".<ref>[[Joshua Harris]], Christian author of ''[[I Kissed Dating Goodbye]]''</ref>
Lust can also be defined as intemperate or irregular sexual desire, and is one of the [[Seven Deadly Sins]]. Often confused with [[love]], it is purely physical attraction for an individual, that is sometimes uncontrollable and completely unreasonable.

Lust, in its most common expression, is the urge to initiate sexual intercourse with another person. It may also manifest as the urge to view [[pornography]].

According to [[evolution]]ist views, [[sexual desire]] evolved by [[natural selection]] as an instinct to increase the number of offspring - as those individuals more prone to lust would have more children than those less lustful, over time the prevalence of lustful traits would increase.

According to [[Christian]] views, lust is a consequence of the separation of a person from [[God]] as a result of [[sin]], causing them to fall short of His standard. Some churches attribute lust to direct [[satan]]ic involvement, or advocate various means by which unwanted lust may be controlled.

The word 'lust' can also be used more generally to describe any intemperate or excessive desire, for example, lust for power.

== References ==
<references />

{{DivineComedy}}
[[category:sin]]

MediaWiki talk:Cite error refs without references

2011-03-06T16:44:12Z

Keepscases: Addition of category

== Addition of category ==

Please add [[:Category:Pages with missing references list]] or similar like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cite_error_refs_without_references on English Wikipedia] to allow easy finding of such pages. Thanks! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 11:44, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Deletedpage

2011-03-05T00:56:57Z

Keepscases: Unprotected "Deletedpage"

<div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''

'''Click on [[Main Page|this link]] to return to the [[Main Page]]'''</div>
[[Category:Wikis]]

Category:Navboxes

2011-03-04T23:29:19Z

Keepscases: These are navigational boxes. They assist in navigation.

These are navigational boxes. They assist in navigation.

Template:Appomattox

2011-03-04T23:27:04Z

Keepscases: created

{{Navbox
|name = Battles of Appomattox
|title = Battles of Appomattox
|state = {{{state|autocollapse}}}
|above =

|group1 = Battles
|list1 = [[Battle of Amelia Springs|Amelia Springs]] -- [[Battle of Appomattox Court House|Appomattox Court House]] -- [[Battle of Appomattox Station|Appomattox Station]] -- [[Battle of Cumberland Church|Cumberland Church]] -- [[Battle of Dinwiddie Court House|Dinwiddie Court House]] -- [[Battle of Five Forks|Five Forks]] -- [[Battle of High Bridge|High Bridge]] -- [[Battle of Lewis's Farm|Lewis's Farm]] -- [[Battle of Namozine Church|Namozine Church]] -- [[Battle of Rice's Station|Rice's Station]] -- [[Battle of Sayler's Creek|Sayler's Creek]] -- [[Battle of Sutherland's Station|Sutherland's Station]] -- [[Battle of White Oak Road|White Oak Road]]

|group2 = Falls
|list2 = [[Fall of Petersburg|Petersburg]]
|below =
}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Navboxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Templates]]
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Appomattox]]
</noinclude>

Template talk:ACW Battles of 1863

2011-03-04T23:09:32Z

Keepscases: Protection

== Protection ==

Why does this template need protection? Thanks! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 18:09, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2010-12-28T05:04:37Z

Keepscases: /* Redirects */ I was able to fix nine of the 29 that were there; the rest are protected, so I would like some help or permission to fix them. Thank you. ~~~~

Chelsea Manning

2010-12-28T04:58:18Z

Keepscases: bypassed double #REDIRECT User talk:EdS/Bradley Manning

#REDIRECT [[User talk:EdS/Bradley Manning]]

Talk:Jesus Christ

2010-12-28T04:44:54Z

Keepscases: /* New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus */ :That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesusl

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg or its smaller replacement [http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== Redirects ==

Protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]] redirects to [[Jesus Christ]] for an unknown reason, and protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetic website resources]] redirects to [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]], creating a double redirect. Double redirects are bad for any project; a list of them can be found at [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:20, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Jesus Christ

2010-12-28T04:22:58Z

Keepscases: /* Redirects */ ; a list of them can be found at Special:DoubleRedirects

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== Redirects ==

Protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]] redirects to [[Jesus Christ]] for an unknown reason, and protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetic website resources]] redirects to [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]], creating a double redirect. Double redirects are bad for any project; a list of them can be found at [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:20, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Jesus Christ

2010-12-28T04:20:25Z

Keepscases: /* Redirects */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== Redirects ==

Protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]] redirects to [[Jesus Christ]] for an unknown reason, and protected page [[Talk:Christian apologetic website resources]] redirects to [[Talk:Christian apologetics website resources]], creating a double redirect. Double redirects are bad for any project. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:20, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Darwin's sickness

2010-12-28T04:14:09Z

Keepscases: bypassed double #REDIRECT Talk:Charles Darwin's illness

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Charles Darwin's illness]]

DHS

2010-12-28T04:13:07Z

Keepscases: bypassed double #REDIRECT United States Department of Homeland Security

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Homeland Security]]

Darwin's Sickness

2010-12-28T04:12:13Z

Keepscases: bypassed double #REDIRECT Charles Darwin's illness

#REDIRECT [[Charles Darwin's illness]]

Darwin's sickness

2010-12-28T04:11:08Z

Keepscases: bypassed double #REDIRECT Charles Darwin's illness

#REDIRECT [[Charles Darwin's illness]]

Black people

2010-12-28T04:09:57Z

Keepscases: bypassed double #REDIRECT African Americans

#REDIRECT [[African Americans]]

User talk:CenterRight

2010-12-28T03:35:16Z

Keepscases: :Conservapedia is ranked 60,975[http://www.alexa.com/search?q=conservapedia] and Wikipedia is ranked 8[http://www.alexa.com/search?q=wikipedia] by Alexa at present. ~~~~

{{Welcome}}
Just to let you know, the last message was a rather derogatory invite to a place so far down on the Alexa ratings they can't see daylight, and that is due to their constant lying, which the general public is disgusted with. Left-wing sites are like that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:14, 27 December 2010 (EST)
:Conservapedia is ranked 60,975[http://www.alexa.com/search?q=conservapedia] and Wikipedia is ranked 8[http://www.alexa.com/search?q=wikipedia] by Alexa at present. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 22:35, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Gay bowel syndrome

2010-12-28T02:50:44Z

Keepscases: /* Obsolescence */ fixed the last ref

[[Image:Biol 01 img0018.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]] attacking T4 [[lymphocyte]]s]]
'''Gay bowel syndrome''', which has also been described as [[Homosexuality|gay]] [[intestine|bowel]] [[disease]], was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the [[journal]] ''Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science'' and in 2004 [[Medscape]] stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards [[HIV]] infection (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features a literature review article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1 Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1] - American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber</ref><ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide, review of the literature - essentially duplicate of Medscape's New Look at
Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in [[homosexuality|homosexual]] patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus N. Sohn, JG Robilotti Jr. ''The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals''. AM J Gastroenterol 1977 May;67(5):478-84]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1 Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1] - American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber</ref>

The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
{{cquote|The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10% of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include [[Condyloma Acuminata|condyloma acuminata]], [[hemorrhoid]]s, nonspecific [[proctitis]], anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, [[amebiasis]], benign [[polyp]]s, viral [[hepatitis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, [[shigellosis]], rectal [[ulcer]]s and [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref>}}

__TOC__
N. Sohn and JG Robilotti Jr., who were among the authors of the previously cited article in the ''Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science'' wrote in the [[American Journal of Gastroenterology]] regarding gay bowel syndrome that "It is important to recognize homosexual patients and the conditions to which they are predisposed. In 1980 Dr. Michael Heller, who was a [[San Francisco]] physician, wrote in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' in a article titled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency Department''
that "In recent years, it has been recognized that homosexual men are subject to a remarkable variety of colorectal disorders."<ref>Dr. Michael Heller, ''The gay bowel syndrome: a common problem of homosexual patients in the emergency department''. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 487</ref>

Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel syndrome in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to [[Inflammatory Bowel Disease|inflammatory bowel disease]]."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>

Dr. Michael Heller's medical journal article in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' entitled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency'' states regarding gay bowel syndrome the following: "Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women."<ref>Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 488</ref>
==HIV Infection and a New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome==
[[Image:AIDS_virus.jpg‎|thumbnail|right|200px|Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]]] A September 2010 report of the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) declared : "Gay, [[bisexual]], and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by [[HIV]] and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States..."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm</ref> In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: "An official with the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the [[United States]] [[AIDS]] is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population."<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609</ref>

On March 15, 2004 [[Medscape]] published an article entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"'' by John G. Bartlett, M.D. which commented on the 2004 journal article ''Etiology of clinical proctitis among men who have sex with men'' published by JD Klausner and C. Kent in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''. The Medscape article declared:
{{cquote|There were multiple studies of the newly recognized "gay bowel syndrome" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse, in part attributed to reduced frequency thought to reflect changing practices by gay men in response to the [[HIV]] epidemic. This study clearly indicates that it is still an issue, since the cases were studied in 2001-2002. Also, the etiology is about the same as previously, although [[HSV]] is newly recognized as an important component. This finding not only affects management but also has HIV prevention implications. The authors note that two thirds of the participants were HIV negative and that proctitis increases the risk of HIV by up to 9-fold.<ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>}}
===Proctitis and HIV Infection Further Elaborated===
As noted earlier proctitis is one of the maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome and greatly increases the chance of HIV infection.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' the following: "[[Proctitis]], or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring [[HIV]] infection. With the recent increases in bacterial sexually transmitted diseases ([[STD]]s) among MSM in the [[United States]] and [[Europe]], there has been a concomitant increase in the number of cases of clinical proctitis."<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest Klausner JD, Kohn R, Kent C. Etiology of Clinical Proctitis among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:300-302]</ref>

Although homosexual men practice various sexual practices which may put them at risk, studies report that anal sex can be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases.<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm</ref> Also, according to the [[Mayo Clinic]], "proctitis is an inflammation of the lining of the rectum... Sexually transmitted diseases are the most common cause, but other causes include inflammatory bowel diseases, such as ulcerative colitis, and non-sexually transmitted infections."<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705</ref> [[Sexually transmitted disease]]s that cause proctitis include [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], cytomegalovirus, [[Herpes Simplex Virus|herpes]], [[chlamydia]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], [[shigella]] and [[amebiasis]].<ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec09/ch130/ch130f.html</ref> According to the Mayo Clinic article, proctitis is a condition mainly affecting adult males[[Image:Ro0304F8Treponema.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|A [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] analysis suggested that approximately 64 percent of all adult primary and secondary [[syphilis]] cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men.]]

===Syphilis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection===
Syphilis and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as noted earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> Syphilis can be a cause of proctitis and the disease significantly increases the probability of HIV infection which was mentioned previously.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

The news organization [[Cybercast News Service]] reported the following about [[Homosexuality and Syphilis|homosexuality and syphilis]]:
{{cquote|The federal [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.

In a report on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) issued Tuesday, the government said syphilis, a disease that was almost eliminated as a public health threat less than 10 years ago, is on the rise -- with cases increasing each year since 2000.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41975</ref>}}

The CDC also stated the following:
{{cquote|"While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S [[syphilis]] cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999....Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the [[United States]],” said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s [[HIV]], [[STD]] and [[Tuberculosis|TB]] prevention programs."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r051108.htm</ref>}}

===Gonorrhea and Proctitis===
Gonorrhea and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as noted earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> Gonorrhea can be a cause of proctitis and the disease significantly increases the probability of HIV infection as was mentioned previously.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

In 2006, the American Association of Family Physicians reported: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) have high rates of gonococcal infection. In [[San Francisco]], more than one half of these infections occur in MSM, and previous cross-sectional studies have reported a prevalence of up to 15.3 percent in this group."<ref>http://www.aafp.org/afp/20070615/tips/4.html</ref>

In respect to [[Homosexuality and Gonorrhea|homosexuality and gonorrhea]], [[Concerned Women of America]] issued an article entitled ''Health and Homosexuality'' which stated the following:
{{cquote|In a study published by the ''[[Canadian Medical Association Journal]]'' in 1991, "...gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge ... and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/959/CWA/family/index.htm</ref>}}

===Lymphogranuloma Venereum Outbreaks Among Homosexuals and HIV Infection===
[[Image:Chlamydia.jpg|thumbnail|right|170px|There are three different sub-types of the [[bacteria]] Chlamydia trachomatis that cause [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]].]][[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|Lymphogranuloma venereum]] (LGV) is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] that can cause [[proctitis]] and proctitis significantly increases the probability of [[HIV]] infection which was mentioned previously. <ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> Lymphogranuloma venereum and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as stated earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In March of 2007, the ''Journal of Clinical Microbiology'' reported that there was an ongoing epidemic of lymphogranuloma venereum in men who have sex with men (MSM) in Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17251405&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lymphogranuloma venereum in Australia: anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis serovar L2b in men who have sex with men. J Clin Microbiol 2007 Mar;45(3):1029-31]</ref> In August of 2007, the [[Norway|Norweigan]] medical journal ''Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening'' stated that LGV has been a rare condition in the [[Western World|western world]] but since 2004 there have been frequent reports from larger cities in Europe and the United States and the outbreaks have been limited homosexual men.<ref>''Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening'' 2007 Aug 23;127(16):2094-5</ref> The abstract for the January of 2007 journal [[Clinical Infectious Diseases]] states that "We found a significant burden of this once-rare sexually transmitted infection among MSM in the United Kingdom. LGV may be contributing to the epidemic of [[HIV|human immunodeficiency virus]] infection by facilitating transmission." <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17143811&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Clinical infectious diseases 2007 Jan 1;44(1):26-32]</ref> The reports of levels of proctitis in the homosexual men infected with lymphogranuloma venereum varied in the different outbreaks of lymphogranuloma venereum.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17143811&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Clinical infectious diseases 2007 Jan 1;44(1):26-32]</ref><ref>[http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v11n09/1109-223.asp Eurosurveillance 2006;11(9):152-4]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17251405&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lymphogranuloma venereum in Australia: anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis serovar L2b in men who have sex with men. Eur J Clin Microbiol 2007 Mar;45(3):1029-31]</ref>

===Amebiasis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection===

As mentioned earlier, [[amebiasis]] and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In addition, it was also indicated previously that amebiasis can cause proctitis which increases the risk factor in regards to HIV infection.<ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In 2006, the ''[[The Medical Journal of Australia]]'' reported the following:
{{cquote|High rates of intestinal [[parasite|parasitism]] are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.

[[Amebiasis|Amoebiasis]] has become endemic in MSM in Japan and causes significant morbidity and mortality; complications such as colitis and liver abscesses occur more frequently in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Similar findings on amoebiasis are reported from Taiwan, with MSM at increased risk for invasive amoebiasis and intestinal colonisation with [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. histolytica]].<ref>[http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/sta10803_fm.html Stark DJ, Fotedar R, Ellis JT, Harkness JL. ''Locally acquired infection with Entamoeba histolytica in men who have sex with men in Australia.'' MJA 2006; 185 (8): 417]</ref>}}

In 2001, The journal ''Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan)'' published an article entitled ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome'' in which they stated the following the following:
{{cquote|While the overall prevalence of [[amebiasis]] is approximately 4% in the [[United States]], certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and [[disease]]. Prevalence of [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. historylitica]] or [[Entamoeba Dispar|E. dispar]] in the gay population of [[New York City]] and [[San Francisco]] approached 40-50% . Some Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was an important risk factor for amebic infection.<ref>[http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=internalmedicine1992&cdvol=40&noissue=7&startpage=563&lang=en&from=jnlabstract Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref>}}
[[Image:Ehistolytica05.jpg|thumb|left|150px|[[Amebiasis]] is a disease caused by the one-celled [[parasite]] [[Entamoeba Histolytica|Entamoeba histolytica]].]]

The 2004 article an entitled ''Present characteristics of symptomatic Entamoeba histolytica infection in the big cities of Japan'' which was published by the medical journal ''Epidemiology and Infection''. The abstract for the article states the following:
{{cquote|Medical records, for 2000 and 2001, of symptomatic amoebic patients who were treated at our hospitals in Tokyo, Yokohama and [[Osaka]] were studied retrospectively for the purpose of gathering epidemiological data on symptomatic Entamoeba histolytica infection. A total of 58 patients were treated. Fifty-five of them were male, and 96% of the male patients were Japanese. The mean age of patients was 44.9 years old, and 91% of patients contracted the disease in Japan. Fifty-six per cent of the male patients indicated that they were practicing homosexuals, and 44% of the male patients denied these practices or left the question unanswered. The serum Treponema pallidum haemagglutination test was positive in 45% of the patients, and antibody to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was positive in 45%. Our study revealed that recent symptomatic E. histolytica infection almost exclusively afflicted middle-aged males in the big cities of Japan, that a majority of the patients were probably exposed to the causative organism during homosexual activity, and that an increasing number of patients will be co-infected with HIV. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14979590&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Epidemiol Infect. 2004 Jan;132(1):57-60]</ref>}}

In 1985, the peer reviewed medical journal ''Gut'', which is an international medical journal for gastroenterology and hepatology, had an article entitled ''The Gay Bowel'' authored by I V Weller which stated the following: "[[Guardia Lamblia|Guardia lamblia]] and [[Entamoeba Histolytica|Entamoeba histolytica]] have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending [[STD]] clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."<ref>I V Weller, ''The gay bowel'', Gut. 1985 September; 26(9): 869–875</ref>

==Shigellosis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection==
[[Image:Gech 0001 0004 0 img0247.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Shigella]] [[bacteria]] cause [[shigellosis]]]]In February of 2007 the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' reported the following in a article entitled ''Another Perfect Storm: Shigella, Men Who Have Sex with Men, and HIV'':
{{cquote|In the mid-1970s, outbreaks of Shigella infection among adults in [[New York]] and [[San Francisco]] raised the possibility that Shigella species may be sexually transmitted, with most infections occurring in men who have sex with men (MSM). Since these early observations, Shigella infection appears to be more frequent among MSM than among other adult populations...<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v44n3/41468/41468.html ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' 2007;44:335-337]</ref>}}

As mentioned earlier, [[shigellosis]] and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In addition, it was also indicated previously that shigella can cause proctitis which may increase the chance of HIV infection.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

In February of 2007 ''Journal of Infectious Diseases'' published an article titled ''Case-control study of shigellosis in San Francisco: the role of sexual transmission and HIV infection''. The abstract for the article stated: 'Among MSM [men who have sex with men], shigellosis is predominantly a sexually transmitted disease, with direct oral-anal contact conferring the highest risk and HIV infection likely contributing to increased host susceptibility."<ref>[http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Reingold,A J Infect Dis. 2007 Nov 1;196 (9):1346-1354
]</ref>

Shigellosis is particularly hazardous for individuals with [[AIDS]] or other immunodeficiency states. <ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6323</ref>

==Viral Hepatitis==
[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|left|Hepatitis C Virus]]
As mentioned previous viral [[hepatitis]] is one of the maladies of gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> According to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM). According to the CDC, "About 10% of all new HAV [Hepatitis A Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM. Although the overall incidence of hepatitis A has declined in the United States over the past decade, frequent outbreaks continue to be reported among MSM." The CDC also reports that "About 15%-20% of all new HBV [Hepatitis B Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitus C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute hepatitis C among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. British researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, United Kingdom, since 2000.[7] The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

==Bible, Homosexuality, and Sound Health Practices==
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]].

==Homosexual Activists Angered by the Medical Term Gay Bowel Syndrome==
‎The term gay bowel syndrome angers homosexual activists as it associates homosexual acts with disease. The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (who authored the acknowledged [[Public Relations|public relations]] [[Bible]] of the homosexual-rights movement ''After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s'') were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49958</ref> Clearly the disease gay bowel syndrome is not in accordance with the marketing plan associated with the [[homosexual agenda]] which attempts to make homosexuals look good as one of its tactics.<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>
[[Image:Kupelianbookcover220.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen were able to change some American's perceptions regarding [[homosexuality]].]]
In 2001, a homosexual activist got the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) to deleted any reference to gay bowel syndrome from its medical textbook.<ref>[http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/news?record=512 Gay Bowel Syndrome’ Struck from Textbook]</ref> In 2005 a homosexual activist made efforts to remove the entry for gay bowel syndrome from the online version of [[Encarta|MSN Encarta]] which in an online encyclopedia.<ref>[http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2005/WB050411.html Activist fights 'outdated' medical phrase: Effort to debunk 'gay bowel syndrome' may face new challenge - Washington Blade - April 8, 2005]</ref> Currently, MSN Encarta has no article for gay bowel syndrome.
===Michael Scarce===
Michael Scarce who served as a coordinator of Lesbian, Gay, [[Bisexual]], and Transgender Resources at the University of California at San Francisco.<ref>http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/07/14_lgbt.html</ref>
Mr. Scarce wrote a book entitled ''Smearing the Queer: Medical Bias in the Health Care of Gay Men'' in which he takes exception to the diagnosis gay bowel syndrome, and cited in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).<ref>JAMA. 2000;284:page 1986</ref> Dr. Debra L. Klamen did a review of his book in the same JAMA issue. Dr. Klamen agrees with Michael Scarce regarding his position that gay bowel syndrome involves "[[homophobic]]" thinking and she states regarding Scarce's work that the author "provides eye-opening revelations about heterosexual attitudes: gay men are somehow depraved, pleasure seeking, and they might spread their diseases (such as HIV infection) to a "general population virtually going about its business."" However, in the very next paragraph Dr. Klamen writes regarding Scarces' book the following: "Its use of vulgar language, ribald poetry, and the author's personal sexual details might cause healthcare professionals making an initial foray into gay men's health issues to cringe."<ref>JAMA. 2000;284:page 1986</ref> Dr. Klamen did not discuss any of the studies regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity male homosexual promiscuity] in her review of Scarce's book. As mentioned previously, Dr. Michael Heller's medical journal article in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' entitled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency'' states the following: "Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women."<ref>Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 488</ref>

Michael Scarce also published an article in 1997 in the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' in regards to gay bowel syndrome. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref> The abstract for Scarce's article states the following: "The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination." <ref>http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/07/14_lgbt.html</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref>

===Summary===
Even though a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases is encountered with unusual frequency in homosexual patients occurs in homosexual patients as a result of homosexual activity, homosexual activists do take exception to the medical term gay bowel syndrome and one the complaints they have is the various maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus N. Sohn, JG Robilotti Jr. ''The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals''. AM J Gastroenterol 1977 May;67(5):478-84]</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref><ref>[http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/news?record=512 Gay Bowel Syndrome’ Struck from Textbook]</ref><ref>[http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2005/WB050411.html Activist fights 'outdated' medical phrase: Effort to debunk 'gay bowel syndrome' may face new challenge - Washington Blade - April 8, 2005]</ref>

==The Medical Term Gay Bowel Syndrome Is Still Used Today==
Although the term gay bowel syndrome is not used as frequently as the 1980's, as mentioned previously Medscape has an article on gay bowel syndrome which was published in 2004 that was entitled ''''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome".''(The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at
Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In addition, a leading provider of online medical health information has an entry on gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/medical/gay_bowel_syndrome.htm Gay Bowel Syndrome from Online Medical Dictionary]</ref>

== Obsolescence ==
The term "gay bowel syndrome" is considered obsolete and derogatory. The ''McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery'' says:
:'Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used.<ref name="mgh-handbook">{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=Andreas|title=McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery|year=2008|pages=205|isbn=0071590706|url=http://books.google.com/?id=bnjWQZAxOZ0C&pg=PA205&dq}}</ref>'

A 1997 article in the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' concluded:
:'It is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned.<ref>Scarce M (1997). "Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome". ''J Homosex''. '''34''' (2): 1–35. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier PMID] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9328857 9328857].</ref>'

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality and Health]]
*[[Lesbianism and Obesity]]
*[[Gay bathhouses]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

==External Links==
*[http://americansfortruth.com/news/conservapedia-examines-gay-bowel-syndrome-homosexual-activists-lobby-against-term.html ‘Conservapedia’ Examines ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’: Homosexual Activists Lobby against Term] by [[Peter LaBarbera]]
*[http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/std0703brody.pdf Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa] - Cites Material Concerning Gay Bowel Syndrome
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2831107&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Prevalence of enteric pathogens in homosexual men with and without acquired immunodeficiency syndrome]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1851716&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Gastrointestinal manifestations of AIDS. 1: Basic considerations and viral infections]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]

Template:Citation/identifier

2010-12-28T02:43:47Z

Keepscases: copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/identifier&oldid=384847877

{{#switch:{{{identifier}}}
|arxiv={{hide in print
|[[arXiv]]:[http://arxiv.org/abs/{{{input1|}}}{{{input2|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}{{{input2|}}}}}]{{#if:{{{input3|}}}
| [{{{input3|}}}]
|
}}
}}{{only in print
|arXiv:{{{input1|}}}{{{input2|}}}{{#if:{{{input3|}}}
| [{{{input3|}}}]
|
}}
}}
|doi={{hide in print
|{{#if:{{{input2|}}}
|[[Digital object identifier|doi]]:{{{input1|}}} (inactive {{{input2|}}}) {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{ns:0}}
|[[Category:Pages with DOIs inactive since {{#time: Y | {{{input2|}}} }}]]
|
}}
|[[Digital object identifier|doi]]:[http://dx.doi.org/{{urlencode:{{{input1|}}}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}
}}{{only in print
|{{#if:{{{input2|}}}
|doi:{{{input1|}}} (inactive {{{input2|}}})
|doi:{{{input1|}}}
}}
}}
|asin={{hide in print
|[[Amazon Standard Identification Number|ASIN]] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|ASIN {{{input1|}}}
}}
|bibcode={{hide in print
|[[Bibcode]]: [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|Bibcode: {{{input1|}}}
}}
|jfm={{hide in print
|[[Jahrbuch über die Fortschritte der Mathematik|JFM]] [http://www.zentralblatt-math.org/zmath/en/search/?q{{=}}an:{{{input1|}}}&format{{=}}complete {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|JFM {{{input1|}}}
}}
|jstor={{hide in print
|[[JSTOR]] [http://www.jstor.org/stable/{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|JSTOR {{{input1|}}}
}}
|isbn={{hide in print
|[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/{{{input1|}}}|{{{input1|}}}]]
}}{{only in print
|ISBN {{{input1|}}}
}}
|issn={{hide in print
|[[International Standard Serial Number|ISSN]] [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|ISSN {{{input1|}}}
}}
|mr={{hide in print
|[[Mathematical Reviews|MR]][http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr{{=}}{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|MR{{{input1|}}}
}}
|oclc={{hide in print
|[[Online Computer Library Center|OCLC]] [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|OCLC {{{input1|}}}
}}
|pmc={{hide in print
|[[PubMed Central|PMC]] [http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool{{=}}pmcentrez&artid{{=}}{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|PMC {{{input1|}}}
}}
|pmid={{hide in print
|[[PubMed Identifier|PMID]] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/{{{input1|}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|PMID {{{input1|}}}
}}
|zbl={{hide in print
|[[Zentralblatt MATH|ZBL]] [http://www.zentralblatt-math.org/zmath/en/search/?q{{=}}an:{{{input1|}}}&format{{=}}complete {{#tag:nowiki|{{{input1|}}}}}]
}}{{only in print
|ZBL {{{input1|}}}
}}
}}

Template:Citation/make link

2010-12-28T02:42:03Z

Keepscases: copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/make_link&oldid=400598787

{{#if:{{{1|}}}
|[{{{1}}} {{{2}}}]
|{{{2}}}
}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Template:Citation/core

2010-12-28T02:39:45Z

Keepscases: copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/core&oldid=403090272

<span class="citation {{{Citation class|{{{Citation type|}}}}}}"
{{
#switch:{{{Ref|}}}
||none =
|#default = id="{{anchorencode:{{{Ref}}}}}"
|harv = {{#if:{{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}
|id="CITEREF{{anchorencode:{{#if:{{{Surname1|}}}
|{{{Surname1}}}{{{Surname2|}}}{{{Surname3|}}}{{{Surname4|}}}
|{{{EditorSurname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname2|}}}{{{EditorSurname3|}}}{{{EditorSurname4|}}}
}}{{{Year|{{{Date|}}}}}}}}"
}}
}}>{{

#if:{{{Surname1|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{AuthorMask|}}}
|{{
#iferror: {{ #expr: 1*{{{AuthorMask}}} }}
|{{{AuthorMask}}}
|<del>{{loop|{{{AuthorMask}}}|2=&emsp;}}</del>
}}
|{{
#if: {{{Authorlink1|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink1}}} |{{{Surname1}}}{{
#if: {{{Given1|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given1}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname1}}}{{
#if: {{{Given1|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given1}}}
}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname2|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<2
| ''et al''.
|{{
#iferror: {{ #expr: 1*0.0{{{AuthorMask|}}} }}
| 
|{{
#if: {{{Surname3|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink2|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink2}}} |{{{Surname2}}}{{
#if: {{{Given2|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given2}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname2}}}{{
#if: {{{Given2|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given2}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname3|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<3
| ''et al''.
|{{
#if: {{{Surname4|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink3|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink3}}} |{{{Surname3}}}{{
#if: {{{Given3|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given3}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname3}}}{{
#if: {{{Given3|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given3}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{Surname4|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<4
| ''et al''.
|{{
#if: {{{Surname5|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink4|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink4}}} |{{{Surname4}}}{{
#if: {{{Given4|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given4}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname4}}}{{
#if: {{{Given4|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given4}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{Surname5|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<5
| ''et al''.
|{{
#if: {{{Surname6|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink5|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink5}}} |{{{Surname5}}}{{
#if: {{{Given5|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given5}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname5}}}{{
#if: {{{Given5|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given5}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{Surname6|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<6
| ''et al''.
|{{
#if: {{{Surname7|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink6|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink6}}} |{{{Surname6}}}{{
#if: {{{Given6|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given6}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname6}}}{{
#if: {{{Given6|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given6}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{Surname7|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<7
| ''et al''.
|{{
#if: {{{Surname8|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink7|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink7}}} |{{{Surname7}}}{{
#if: {{{Given7|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given7}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname7}}}{{
#if: {{{Given7|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given7}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{Surname8|}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{{Trunc|8}}}<8
| ''et al''.
|{{
#if: {{{Surname9|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Authorlink8|}}}
|[[{{{Authorlink8}}} |{{{Surname8}}}{{
#if: {{{Given8|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given8}}}
}}]]
|{{{Surname8}}}{{
#if: {{{Given8|}}}
|{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given8}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{Surname9|}}}
| ''et al''.
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
}}

}}{{
#if: {{{Coauthors|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}{{{Coauthors|}}}|
}}{{
#if: {{{Date|}}}
| ({{{Date}}}){{
#if:{{{YearNote|}}}
| [{{{YearNote}}}]
}}
}}
|{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname1|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Editorlink1|}}}
|[[{{{Editorlink1}}} |{{{EditorSurname1}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven1|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven1}}}
}}]]
|{{{EditorSurname1}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven1|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven1}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname2|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname3|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Editorlink2|}}}
|[[{{{Editorlink2}}} |{{{EditorSurname2}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven2|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven2}}}
}}]]
|{{{EditorSurname2}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven2|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven2}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname3|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname4|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Editorlink3|}}}
|[[{{{Editorlink3}}} |{{{EditorSurname3}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven3|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven3}}}
}}]]
|{{{EditorSurname3}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven3|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven3}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{EditorSurname4|}}}
| et al.
}}
}}
}}, ed{{#if:{{{EditorSurname2|}}}|s}}{{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|.||.}}{{
#if: {{{Date|}}}
| ({{{Date}}}){{
#if:{{{YearNote|}}}
| [{{{YearNote}}}]
}}
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{#if:{{{Periodical|}}}||{{#if:{{{TransItalic|}}}||{{{TransTitle|}}}}}}}
|{{
#if:{{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} 
}}{{Citation/make link
| 1={{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{{IncludedWorkURL}}}
|{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}
|{{{URL}}}

|{{#ifexpr:{{#time: U}} > {{#time: U | {{{Embargo|2001-10-10}}} }}
|{{
#if: {{{PMC|}}}
|http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid={{{PMC}}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
| 2={{
#if: {{{Periodical|}}}
|''<nowiki />{{{IncludedWorkTitle}}}<nowiki />''
|"{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{
#if: {{{TransTitle|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
| 
}}[{{{TransTitle}}}]
}}"
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{Place|}}}
|{{
#ifeq: {{{Place|}}} | {{{PublicationPlace|}}}
|
|{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} written at {{{Place}}}
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{EditorSurname1|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|.|I|i}}n 
}}{{
#if: {{{Editorlink1|}}}
|[[{{{Editorlink1}}} |{{{EditorSurname1}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven1|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven1}}}
}}]]
|{{{EditorSurname1}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven1|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven1}}}
}}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname2|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname3|}}}
|{{{AuthorSep|; }}}
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Editorlink2|}}}
|[[{{{Editorlink2}}}|{{{EditorSurname2}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven2|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven2}}}
}}]]
|{{{EditorSurname2}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven2|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven2}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname3|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname4|}}}
|; 
|{{#if:{{{amp|}}}| & |{{{AuthorSep|; }}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Editorlink3|}}}
|[[{{{Editorlink3}}}|{{{EditorSurname3}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven3|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven3}}}
}}]]
|{{{EditorSurname3}}}{{
#if: {{{EditorGiven3|}}}
|, {{{EditorGiven3}}}
}}
}}{{
#if:{{{EditorSurname4|}}}
| et al.
}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|
|{{{Sep|,}}} ed{{#if:{{{EditorSurname2|}}}|s}}{{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|.||.}}
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{Periodical|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Other|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Other|}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} }}{{
#if: {{{Title|}}}{{{TransTitle|}}}
|{{Citation/make link
| 1={{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}
|{{{URL}}}
|{{
#ifexpr: {{#time: U}} > {{#time: U | {{{Embargo|2001-10-10}}} }} | {{
#if: {{{PMC|}}}
| http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid={{{PMC}}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
|{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}
|{{{URL}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{#time: U}} > {{#time: U | {{{Embargo|2001-10-10}}} }} |{{
#if: {{{PMC|}}}
| http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid={{{PMC}}}
}}
}}
}}
}}
| 2="{{{Title}}}{{
#if: {{{TransTitle|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Title|}}}
| 
}}[{{{TransTitle}}}]
}}"
}}{{
#if: {{{TitleNote|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{TitleNote}}}
}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{language|}}}
| (in {{{language}}})
}}{{
#if: {{{format|}}}
| ({{{format}}})
}}{{
#if: {{{Periodical|}}}
|{{
#if:{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{{Title|}}}{{{TransTitle|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} 
}}''<nowiki />{{{Periodical}}}<nowiki />''{{
#if: {{{Series|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Series}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{PublicationPlace|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Publisher|}}}
| ({{{PublicationPlace}}}<nowiki>: </nowiki>{{{Publisher}}})
| ({{{PublicationPlace}}})
}}
|{{
#if: {{{Publisher|}}}
| ({{{Publisher}}})
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Volume|}}}
| '''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''{{
#if: {{{Issue|}}}
| ({{{Issue}}})
}}
|{{
#if: {{{Issue|}}}
| ({{{Issue}}})
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{At|}}}
|<nowiki>: </nowiki> {{{At}}}
}}
|{{

#if: {{{Title|}}}{{{TransItalic|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{{Periodical|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}}
}} {{Citation/make link
| 1={{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}
|{{{URL}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{#time: U}} > {{#time: U | {{{Embargo|2001-10-10}}} }}|{{
#if: {{{PMC|}}}
| http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid={{{PMC}}}
}}}}
}}
}}
|{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}
|{{{URL}}}
|{{#ifexpr:{{#time: U}} > {{#time: U | {{{Embargo|2001-10-10}}} }}|{{
#if: {{{PMC|}}}
| http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid={{{PMC}}}
}}}}
}}
}}
| 2=''<nowiki />{{{Title|}}}{{
#if:{{{TransItalic|}}}| [{{{TransItalic}}}]
}}<nowiki />''
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{TitleType|}}}
| ({{{TitleType}}})
}}{{
#if: {{{Series|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Series}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Volume|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} '''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''
}}{{
#if: {{{Other|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Other|}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Edition|}}}
| ({{{Edition}}} ed.)
}}{{
#if: {{{PublicationPlace|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{PublicationPlace}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Publisher|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{PublicationPlace|}}}
|<nowiki>:</nowiki>
|{{{Sep|,}}}
}} {{{Publisher}}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}
|
|{{
#if: {{{Date|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Date}}}{{
#if:{{{YearNote|}}}
| [{{{YearNote}}}]
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{PublicationDate|}}}
|{{
#ifeq: {{{PublicationDate|}}} | {{{Date|}}}
|
|{{
#if: {{{EditorSurname1|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{PublicationDate}}}
| (published {{{PublicationDate}}})
}}
|{{
#if: {{{Periodical|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{PublicationDate}}}
| (published {{{PublicationDate}}})
}}
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{Periodical|}}}
|
|{{
#if: {{{At|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{At}}}
}}
}}{{

#if:{{{DOI|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=doi |input1={{{DOI|}}} |input2={{{DoiBroken|}}} }}
}}{{

#if: {{{ID|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}}{{{EditorSurname1|}}}{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{{Periodical|}}}{{{Title|}}}{{{TransItalic|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{ID}}}
|{{{ID}}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{ISBN|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=isbn |input1={{{ISBN|}}} }}
}}{{

#if: {{{ISSN|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=issn |input1={{{ISSN|}}} }}
}}{{

#if: {{{OCLC|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=oclc |input1={{{OCLC|}}} }}
}}{{

#if: {{{PMID|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=pmid |input1={{{PMID|}}} }}
}}{{

#if: {{{PMC|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=pmc |input1={{{PMC|}}} }}
|{{only in print|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=pmc |input1={{{PMC|}}} }} }}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{Bibcode|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{citation/identifier |identifier=bibcode |input1={{{Bibcode|}}} }}
}}{{

#if: {{{Archive|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Archive}}}[[Category:Pages using deprecated citation archive parameters]]
|{{
#if:{{{ArchiveURL|}}}{{{ArchiveDate|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{#ifeq:{{{Sep}}}|.|A|a}}rchived{{
#if:{{{OriginalURL|}}}{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{#if:{{{ArchiveURL|}}}| from {{Citation/make link|{{{OriginalURL|{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}}}}|the original}}}}
}}{{
#if:{{{ArchiveDate|}}}
| on {{{ArchiveDate}}}
}}{{
#if:{{#if:{{{ArchiveURL|}}}||A}}{{#if:{{{OriginalURL|}}}{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}||B}}{{#if:{{{ArchiveDate|}}}||C}}
|. {{citation error|nocat={{{template doc demo|}}}
|If you specify <code>|{{#if:{{{ArchiveURL|}}}|archiveurl|archivedate}}=</code>, you must {{#if:{{{OriginalURL|}}}{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}| also specify <code>|{{#if:{{{ArchiveURL|}}}|archivedate|archiveurl}}=</code>|first specify <code>|url=</code>}}}}
}}
}}
}}{{

#if: {{{URL|}}}{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{
#if: {{{Title|}}}{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}{{{TransTitle|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{{IncludedWorkURL}}}
|{{{URL}}}
}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} {{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}
|{{{IncludedWorkURL}}}
|{{{URL}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{AccessDate|}}}
| {{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|,|, r|. R}}etrieved {{{AccessDate}}}
}}
}}{{#if:{{{laysummary|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} [{{{laysummary}}} Lay summary]{{#if: {{{laysource|}}}| – ''<nowiki />{{{laysource}}}<nowiki />''}}
}}{{#if:{{{laydate|}}}
| ({{{laydate}}})
}}{{#if:{{{quote|}}}
|{{{Sep|,}}} "{{{quote}}}"
}}{{{PS|}}}<span
class="Z3988"
title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt={{urlencode:info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:}}{{
#if: {{{Periodical|}}}
|journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle={{urlencode:{{{Title|}}}}}&rft.jtitle={{urlencode:{{{Periodical|}}}}}
|book{{
#if: {{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}
|&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle={{urlencode:{{{IncludedWorkTitle|}}}}}&rft.atitle={{urlencode:{{{Title|}}}}}
|&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle={{urlencode:{{{Title|}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}} |&rft.aulast={{urlencode:{{{Surname1}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given1|}}} |&rft.aufirst={{urlencode:{{{Given1}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname1|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname1}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given1|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given1}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname2|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname2}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given2|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given2}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname3|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname3}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given3|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given3}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname4|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname4}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given4|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given4}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname5|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname5}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given5|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given5}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname6|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname6}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given6|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given6}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname7|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname7}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given7|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given7}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname8|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname8}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given8|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given8}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Surname9|}}} |&rft.au={{urlencode:{{{Surname9}}}}}{{
#if: {{{Given9|}}} |{{urlencode:{{{NameSep|, }}}{{{Given9}}}}}
}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Date|}}} |&rft.date={{urlencode:{{{Date}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Series|}}} |&rft.series={{urlencode:{{{Series}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Volume|}}} |&rft.volume={{urlencode:{{{Volume}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Issue|}}} |&rft.issue={{urlencode:{{{Issue}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{At|}}} |&rft.pages={{urlencode:{{{At}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Edition|}}} |&rft.edition={{urlencode:{{{Edition}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{PublicationPlace|}}}{{{Place|}}} |&rft.place={{urlencode:{{{PublicationPlace|{{{Place}}}}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Publisher|}}} |&rft.pub={{urlencode:{{{Publisher}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{DOI|}}} |&rft_id=info:doi/{{urlencode:{{{DOI}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{PMID|}}} |&rft_id=info:pmid/{{urlencode:{{{PMID}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{Bibcode|}}} |&rft_id=info:bibcode/{{urlencode:{{{Bibcode}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{OCLC|}}} |&rft_id=info:oclcnum/{{urlencode:{{{OCLC}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{ISBN|}}} |&rft.isbn={{urlencode:{{{ISBN}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{ISSN|}}} |&rft.issn={{urlencode:{{{ISSN}}}}}
}}{{
#if: {{{URL|}}}{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}} |&rft_id={{urlencode:{{{URL|{{{IncludedWorkURL|}}}}}}}}
}}&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}"> <noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

Template:Cite journal

2010-12-28T02:37:23Z

Keepscases: copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_journal&oldid=388135952 (now in use)

<includeonly>{{Citation/core
|Citation type=Journal
|AuthorMask = {{{author-mask|{{{authormask|}}}}}}
|Surname1 = {{{last|{{{surname|{{{last1|{{{surname1|{{{author1|{{{author|{{{authors|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
|Surname2 = {{{last2|{{{surname2|{{{author2|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname3 = {{{last3|{{{surname3|{{{author3|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname4 = {{{last4|{{{surname4|{{{author4|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname5 = {{{last5|{{{surname5|{{{author5|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname6 = {{{last6|{{{surname6|{{{author6|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname7 = {{{last7|{{{surname7|{{{author7|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname8 = {{{last8|{{{surname8|{{{author8|}}}}}}}}}
|Surname9 = {{{last9|{{{surname9|{{{author9|}}}}}}}}}
|Given1 = {{{first1|{{{given1|{{{first|{{{given|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|Given2 = {{{first2|{{{given2|}}}}}}
|Given3 = {{{first3|{{{given3|}}}}}}
|Given4 = {{{first4|{{{given4|}}}}}}
|Given5 = {{{first5|{{{given5|}}}}}}
|Given6 = {{{first6|{{{given6|}}}}}}
|Given7 = {{{first7|{{{given7|}}}}}}
|Given8 = {{{first8|{{{given8|}}}}}}
|Given9 = {{{first9|{{{given9|}}}}}}
|Authorlink1 = {{{author-link|{{{author1-link|{{{authorlink|{{{authorlink1|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|Authorlink2 = {{{author2-link|{{{authorlink2|}}}}}}
|Authorlink3 = {{{author3-link|{{{authorlink3|}}}}}}
|Authorlink4 = {{{author4-link|{{{authorlink4|}}}}}}
|Authorlink5 = {{{author5-link|{{{authorlink5|}}}}}}
|Authorlink6 = {{{author6-link|{{{authorlink6|}}}}}}
|Authorlink7 = {{{author7-link|{{{authorlink7|}}}}}}
|Authorlink8 = {{{author8-link|{{{authorlink8|}}}}}}
|Authorlink9 = {{{author9-link|{{{authorlink9|}}}}}}
|Coauthors = {{{coauthor|{{{coauthors|}}}}}}
|Year={{{year|{{ 
#if: {{{date|}}}
|{{
#iferror:{{#time:Y|{{{date|}}} }}
|{{#iferror:{{#time:Y|{{{publication-date|einval}}} }}||{{#time:Y|{{{publication-date|}}} }}}}
|{{#time:Y|{{{date|}}} }}
}}
|{{{publication-date|}}} 
}}
}}}
|Date = {{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{date}}}|{{{day|}}} {{{month|}}} {{{year|{{{publication-date|}}}}}}}}
|Title={{{title|}}}
|TransTitle={{{trans_title|}}}
|URL={{#if:{{{archiveurl|}}}|{{{archiveurl}}}|{{{url|}}}}}
|Series={{{series|{{{version|}}}}}}
|Periodical = {{{journal|{{{periodical|{{{magazine|{{{work|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|Volume = {{{volume|}}}
|Issue = {{{issue|{{{number|}}}}}}
|At = {{
#if: {{{journal|{{{periodical|{{{magazine|{{{work|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|{{{pages|{{{page|{{{at|}}}}}}}}}
|{{
#if: {{{page|}}}
|p. {{{page}}}
|{{
#if: {{{pages|}}}
|pp. {{{pages}}}
|{{{at|}}}
}}
}}
}}
|IncludedWorkTitle = {{{chapter|{{{contribution|}}}}}}
|IncludedWorkURL = {{{chapter-url|{{{chapterurl|{{{contribution-url|}}}}}}}}}
|Edition = {{{edition|}}}
|Place = {{{place|{{{location|}}}}}}
|PublicationPlace = {{{publication-place|{{{place|{{{location|}}}}}}}}}
|Publisher = {{{publisher|}}}
|PublicationDate = {{{publication-date|}}}
|EditorSurname1 = {{{editor-last|{{{editor-surname|{{{editor1-last|{{{editor1-surname|{{{editor|{{{editors|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
|EditorSurname2 = {{{editor2-last|{{{editor2-surname|}}}}}}
|EditorSurname3 = {{{editor3-last|{{{editor3-surname|}}}}}}
|EditorSurname4 = {{{editor4-last|{{{editor4-surname|}}}}}}
|EditorGiven1 = {{{editor-first|{{{editor-given|{{{editor1-first|{{{editor1-given|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|EditorGiven2={{{editor2-first|{{{editor2-given|}}}}}}
|EditorGiven3={{{editor3-first|{{{editor3-given|}}}}}}
|EditorGiven4={{{editor4-first|{{{editor4-given|}}}}}}
|Editorlink1={{{editor-link|{{{editor1-link|}}}}}}
|Editorlink2={{{editor2-link|}}}
|Editorlink3={{{editor3-link|}}}
|Editorlink4={{{editor4-link|}}}
|Other = {{{others|}}}
|language = {{{language|{{{in|}}}}}}
|format = {{{format|}}}
|ID={{{id|{{{ID|}}}}}}
|ISBN={{{isbn|{{{ISBN|}}}}}}
|ISSN={{{issn|{{{ISSN|}}}}}}
|OCLC={{{oclc|{{{OCLC|}}}}}}
|PMID={{{pmid|{{{PMID|}}}}}}
|PMC={{{pmc|{{{PMC|}}}}}}
|Embargo={{{pmc-embargo-date|1010-10-10}}}
|Bibcode={{{bibcode|}}}
|DOI={{{doi|{{{DOI|}}}}}}
|DoiBroken={{{doi_inactivedate|{{{doi_brokendate|}}}}}}
|AccessDate={{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}
|OriginalURL={{{url|}}}
|ArchiveURL={{{archiveurl|}}}
|ArchiveDate={{{archivedate|}}}
|laysource = {{{laysource|}}}
|laysummary = {{{laysummary|}}}
|laydate = {{{laydate|}}}
|quote = {{{quote|}}}
|Ref={{{ref|}}}
|Sep = {{#ifeq:{{{separator|{{{seperator}}} }}}|;|;|{{{separator|{{{seperator|.}}} }}} }}
|PS = {{{postscript|.}}}
|AuthorSep = {{#ifeq:{{{author-separator|}}}|;|;|{{{author-separator|;}}}}} 
|NameSep = {{{author-name-separator|,}}} 
|Trunc = {{#if:{{{display-authors|}}}|{{{display-authors}}}|8}}
|amp = {{{use ampersand before last author|}}}
}}{{#if:{{{accessdaymonth|}}}{{{accessmonthday|}}}{{{accessday|}}}{{{accessmonth|}}}{{{accessyear|}}}{{{day|}}}{{{access-date|}}}{{{dateformat|}}}|[[Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}{{#if:{{{doilabel|}}}|[[Category:Citation templates using redundant parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

Gay bowel syndrome

2010-12-28T02:32:16Z

Keepscases: /* Obsolescence */ compensated for lack of quote template

[[Image:Biol 01 img0018.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]] attacking T4 [[lymphocyte]]s]]
'''Gay bowel syndrome''', which has also been described as [[Homosexuality|gay]] [[intestine|bowel]] [[disease]], was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the [[journal]] ''Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science'' and in 2004 [[Medscape]] stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards [[HIV]] infection (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features a literature review article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1 Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1] - American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber</ref><ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide, review of the literature - essentially duplicate of Medscape's New Look at
Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in [[homosexuality|homosexual]] patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus N. Sohn, JG Robilotti Jr. ''The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals''. AM J Gastroenterol 1977 May;67(5):478-84]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1 Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1] - American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber</ref>

The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
{{cquote|The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10% of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include [[Condyloma Acuminata|condyloma acuminata]], [[hemorrhoid]]s, nonspecific [[proctitis]], anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, [[amebiasis]], benign [[polyp]]s, viral [[hepatitis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, [[shigellosis]], rectal [[ulcer]]s and [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref>}}

__TOC__
N. Sohn and JG Robilotti Jr., who were among the authors of the previously cited article in the ''Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science'' wrote in the [[American Journal of Gastroenterology]] regarding gay bowel syndrome that "It is important to recognize homosexual patients and the conditions to which they are predisposed. In 1980 Dr. Michael Heller, who was a [[San Francisco]] physician, wrote in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' in a article titled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency Department''
that "In recent years, it has been recognized that homosexual men are subject to a remarkable variety of colorectal disorders."<ref>Dr. Michael Heller, ''The gay bowel syndrome: a common problem of homosexual patients in the emergency department''. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 487</ref>

Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel syndrome in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to [[Inflammatory Bowel Disease|inflammatory bowel disease]]."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>

Dr. Michael Heller's medical journal article in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' entitled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency'' states regarding gay bowel syndrome the following: "Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women."<ref>Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 488</ref>
==HIV Infection and a New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome==
[[Image:AIDS_virus.jpg‎|thumbnail|right|200px|Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]]] A September 2010 report of the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) declared : "Gay, [[bisexual]], and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by [[HIV]] and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States..."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm</ref> In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: "An official with the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the [[United States]] [[AIDS]] is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population."<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609</ref>

On March 15, 2004 [[Medscape]] published an article entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"'' by John G. Bartlett, M.D. which commented on the 2004 journal article ''Etiology of clinical proctitis among men who have sex with men'' published by JD Klausner and C. Kent in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''. The Medscape article declared:
{{cquote|There were multiple studies of the newly recognized "gay bowel syndrome" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse, in part attributed to reduced frequency thought to reflect changing practices by gay men in response to the [[HIV]] epidemic. This study clearly indicates that it is still an issue, since the cases were studied in 2001-2002. Also, the etiology is about the same as previously, although [[HSV]] is newly recognized as an important component. This finding not only affects management but also has HIV prevention implications. The authors note that two thirds of the participants were HIV negative and that proctitis increases the risk of HIV by up to 9-fold.<ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>}}
===Proctitis and HIV Infection Further Elaborated===
As noted earlier proctitis is one of the maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome and greatly increases the chance of HIV infection.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' the following: "[[Proctitis]], or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring [[HIV]] infection. With the recent increases in bacterial sexually transmitted diseases ([[STD]]s) among MSM in the [[United States]] and [[Europe]], there has been a concomitant increase in the number of cases of clinical proctitis."<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest Klausner JD, Kohn R, Kent C. Etiology of Clinical Proctitis among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:300-302]</ref>

Although homosexual men practice various sexual practices which may put them at risk, studies report that anal sex can be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases.<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm</ref> Also, according to the [[Mayo Clinic]], "proctitis is an inflammation of the lining of the rectum... Sexually transmitted diseases are the most common cause, but other causes include inflammatory bowel diseases, such as ulcerative colitis, and non-sexually transmitted infections."<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705</ref> [[Sexually transmitted disease]]s that cause proctitis include [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], cytomegalovirus, [[Herpes Simplex Virus|herpes]], [[chlamydia]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], [[shigella]] and [[amebiasis]].<ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec09/ch130/ch130f.html</ref> According to the Mayo Clinic article, proctitis is a condition mainly affecting adult males[[Image:Ro0304F8Treponema.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|A [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] analysis suggested that approximately 64 percent of all adult primary and secondary [[syphilis]] cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men.]]

===Syphilis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection===
Syphilis and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as noted earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> Syphilis can be a cause of proctitis and the disease significantly increases the probability of HIV infection which was mentioned previously.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

The news organization [[Cybercast News Service]] reported the following about [[Homosexuality and Syphilis|homosexuality and syphilis]]:
{{cquote|The federal [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.

In a report on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) issued Tuesday, the government said syphilis, a disease that was almost eliminated as a public health threat less than 10 years ago, is on the rise -- with cases increasing each year since 2000.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41975</ref>}}

The CDC also stated the following:
{{cquote|"While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S [[syphilis]] cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999....Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the [[United States]],” said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s [[HIV]], [[STD]] and [[Tuberculosis|TB]] prevention programs."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r051108.htm</ref>}}

===Gonorrhea and Proctitis===
Gonorrhea and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as noted earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> Gonorrhea can be a cause of proctitis and the disease significantly increases the probability of HIV infection as was mentioned previously.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

In 2006, the American Association of Family Physicians reported: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) have high rates of gonococcal infection. In [[San Francisco]], more than one half of these infections occur in MSM, and previous cross-sectional studies have reported a prevalence of up to 15.3 percent in this group."<ref>http://www.aafp.org/afp/20070615/tips/4.html</ref>

In respect to [[Homosexuality and Gonorrhea|homosexuality and gonorrhea]], [[Concerned Women of America]] issued an article entitled ''Health and Homosexuality'' which stated the following:
{{cquote|In a study published by the ''[[Canadian Medical Association Journal]]'' in 1991, "...gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge ... and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/959/CWA/family/index.htm</ref>}}

===Lymphogranuloma Venereum Outbreaks Among Homosexuals and HIV Infection===
[[Image:Chlamydia.jpg|thumbnail|right|170px|There are three different sub-types of the [[bacteria]] Chlamydia trachomatis that cause [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]].]][[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|Lymphogranuloma venereum]] (LGV) is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] that can cause [[proctitis]] and proctitis significantly increases the probability of [[HIV]] infection which was mentioned previously. <ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> Lymphogranuloma venereum and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as stated earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In March of 2007, the ''Journal of Clinical Microbiology'' reported that there was an ongoing epidemic of lymphogranuloma venereum in men who have sex with men (MSM) in Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17251405&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lymphogranuloma venereum in Australia: anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis serovar L2b in men who have sex with men. J Clin Microbiol 2007 Mar;45(3):1029-31]</ref> In August of 2007, the [[Norway|Norweigan]] medical journal ''Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening'' stated that LGV has been a rare condition in the [[Western World|western world]] but since 2004 there have been frequent reports from larger cities in Europe and the United States and the outbreaks have been limited homosexual men.<ref>''Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening'' 2007 Aug 23;127(16):2094-5</ref> The abstract for the January of 2007 journal [[Clinical Infectious Diseases]] states that "We found a significant burden of this once-rare sexually transmitted infection among MSM in the United Kingdom. LGV may be contributing to the epidemic of [[HIV|human immunodeficiency virus]] infection by facilitating transmission." <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17143811&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Clinical infectious diseases 2007 Jan 1;44(1):26-32]</ref> The reports of levels of proctitis in the homosexual men infected with lymphogranuloma venereum varied in the different outbreaks of lymphogranuloma venereum.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17143811&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Clinical infectious diseases 2007 Jan 1;44(1):26-32]</ref><ref>[http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v11n09/1109-223.asp Eurosurveillance 2006;11(9):152-4]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17251405&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lymphogranuloma venereum in Australia: anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis serovar L2b in men who have sex with men. Eur J Clin Microbiol 2007 Mar;45(3):1029-31]</ref>

===Amebiasis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection===

As mentioned earlier, [[amebiasis]] and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In addition, it was also indicated previously that amebiasis can cause proctitis which increases the risk factor in regards to HIV infection.<ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In 2006, the ''[[The Medical Journal of Australia]]'' reported the following:
{{cquote|High rates of intestinal [[parasite|parasitism]] are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.

[[Amebiasis|Amoebiasis]] has become endemic in MSM in Japan and causes significant morbidity and mortality; complications such as colitis and liver abscesses occur more frequently in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Similar findings on amoebiasis are reported from Taiwan, with MSM at increased risk for invasive amoebiasis and intestinal colonisation with [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. histolytica]].<ref>[http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/sta10803_fm.html Stark DJ, Fotedar R, Ellis JT, Harkness JL. ''Locally acquired infection with Entamoeba histolytica in men who have sex with men in Australia.'' MJA 2006; 185 (8): 417]</ref>}}

In 2001, The journal ''Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan)'' published an article entitled ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome'' in which they stated the following the following:
{{cquote|While the overall prevalence of [[amebiasis]] is approximately 4% in the [[United States]], certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and [[disease]]. Prevalence of [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. historylitica]] or [[Entamoeba Dispar|E. dispar]] in the gay population of [[New York City]] and [[San Francisco]] approached 40-50% . Some Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was an important risk factor for amebic infection.<ref>[http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=internalmedicine1992&cdvol=40&noissue=7&startpage=563&lang=en&from=jnlabstract Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref>}}
[[Image:Ehistolytica05.jpg|thumb|left|150px|[[Amebiasis]] is a disease caused by the one-celled [[parasite]] [[Entamoeba Histolytica|Entamoeba histolytica]].]]

The 2004 article an entitled ''Present characteristics of symptomatic Entamoeba histolytica infection in the big cities of Japan'' which was published by the medical journal ''Epidemiology and Infection''. The abstract for the article states the following:
{{cquote|Medical records, for 2000 and 2001, of symptomatic amoebic patients who were treated at our hospitals in Tokyo, Yokohama and [[Osaka]] were studied retrospectively for the purpose of gathering epidemiological data on symptomatic Entamoeba histolytica infection. A total of 58 patients were treated. Fifty-five of them were male, and 96% of the male patients were Japanese. The mean age of patients was 44.9 years old, and 91% of patients contracted the disease in Japan. Fifty-six per cent of the male patients indicated that they were practicing homosexuals, and 44% of the male patients denied these practices or left the question unanswered. The serum Treponema pallidum haemagglutination test was positive in 45% of the patients, and antibody to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was positive in 45%. Our study revealed that recent symptomatic E. histolytica infection almost exclusively afflicted middle-aged males in the big cities of Japan, that a majority of the patients were probably exposed to the causative organism during homosexual activity, and that an increasing number of patients will be co-infected with HIV. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14979590&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Epidemiol Infect. 2004 Jan;132(1):57-60]</ref>}}

In 1985, the peer reviewed medical journal ''Gut'', which is an international medical journal for gastroenterology and hepatology, had an article entitled ''The Gay Bowel'' authored by I V Weller which stated the following: "[[Guardia Lamblia|Guardia lamblia]] and [[Entamoeba Histolytica|Entamoeba histolytica]] have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending [[STD]] clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."<ref>I V Weller, ''The gay bowel'', Gut. 1985 September; 26(9): 869–875</ref>

==Shigellosis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection==
[[Image:Gech 0001 0004 0 img0247.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Shigella]] [[bacteria]] cause [[shigellosis]]]]In February of 2007 the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' reported the following in a article entitled ''Another Perfect Storm: Shigella, Men Who Have Sex with Men, and HIV'':
{{cquote|In the mid-1970s, outbreaks of Shigella infection among adults in [[New York]] and [[San Francisco]] raised the possibility that Shigella species may be sexually transmitted, with most infections occurring in men who have sex with men (MSM). Since these early observations, Shigella infection appears to be more frequent among MSM than among other adult populations...<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v44n3/41468/41468.html ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' 2007;44:335-337]</ref>}}

As mentioned earlier, [[shigellosis]] and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In addition, it was also indicated previously that shigella can cause proctitis which may increase the chance of HIV infection.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

In February of 2007 ''Journal of Infectious Diseases'' published an article titled ''Case-control study of shigellosis in San Francisco: the role of sexual transmission and HIV infection''. The abstract for the article stated: 'Among MSM [men who have sex with men], shigellosis is predominantly a sexually transmitted disease, with direct oral-anal contact conferring the highest risk and HIV infection likely contributing to increased host susceptibility."<ref>[http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Reingold,A J Infect Dis. 2007 Nov 1;196 (9):1346-1354
]</ref>

Shigellosis is particularly hazardous for individuals with [[AIDS]] or other immunodeficiency states. <ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6323</ref>

==Viral Hepatitis==
[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|left|Hepatitis C Virus]]
As mentioned previous viral [[hepatitis]] is one of the maladies of gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> According to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM). According to the CDC, "About 10% of all new HAV [Hepatitis A Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM. Although the overall incidence of hepatitis A has declined in the United States over the past decade, frequent outbreaks continue to be reported among MSM." The CDC also reports that "About 15%-20% of all new HBV [Hepatitis B Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitus C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute hepatitis C among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. British researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, United Kingdom, since 2000.[7] The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

==Bible, Homosexuality, and Sound Health Practices==
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]].

==Homosexual Activists Angered by the Medical Term Gay Bowel Syndrome==
‎The term gay bowel syndrome angers homosexual activists as it associates homosexual acts with disease. The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (who authored the acknowledged [[Public Relations|public relations]] [[Bible]] of the homosexual-rights movement ''After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s'') were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49958</ref> Clearly the disease gay bowel syndrome is not in accordance with the marketing plan associated with the [[homosexual agenda]] which attempts to make homosexuals look good as one of its tactics.<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>
[[Image:Kupelianbookcover220.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen were able to change some American's perceptions regarding [[homosexuality]].]]
In 2001, a homosexual activist got the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) to deleted any reference to gay bowel syndrome from its medical textbook.<ref>[http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/news?record=512 Gay Bowel Syndrome’ Struck from Textbook]</ref> In 2005 a homosexual activist made efforts to remove the entry for gay bowel syndrome from the online version of [[Encarta|MSN Encarta]] which in an online encyclopedia.<ref>[http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2005/WB050411.html Activist fights 'outdated' medical phrase: Effort to debunk 'gay bowel syndrome' may face new challenge - Washington Blade - April 8, 2005]</ref> Currently, MSN Encarta has no article for gay bowel syndrome.
===Michael Scarce===
Michael Scarce who served as a coordinator of Lesbian, Gay, [[Bisexual]], and Transgender Resources at the University of California at San Francisco.<ref>http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/07/14_lgbt.html</ref>
Mr. Scarce wrote a book entitled ''Smearing the Queer: Medical Bias in the Health Care of Gay Men'' in which he takes exception to the diagnosis gay bowel syndrome, and cited in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).<ref>JAMA. 2000;284:page 1986</ref> Dr. Debra L. Klamen did a review of his book in the same JAMA issue. Dr. Klamen agrees with Michael Scarce regarding his position that gay bowel syndrome involves "[[homophobic]]" thinking and she states regarding Scarce's work that the author "provides eye-opening revelations about heterosexual attitudes: gay men are somehow depraved, pleasure seeking, and they might spread their diseases (such as HIV infection) to a "general population virtually going about its business."" However, in the very next paragraph Dr. Klamen writes regarding Scarces' book the following: "Its use of vulgar language, ribald poetry, and the author's personal sexual details might cause healthcare professionals making an initial foray into gay men's health issues to cringe."<ref>JAMA. 2000;284:page 1986</ref> Dr. Klamen did not discuss any of the studies regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity male homosexual promiscuity] in her review of Scarce's book. As mentioned previously, Dr. Michael Heller's medical journal article in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' entitled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency'' states the following: "Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women."<ref>Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 488</ref>

Michael Scarce also published an article in 1997 in the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' in regards to gay bowel syndrome. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref> The abstract for Scarce's article states the following: "The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination." <ref>http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/07/14_lgbt.html</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref>

===Summary===
Even though a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases is encountered with unusual frequency in homosexual patients occurs in homosexual patients as a result of homosexual activity, homosexual activists do take exception to the medical term gay bowel syndrome and one the complaints they have is the various maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus N. Sohn, JG Robilotti Jr. ''The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals''. AM J Gastroenterol 1977 May;67(5):478-84]</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref><ref>[http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/news?record=512 Gay Bowel Syndrome’ Struck from Textbook]</ref><ref>[http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2005/WB050411.html Activist fights 'outdated' medical phrase: Effort to debunk 'gay bowel syndrome' may face new challenge - Washington Blade - April 8, 2005]</ref>

==The Medical Term Gay Bowel Syndrome Is Still Used Today==
Although the term gay bowel syndrome is not used as frequently as the 1980's, as mentioned previously Medscape has an article on gay bowel syndrome which was published in 2004 that was entitled ''''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome".''(The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at
Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In addition, a leading provider of online medical health information has an entry on gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/medical/gay_bowel_syndrome.htm Gay Bowel Syndrome from Online Medical Dictionary]</ref>

== Obsolescence ==
The term "gay bowel syndrome" is considered obsolete and derogatory. The ''McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery'' says:
:'Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used.<ref name="mgh-handbook">{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=Andreas|title=McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery|year=2008|pages=205|isbn=0071590706|url=http://books.google.com/?id=bnjWQZAxOZ0C&pg=PA205&dq}}</ref>'

A 1997 article in the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' concluded:
:'It is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Scarce M |title=Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome |journal=J Homosex. |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=1–35 |year=1997|pmid=9328857 |doi= |url=}}</ref>'

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality and Health]]
*[[Lesbianism and Obesity]]
*[[Gay bathhouses]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

==External Links==
*[http://americansfortruth.com/news/conservapedia-examines-gay-bowel-syndrome-homosexual-activists-lobby-against-term.html ‘Conservapedia’ Examines ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’: Homosexual Activists Lobby against Term] by [[Peter LaBarbera]]
*[http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/std0703brody.pdf Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa] - Cites Material Concerning Gay Bowel Syndrome
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2831107&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Prevalence of enteric pathogens in homosexual men with and without acquired immunodeficiency syndrome]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1851716&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Gastrointestinal manifestations of AIDS. 1: Basic considerations and viral infections]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]

Gay bowel syndrome

2010-12-28T02:30:16Z

Keepscases: /* Obsolescence */ copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_bowel_syndrome&oldid=401662853

[[Image:Biol 01 img0018.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]] attacking T4 [[lymphocyte]]s]]
'''Gay bowel syndrome''', which has also been described as [[Homosexuality|gay]] [[intestine|bowel]] [[disease]], was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the [[journal]] ''Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science'' and in 2004 [[Medscape]] stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards [[HIV]] infection (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features a literature review article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1 Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1] - American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber</ref><ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide, review of the literature - essentially duplicate of Medscape's New Look at
Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in [[homosexuality|homosexual]] patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus N. Sohn, JG Robilotti Jr. ''The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals''. AM J Gastroenterol 1977 May;67(5):478-84]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1 Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1] - American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber</ref>

The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
{{cquote|The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10% of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include [[Condyloma Acuminata|condyloma acuminata]], [[hemorrhoid]]s, nonspecific [[proctitis]], anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, [[amebiasis]], benign [[polyp]]s, viral [[hepatitis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, [[shigellosis]], rectal [[ulcer]]s and [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref>}}

__TOC__
N. Sohn and JG Robilotti Jr., who were among the authors of the previously cited article in the ''Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science'' wrote in the [[American Journal of Gastroenterology]] regarding gay bowel syndrome that "It is important to recognize homosexual patients and the conditions to which they are predisposed. In 1980 Dr. Michael Heller, who was a [[San Francisco]] physician, wrote in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' in a article titled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency Department''
that "In recent years, it has been recognized that homosexual men are subject to a remarkable variety of colorectal disorders."<ref>Dr. Michael Heller, ''The gay bowel syndrome: a common problem of homosexual patients in the emergency department''. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 487</ref>

Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel syndrome in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to [[Inflammatory Bowel Disease|inflammatory bowel disease]]."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>

Dr. Michael Heller's medical journal article in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' entitled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency'' states regarding gay bowel syndrome the following: "Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women."<ref>Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 488</ref>
==HIV Infection and a New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome==
[[Image:AIDS_virus.jpg‎|thumbnail|right|200px|Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]]] A September 2010 report of the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) declared : "Gay, [[bisexual]], and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by [[HIV]] and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States..."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm</ref> In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: "An official with the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the [[United States]] [[AIDS]] is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population."<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609</ref>

On March 15, 2004 [[Medscape]] published an article entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"'' by John G. Bartlett, M.D. which commented on the 2004 journal article ''Etiology of clinical proctitis among men who have sex with men'' published by JD Klausner and C. Kent in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''. The Medscape article declared:
{{cquote|There were multiple studies of the newly recognized "gay bowel syndrome" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse, in part attributed to reduced frequency thought to reflect changing practices by gay men in response to the [[HIV]] epidemic. This study clearly indicates that it is still an issue, since the cases were studied in 2001-2002. Also, the etiology is about the same as previously, although [[HSV]] is newly recognized as an important component. This finding not only affects management but also has HIV prevention implications. The authors note that two thirds of the participants were HIV negative and that proctitis increases the risk of HIV by up to 9-fold.<ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>}}
===Proctitis and HIV Infection Further Elaborated===
As noted earlier proctitis is one of the maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome and greatly increases the chance of HIV infection.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' the following: "[[Proctitis]], or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring [[HIV]] infection. With the recent increases in bacterial sexually transmitted diseases ([[STD]]s) among MSM in the [[United States]] and [[Europe]], there has been a concomitant increase in the number of cases of clinical proctitis."<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest Klausner JD, Kohn R, Kent C. Etiology of Clinical Proctitis among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:300-302]</ref>

Although homosexual men practice various sexual practices which may put them at risk, studies report that anal sex can be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases.<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm</ref> Also, according to the [[Mayo Clinic]], "proctitis is an inflammation of the lining of the rectum... Sexually transmitted diseases are the most common cause, but other causes include inflammatory bowel diseases, such as ulcerative colitis, and non-sexually transmitted infections."<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705</ref> [[Sexually transmitted disease]]s that cause proctitis include [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], cytomegalovirus, [[Herpes Simplex Virus|herpes]], [[chlamydia]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], [[shigella]] and [[amebiasis]].<ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec09/ch130/ch130f.html</ref> According to the Mayo Clinic article, proctitis is a condition mainly affecting adult males[[Image:Ro0304F8Treponema.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|A [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] analysis suggested that approximately 64 percent of all adult primary and secondary [[syphilis]] cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men.]]

===Syphilis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection===
Syphilis and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as noted earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> Syphilis can be a cause of proctitis and the disease significantly increases the probability of HIV infection which was mentioned previously.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

The news organization [[Cybercast News Service]] reported the following about [[Homosexuality and Syphilis|homosexuality and syphilis]]:
{{cquote|The federal [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.

In a report on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) issued Tuesday, the government said syphilis, a disease that was almost eliminated as a public health threat less than 10 years ago, is on the rise -- with cases increasing each year since 2000.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41975</ref>}}

The CDC also stated the following:
{{cquote|"While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S [[syphilis]] cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999....Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the [[United States]],” said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s [[HIV]], [[STD]] and [[Tuberculosis|TB]] prevention programs."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r051108.htm</ref>}}

===Gonorrhea and Proctitis===
Gonorrhea and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as noted earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> Gonorrhea can be a cause of proctitis and the disease significantly increases the probability of HIV infection as was mentioned previously.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

In 2006, the American Association of Family Physicians reported: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) have high rates of gonococcal infection. In [[San Francisco]], more than one half of these infections occur in MSM, and previous cross-sectional studies have reported a prevalence of up to 15.3 percent in this group."<ref>http://www.aafp.org/afp/20070615/tips/4.html</ref>

In respect to [[Homosexuality and Gonorrhea|homosexuality and gonorrhea]], [[Concerned Women of America]] issued an article entitled ''Health and Homosexuality'' which stated the following:
{{cquote|In a study published by the ''[[Canadian Medical Association Journal]]'' in 1991, "...gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge ... and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/959/CWA/family/index.htm</ref>}}

===Lymphogranuloma Venereum Outbreaks Among Homosexuals and HIV Infection===
[[Image:Chlamydia.jpg|thumbnail|right|170px|There are three different sub-types of the [[bacteria]] Chlamydia trachomatis that cause [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]].]][[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|Lymphogranuloma venereum]] (LGV) is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] that can cause [[proctitis]] and proctitis significantly increases the probability of [[HIV]] infection which was mentioned previously. <ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> Lymphogranuloma venereum and proctitis are both maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome as stated earlier.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In March of 2007, the ''Journal of Clinical Microbiology'' reported that there was an ongoing epidemic of lymphogranuloma venereum in men who have sex with men (MSM) in Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17251405&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lymphogranuloma venereum in Australia: anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis serovar L2b in men who have sex with men. J Clin Microbiol 2007 Mar;45(3):1029-31]</ref> In August of 2007, the [[Norway|Norweigan]] medical journal ''Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening'' stated that LGV has been a rare condition in the [[Western World|western world]] but since 2004 there have been frequent reports from larger cities in Europe and the United States and the outbreaks have been limited homosexual men.<ref>''Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening'' 2007 Aug 23;127(16):2094-5</ref> The abstract for the January of 2007 journal [[Clinical Infectious Diseases]] states that "We found a significant burden of this once-rare sexually transmitted infection among MSM in the United Kingdom. LGV may be contributing to the epidemic of [[HIV|human immunodeficiency virus]] infection by facilitating transmission." <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17143811&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Clinical infectious diseases 2007 Jan 1;44(1):26-32]</ref> The reports of levels of proctitis in the homosexual men infected with lymphogranuloma venereum varied in the different outbreaks of lymphogranuloma venereum.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17143811&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Clinical infectious diseases 2007 Jan 1;44(1):26-32]</ref><ref>[http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v11n09/1109-223.asp Eurosurveillance 2006;11(9):152-4]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17251405&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lymphogranuloma venereum in Australia: anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis serovar L2b in men who have sex with men. Eur J Clin Microbiol 2007 Mar;45(3):1029-31]</ref>

===Amebiasis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection===

As mentioned earlier, [[amebiasis]] and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In addition, it was also indicated previously that amebiasis can cause proctitis which increases the risk factor in regards to HIV infection.<ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In 2006, the ''[[The Medical Journal of Australia]]'' reported the following:
{{cquote|High rates of intestinal [[parasite|parasitism]] are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.

[[Amebiasis|Amoebiasis]] has become endemic in MSM in Japan and causes significant morbidity and mortality; complications such as colitis and liver abscesses occur more frequently in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Similar findings on amoebiasis are reported from Taiwan, with MSM at increased risk for invasive amoebiasis and intestinal colonisation with [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. histolytica]].<ref>[http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/sta10803_fm.html Stark DJ, Fotedar R, Ellis JT, Harkness JL. ''Locally acquired infection with Entamoeba histolytica in men who have sex with men in Australia.'' MJA 2006; 185 (8): 417]</ref>}}

In 2001, The journal ''Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan)'' published an article entitled ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome'' in which they stated the following the following:
{{cquote|While the overall prevalence of [[amebiasis]] is approximately 4% in the [[United States]], certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and [[disease]]. Prevalence of [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. historylitica]] or [[Entamoeba Dispar|E. dispar]] in the gay population of [[New York City]] and [[San Francisco]] approached 40-50% . Some Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was an important risk factor for amebic infection.<ref>[http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=internalmedicine1992&cdvol=40&noissue=7&startpage=563&lang=en&from=jnlabstract Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref>}}
[[Image:Ehistolytica05.jpg|thumb|left|150px|[[Amebiasis]] is a disease caused by the one-celled [[parasite]] [[Entamoeba Histolytica|Entamoeba histolytica]].]]

The 2004 article an entitled ''Present characteristics of symptomatic Entamoeba histolytica infection in the big cities of Japan'' which was published by the medical journal ''Epidemiology and Infection''. The abstract for the article states the following:
{{cquote|Medical records, for 2000 and 2001, of symptomatic amoebic patients who were treated at our hospitals in Tokyo, Yokohama and [[Osaka]] were studied retrospectively for the purpose of gathering epidemiological data on symptomatic Entamoeba histolytica infection. A total of 58 patients were treated. Fifty-five of them were male, and 96% of the male patients were Japanese. The mean age of patients was 44.9 years old, and 91% of patients contracted the disease in Japan. Fifty-six per cent of the male patients indicated that they were practicing homosexuals, and 44% of the male patients denied these practices or left the question unanswered. The serum Treponema pallidum haemagglutination test was positive in 45% of the patients, and antibody to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was positive in 45%. Our study revealed that recent symptomatic E. histolytica infection almost exclusively afflicted middle-aged males in the big cities of Japan, that a majority of the patients were probably exposed to the causative organism during homosexual activity, and that an increasing number of patients will be co-infected with HIV. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14979590&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Epidemiol Infect. 2004 Jan;132(1):57-60]</ref>}}

In 1985, the peer reviewed medical journal ''Gut'', which is an international medical journal for gastroenterology and hepatology, had an article entitled ''The Gay Bowel'' authored by I V Weller which stated the following: "[[Guardia Lamblia|Guardia lamblia]] and [[Entamoeba Histolytica|Entamoeba histolytica]] have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending [[STD]] clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."<ref>I V Weller, ''The gay bowel'', Gut. 1985 September; 26(9): 869–875</ref>

==Shigellosis, Proctitis, and HIV Infection==
[[Image:Gech 0001 0004 0 img0247.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Shigella]] [[bacteria]] cause [[shigellosis]]]]In February of 2007 the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' reported the following in a article entitled ''Another Perfect Storm: Shigella, Men Who Have Sex with Men, and HIV'':
{{cquote|In the mid-1970s, outbreaks of Shigella infection among adults in [[New York]] and [[San Francisco]] raised the possibility that Shigella species may be sexually transmitted, with most infections occurring in men who have sex with men (MSM). Since these early observations, Shigella infection appears to be more frequent among MSM than among other adult populations...<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v44n3/41468/41468.html ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' 2007;44:335-337]</ref>}}

As mentioned earlier, [[shigellosis]] and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> In addition, it was also indicated previously that shigella can cause proctitis which may increase the chance of HIV infection.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref>

In February of 2007 ''Journal of Infectious Diseases'' published an article titled ''Case-control study of shigellosis in San Francisco: the role of sexual transmission and HIV infection''. The abstract for the article stated: 'Among MSM [men who have sex with men], shigellosis is predominantly a sexually transmitted disease, with direct oral-anal contact conferring the highest risk and HIV infection likely contributing to increased host susceptibility."<ref>[http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Reingold,A J Infect Dis. 2007 Nov 1;196 (9):1346-1354
]</ref>

Shigellosis is particularly hazardous for individuals with [[AIDS]] or other immunodeficiency states. <ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6323</ref>

==Viral Hepatitis==
[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|left|Hepatitis C Virus]]
As mentioned previous viral [[hepatitis]] is one of the maladies of gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref> According to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM). According to the CDC, "About 10% of all new HAV [Hepatitis A Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM. Although the overall incidence of hepatitis A has declined in the United States over the past decade, frequent outbreaks continue to be reported among MSM." The CDC also reports that "About 15%-20% of all new HBV [Hepatitis B Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitus C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute hepatitis C among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. British researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, United Kingdom, since 2000.[7] The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

==Bible, Homosexuality, and Sound Health Practices==
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]].

==Homosexual Activists Angered by the Medical Term Gay Bowel Syndrome==
‎The term gay bowel syndrome angers homosexual activists as it associates homosexual acts with disease. The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (who authored the acknowledged [[Public Relations|public relations]] [[Bible]] of the homosexual-rights movement ''After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s'') were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49958</ref> Clearly the disease gay bowel syndrome is not in accordance with the marketing plan associated with the [[homosexual agenda]] which attempts to make homosexuals look good as one of its tactics.<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>
[[Image:Kupelianbookcover220.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen were able to change some American's perceptions regarding [[homosexuality]].]]
In 2001, a homosexual activist got the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) to deleted any reference to gay bowel syndrome from its medical textbook.<ref>[http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/news?record=512 Gay Bowel Syndrome’ Struck from Textbook]</ref> In 2005 a homosexual activist made efforts to remove the entry for gay bowel syndrome from the online version of [[Encarta|MSN Encarta]] which in an online encyclopedia.<ref>[http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2005/WB050411.html Activist fights 'outdated' medical phrase: Effort to debunk 'gay bowel syndrome' may face new challenge - Washington Blade - April 8, 2005]</ref> Currently, MSN Encarta has no article for gay bowel syndrome.
===Michael Scarce===
Michael Scarce who served as a coordinator of Lesbian, Gay, [[Bisexual]], and Transgender Resources at the University of California at San Francisco.<ref>http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/07/14_lgbt.html</ref>
Mr. Scarce wrote a book entitled ''Smearing the Queer: Medical Bias in the Health Care of Gay Men'' in which he takes exception to the diagnosis gay bowel syndrome, and cited in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).<ref>JAMA. 2000;284:page 1986</ref> Dr. Debra L. Klamen did a review of his book in the same JAMA issue. Dr. Klamen agrees with Michael Scarce regarding his position that gay bowel syndrome involves "[[homophobic]]" thinking and she states regarding Scarce's work that the author "provides eye-opening revelations about heterosexual attitudes: gay men are somehow depraved, pleasure seeking, and they might spread their diseases (such as HIV infection) to a "general population virtually going about its business."" However, in the very next paragraph Dr. Klamen writes regarding Scarces' book the following: "Its use of vulgar language, ribald poetry, and the author's personal sexual details might cause healthcare professionals making an initial foray into gay men's health issues to cringe."<ref>JAMA. 2000;284:page 1986</ref> Dr. Klamen did not discuss any of the studies regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity male homosexual promiscuity] in her review of Scarce's book. As mentioned previously, Dr. Michael Heller's medical journal article in the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' entitled ''The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency'' states the following: "Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women."<ref>Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980 Sep;9(9), page 488</ref>

Michael Scarce also published an article in 1997 in the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' in regards to gay bowel syndrome. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref> The abstract for Scarce's article states the following: "The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination." <ref>http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/07/14_lgbt.html</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref>

===Summary===
Even though a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases is encountered with unusual frequency in homosexual patients occurs in homosexual patients as a result of homosexual activity, homosexual activists do take exception to the medical term gay bowel syndrome and one the complaints they have is the various maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus N. Sohn, JG Robilotti Jr. ''The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals''. AM J Gastroenterol 1977 May;67(5):478-84]</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus Michael Scarce, ''Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome'', ''Journal of Homosexuality''. 1997;34(2):1-35]</ref><ref>[http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/news?record=512 Gay Bowel Syndrome’ Struck from Textbook]</ref><ref>[http://www.aegis.org/news/wb/2005/WB050411.html Activist fights 'outdated' medical phrase: Effort to debunk 'gay bowel syndrome' may face new challenge - Washington Blade - April 8, 2005]</ref>

==The Medical Term Gay Bowel Syndrome Is Still Used Today==
Although the term gay bowel syndrome is not used as frequently as the 1980's, as mentioned previously Medscape has an article on gay bowel syndrome which was published in 2004 that was entitled ''''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome".''(The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at
Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> In addition, a leading provider of online medical health information has an entry on gay bowel syndrome.<ref>[http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/medical/gay_bowel_syndrome.htm Gay Bowel Syndrome from Online Medical Dictionary]</ref>

== Obsolescence ==
The term "gay bowel syndrome" is considered obsolete and derogatory. The ''McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery'' says:
{{quote|Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used.<ref name="mgh-handbook">{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=Andreas|title=McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery|year=2008|pages=205|isbn=0071590706|url=http://books.google.com/?id=bnjWQZAxOZ0C&pg=PA205&dq}}</ref>}}

A 1997 article in the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' concluded:
{{quote|It is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Scarce M |title=Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome |journal=J Homosex. |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=1–35 |year=1997|pmid=9328857 |doi= |url=}}</ref>}}

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality and Health]]
*[[Lesbianism and Obesity]]
*[[Gay bathhouses]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

==External Links==
*[http://americansfortruth.com/news/conservapedia-examines-gay-bowel-syndrome-homosexual-activists-lobby-against-term.html ‘Conservapedia’ Examines ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’: Homosexual Activists Lobby against Term] by [[Peter LaBarbera]]
*[http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/std0703brody.pdf Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa] - Cites Material Concerning Gay Bowel Syndrome
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2831107&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Prevalence of enteric pathogens in homosexual men with and without acquired immunodeficiency syndrome]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1851716&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Gastrointestinal manifestations of AIDS. 1: Basic considerations and viral infections]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]

William B. Saxbe

2010-11-10T06:15:11Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

'''William Bart Saxbe''' (born June 24, 1916) was a [[Republican Party]] politician who served as the [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Ohio]] and [[Attorney General]] of the United States under [[President]]'s [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Gerald Ford]].

After serving in [[World War II]], he pursued a law degree from The Ohio State University. While practicing law he was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives. He served as House [[majority leader]] in 1951 and 1952, and as [[speaker of the House]] in 1953 and 1954. In 1956 Saxbe was elected Attorney General of Ohio. In 1968 he was elected to the United States Senate. Saxbe angered Washington insiders after saying "The first six months I kept wondering how I got [here]. After that, I started wondering how all of them did." He was frustrated by the pace of legislation in [[Congress]]. In response he worked to develop a two-track system of moving legislation through the Senate. It allowed less controversial bills to move through the legislative process quicker, while more volatile measures were allowed for more debate a discussion. In 1973, Saxbe was appointed Attorney General of the United States by President Nixon. In December 1974 he resigned to serve as U.S. ambassador to [[India]].

[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]

Richard Kleindienst

2010-11-10T06:14:37Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

'''Richard Gordon Kleindienst''' (August 05, 1923 – February 03, 2000) served as [[United States]] [[Attorney General]] under [[President]] [[Richard Nixon]] from 1973-1974. Kleindienst began his political career when he was elected to the [[Arizona]] House of Representatives in 1952. In 1964 he became director of field operations for [[Barry Goldwater]]'s unsuccessful presidential campaign. Kleindienst was appointed Deputy Attorney General in 1969 and Attorney General in 1972. Five days later persons working for Nixon's reelection campaign broke into Democrat National Committee headquarters at the [[Watergate]] complex in Washington, D.C. They planted electronic eavesdropping devices to gain knowledge on the Democrats' strategy. Kleindienst worked to handle public relations problems after the break in.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor perjury charge for failing to testify fully at his Senate confirmation hearings concerning a lawsuit during Richard Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign.

[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]

Robert F. Kennedy, Sr.

2010-11-10T06:14:18Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

[[Image:RFK 2.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Robert F. (Fitzgerald) Kennedy''' (1925-1968) was the younger brother of President [[John F. Kennedy]]. Robert, also known as "Bobby" Kennedy, served as [[Attorney General]] during his brother's presidency. Robert was considered one of John's closest advisers. He was a strong supporter of [[Civil Rights]] issues and was primarily known for his fighting of [[Organized crime]].

Robert Kennedy started his legal career in the Criminal Division of the [[Department of Justice]] in 1951. He became nationally known for his anti-Mob activities while working as chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, a post which he left in 1960 to work on his brother's presidential campaign. After the election, John Kennedy appointed him to be Attorney General. At 36, he was the youngest man to serve in this position. He stayed on after his brother's assassination, resigning in September 1964.

He ran a successful campaign for [[United States Senate|Senate]], and took office as Senator from [[New York]] in early 1965.

==Assassination==
Robert Kennedy was assassinated by [[Sirhan Sirhan]] while running for the [[Democratic Party]] nomination for [[President of the United States]]. It is believed that Sirhan Sirhan carried out the assassination because of Kennedy's strong support for [[Israel]].

==Sources==
*[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=573 Robert Francis Kennedy at FindAGrave]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, Robert F.}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category: Kennedy Family]]

John N. Mitchell

2010-11-10T06:13:27Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

'''John Newton Mitchell''' (September 15, 1913–November 9, 1988) served as [[United States]] [[Attorney General]] for [[President]] [[Richard Nixon]] from 1969-1972. Previously he served as an attorney in [[New York City]] and in 1968 he managed Nixon's successful presidential campaign. As Attorney General Mitchell was criticized for increasing telephone wiretaps on private citizens without court authorization, prosecuting [[Vietnam War]] protesters and attempting to block publication of [[Pentagon]] Papers.

He is the only Attorney General to be sentenced to time in prison on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and [[perjury]].

[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]

Eric Holder

2010-11-10T06:12:33Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

{{Officeholder
|name=Eric Holder
|image=Eric Holder.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Sharon Malone
|religion=Episcopalian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/attorneygeneral
|jurisdiction=the United States
|number=82nd
|deputy=n
|president=[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|terms=February 3, 2009
|preceded=[[Michael Mukasey]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/attorneygeneral
|jurisdiction=the United States
|number=
|deputy=y
|president=[[Bill Clinton]]
|terms=June 13, 1997 – January 20, 2001
|preceded=Jamie Gorelick
|former=y
|succeeded=Larry Thompson
}}
}}
'''Eric Himpton Holder, Jr''' (January 25, 1951) is the current U.S. Attorney General in the [[Obama Administration]]. He formerly was Deputy Attorney General, serving from 1997 to 2001, in the Clinton administration. Before receiving this appointment, he was the United States Attorney for the [[District of Columbia]], appointed in 1993 upon his resignation from the DC Superior Court. During the transition to the [[Bush Administration]], he was temporarily Acting Attorney General. He succeeded [[Michael Mukasey]].

As Deputy Attorney General Holder recommended pardoning [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorists]] [[Linda Evans]] and Susan Rosenberg who were serving life sentences for the murder of two police officers and a Brinks armoured guard in 1981.<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmM1OGM4OGRiNTI5NTIzOTFkMDAwMTJiNGFlYWFiZGI= ''Confirming Fears''], Editorial, National Review Online, November 19, 2008.</ref> Puerto Rican [[FALN]] terrorists likewise received pardons due to Holders efforts, as well as fugitive tax evader and Clinton donor, Mark Rich.<ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004457941_apholderobama.html?syndication=rss</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/14/se.04.html</ref>

Holder does not believe in the [[Second Amendment]] and supported the unconstitutional ban on handguns in Washington D.C.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/holder_obama_guns/2009/01/15/171877.html</ref> On 2/25/09, Holder told reporters that he wants an "assault weapons ban."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1</ref> Second amendment scholar Stephen Halbrook testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that while Holder was Clinton's deputy attorney general, the Justice Department broke federal law by storing records of firearms purchases.<ref>http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=118</ref>

In February 2009, Holder called America, "A Nation of Cowards."<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/holder_america_is_a_nation_of.asp Holder: America Is "A Nation of Cowards"]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*[http://obamacrimes.com/philjberg/BergasRelator/Berg%20as%20Relator,%20Appendix%20Pt%203.pdf Biography of Eric Holder].Retrieved from obamacrimes.com February 23, 2010.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Holder, Eric}}
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:Obama Cabinet]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Alberto R. Gonzales

2010-11-10T06:12:09Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

{{Officeholder
|name=Alberto Gonzales
|image=480px-Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=
|religion=Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/attorneygeneral
|jurisdiction=the United States
|number=80th
|deputy=n
|president=[[George W. Bush]]
|terms=February 3, 2005 - September 17, 2007
|preceded=[[John Ashcroft]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Michael Mukasey]]
}}
}}
'''Alberto R. Gonzales''' (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th [[Attorney General]] of the United States, preceded by [[John Ashcroft]] and succeeded by [[Eric Holder]]. He is a graduate of [[Rice University]], and a former member of [[Lovett College]]. Gonzales was one of the best students in his graduating class, considered one of the school's brightest and most intellectually capable students.

==Early Life==
Alberto Gonzales was born in San Antonio, [[Texas]], and raised in Humble, near Houston. He was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a construction worker. An honors student at MacArthur High School, Gonzales enlisted in the [[United States Air Force]] in 1973, for a four year term of enlistment, serving two years at Fort Yukon, Alaska and two years as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to [[Rice University]] (Houston, Texas), where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979. He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from [[Harvard]] Law School in 1982. He and his wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.

==Legal Career==
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush. During this time Gonzales was very involved in charities and community service. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was chosen as one of Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association. On November 10, 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to replace United States Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] for President Bush's second term. The nomination was approved with a 60-36 vote. He was sworn in on February 14, 2005.

==Achievements==
* Led Project Safe Neighborhoods to help eliminate violence in inner cities.<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/May/06_ag_262.html</ref>
* Was instrumental in passing the [[Military Commissions Act]]

==Controversy==
Alberto Gonzales was involved in a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made, though some Justice Department officials initially made this claim in Congressional testimony).<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html</ref> Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the [[President of the United States]] and the firings were therefore legal, the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] media insists on calling it a scandal. In fact, Alberto Gonzales "tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale." <ref>http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day24/archive/2007/03/23/alberto-gonzales-raw-deal.aspx</ref>

Another controversy occurred while Gonzales was the [[White House Counsel]] to President [[George W. Bush]]. In March of 2004, President Bush's [[domestic surveillance program]] was nearing its expiration date and needed to be reauthorized. At the time, however, then-Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] had been hospitalized in the [[intensive care unit]] with a serious case of [[pancreatitis]]<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113374,00.html</ref>; his powers had been transferred to [[James Comey]], his deputy. Moreover, several individuals within the [[Justice Department]], including Comey and [[Jack Goldsmith]] (then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel), believed that the program had serious legal problems. After Comey and Goldsmith refused to reauthorize the program, [[White House]] [[Chief of Staff]] [[Andy Card]] tried to arrange a phone call between President Bush and Ashcroft to discuss the situation. Mrs. Ashcroft advised him (through a member of Ashcroft's security detail) that her husband would not accept the call. President Bush then ordered Gonzales and Card to go to the hospital to see Ashcroft in person. Both the President and Card spoke to Mrs. Ashcroft to inform her of the impending meeting and advise her that it involved a matter of [[national security]]. Comey and Goldsmith heard about the situation and rushed to the hospital to intercept Gonzales and Card. Comey and Goldsmith watched as Gonzales asked Ashcroft to sign the reauthorization. Ashcroft stated that he did not appreciate them coming to see him under such circumstances, that he had serious concerns about the program, and that in any case Comey was the attorney general at that moment<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?pagewanted=7</ref>. Gonzales and Card then left<ref>http://washingtonindependent.com/50380/the-inspector-generals-report-on-warrantless-surveillance</ref>. Comey later stated, "I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501890.html</ref>
==Trivia==
* Albert Gonzales was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
* His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.

==External links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html Alberto R. Gonzales] The White House.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzales, Alberto R.}}
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:Attorneys]]

David M. Kennedy

2010-11-10T06:11:46Z

Keepscases: Category:United States Attorneys General

'''David M. Kennedy''' (1905-1996) served as [[United States]] [[Attorney General]] under [[President]] [[Richard Nixon]]. After [[Democrat]]s made congressional gains in the 1970 mid-term elections, Nixon replaced Kennedy with the more moderate [[John Connally]].

[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]

Paul Clement

2010-11-10T06:11:20Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

[[Image:Paul Clement.jpg|thumb|Paul Clement]]
'''Paul Clement''' (born Cedarburg, Wisconsin June 1966) was asked by President G. W. Bush to head the Department of Justice until a new Attorney General is nominated. He was named upon the resignation of [[Alberto Gonzales]].

Paul Clement received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at [[Georgetown University]], and a master's degree in economics from [[Cambridge University]].

Clement is the Justice Department’s highest-ranking official who has been confirmed by the Senate. Currently he is the Solicitor General, tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts. There he has defended Bush’s anti-terrorism program as well as federal laws imposing limits on [[abortion]] and campaign fundraising.

Paul Clement once belonged to the conservative Federalist Society.

== External links ==

*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464304/ Paul Clement] MSNBC.com
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clement, Paul}}
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]

Tom Clark

2010-11-10T06:10:28Z

Keepscases: sp Category:United States Attorneys General

[[Image:TomClark.gif|thumb|right|200px]]
'''Tom C. Clark''' (1899-1977), served as the [[United States Attorney General]] from 1945 to 1949 and, after appointed by President [[Harry S Truman]], served as an Associate Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] from 1949 to 1967.

Justice Clark was the only Texan to have ever served on the U.S. Supreme Court, having graduated from the University of Texas in 1922. Clark resigned prematurely from the Court in 1967 when his son [[Ramsey Clark]] became [[Attorney General]]. As a retired Justice Clark was authorized to preside in eleven U.S. Circuits and in federal district court.

Justice Clark is best known for opposing the Communists during the Cold War, as one of four appointments to the [[Supreme Court]] by President Truman who consistently ruled in favor of anticommunist policies. Personally, Justice Clark worked the hardest at improving judicial administration.<ref>http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/clark/clark.html</ref>

Justice Clark voted with the [[Warren Court]] on criminal law, writing the majority opinion in the "exclusionary rule" case of ''[[Mapp v. Ohio]]''. Justice Clark also wrote the opinion invalidating daily Bible readings in public schools in ''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]''.

President Truman became angry at Justice Clark when he voted against Truman's seizure of the steel mills in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', despite Truman's impression that Clark supported as Attorney General the legality of the seizure.

==See also==
*[[Amerasia]]

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clark, Tom}}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:New Deal]]