Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sex education

2008-12-02T00:45:13Z

Lester:

'''Sex Education''' is classroom instruction on [[human reproduction]] and [[sexuality]]. It is typically taught by both public and private schools, with parents usually given the option of withdrawing their children if they feel the content to be inappropriate or have personal or religious objections.

The appropriate content for sex education is a subject of political dispute within the United States, and within other countries. The greatest division is between the comprehensive and [[abstinence]]-only schools of thought. Proponents of comprehensive sex education believe that instruction should include education on methods of [[contraception]], as a means to prevent the twin threats of pregnancy and the transmission of sexually-transmitted infections. Proponents of abstinence education maintain that instructing unmarried teenagers on contraception is implicitly endorsing sexual activity outside of marriage, and so sex education should omit contraception and instead concentrate on helping teenagers to avoid pressure towards pre-marital sexual activity, and to wait until they are in a monogamous, married relationship to begin sexual activity.

In general, comprehensive education is favored by [[liberal|liberals]] while abstinence-only education is favored by [[conservative|conservatives]].

As well as subjects directly related to physical sexual acts, sex education may also include instruction or guidance on relationship management, self-control, pregnancy, the physiological changes of puberty, sexual orientation, and sometimes the morality of sex. This variety adds to the political controversy, with varying groups advocating the inclusion or exclusion of specific components.

Sex education is typically taught at varying points throughout education, either as a separate short course (often with a visiting specialist teacher) or as a module in the science curriculum. Thus an individual student will go through several sex education courses, each one imparting information considered appropriate for their age at the time.

==Abstinence Only==
Federal funding for abstinence only education across the country has increased during the decade, but still does not equal the amount of money the government gives to [[Planned Parenthood]], a single organization, each year.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-abstinence24apr24,1,5905418.story</ref><ref>http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2008/mm_06041.shtml</ref>

Conservatives maintain that abstinence-only education is the only completely effective means of education. However, to date, these have shown no evidence of being superior to full sex education in any way. <ref>http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/</ref>

== Sex Education in England ==
In England the National Curriculum [http://www.dfes.gov.uk] requires all schools to offer comprehensive sex education as part of Personal, Social and Health Education, from junior school on. These classes are opt-out: All children take the lessons unless their parents have previously requested otherwise.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Cafeteria Christianity

2008-12-02T00:26:19Z

Lester:

'''Cafeteria Christianity''' is a term implying that someone decides for himself which parts of the [[Bible]] to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria,<ref>[http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/cafeteria.html "Cafeteria Christianity," from the Church of God - DFW]</ref> and implies that the person is a [[Christian]] in name only. Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "cherry-picking Christianity." It is a commonly used epitaph by Christians attempting to declare that their version is the only correct one and everyone else is just cherry-picking the parts of the bible that appeal to them.
==See Also==
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Christianity]]

Miscegenation

2008-12-02T00:21:59Z

Lester: /* Word Origin */

'''Miscegenation''' is defined by the ''American Heritage Dictionary'' as: 1) "The interbreeding of different races or of persons of different racial backgrounds." 2) "Cohabitation, sexual relations, or marriage involving persons of different races." and 3) "A mixture or hybridization: There was musical miscegenation at a time when segregation was the common rule".

== Word Origin ==

The term miscegenation was coined in a 1863 [[propaganda]] [[pamphlet]] titled ''Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro''. The pamphlet was ostensibly by an [[Abolitionist]] who was in favor of "miscegenation" and the complete blending of the races, claiming it was the goal of the [[Republican Party]] to make the [[American]] race the finest on earth by "engrafting upon our stock the negro element". However, later in 1864 it was revealed that the pamphlet was a [[hoax]] written by two men named George Wakeman and David Goodman Croly working for the [[Democratic Party]]. They hoped to bring ridicule upon the Republicans, the [[Lincoln]] administration, and the [[Conservative]] Abolitionist movement in general by playing on the irrational fears and bigotry of their fellow racists.<ref>[http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Miscegenation_Hoax/ "Miscegenation Hoax"], Museum of Hoaxes.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Loving Day]] (holiday celebrating [[Loving v. Virginia]])

== References: ==
*American Psychological Association (APA):
Miscegenation. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved April 05, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Miscegenation

*Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
Miscegenation. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Miscegenation (accessed: April 05, 2008).

*Modern Language Association (MLA):
"Miscegenation." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 05 Apr. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Miscegenation>.

{{reflist|2}}

[[category:marriage]]
[[category:Racism]]
[[category:Liberal Deceit]]

Talk:Hell

2008-12-02T00:19:24Z

Lester:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
There are different theological perspectives on this--whether the people who go there are "wicked" or are simply unbelievers. Many other religions also have some form of hell, and this should be mentioned, even if the Christian theology is discussed the most.--[[User:John|John]] 01:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I'm unsure as to whether other religions actually use the word Hell for their respective damnations. I know that in practice, for instance, many Muslims do, but I'm not sure if that's actually the term they use. In any event, this is an interesting point that you bring up. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:48, 5 March 2007 (EST)

The English word "hell" does not derive from Hebrew "sheol." It is a Germanic word related to the same Indo-European root from which the English word "cell" (i.e., a prison cell) originates. This type of information is readily available in a dictionary or on the internet.

:Agreed. Anyone who doesn't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary (which has comprehensive etymologies) can look to [http://www.etymonline.com/ Online Etymology Dictionary] for etymological questions. In this case the likely etymology of "Hell" can be found [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hell here]. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 07:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

More to the point, "hell" derives from "Hel" or "Hela", the daughter of Loki in Norse mythology, and warder of the unremarkable dead. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hell] Her hall is often called "Helheim" or "Hel", as well. While Hela is herself rather gruesome to look at, ending up in her care is seen as the normal case for the dead in this mythology, and not really a bad thing. The really bad people end up in a place called Nastrond. People who have lived remarkably may end up in one of the halls of Asgard. When the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity, the existing word in the language was co-opted for Christian purposes. While the proposed "cell" origin is interesting, it feels to me like linguists grasping at straws. --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Siricou, if you're going to write about what Christians believe, then you need to study Christian theology and history. Your statements are false. Hell was created for the devil and his angels, not humans. And the Catholic church does not believe that only Christians go to heaven. Please be careful what you insert. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

This is an alternative viewpoint. The notion of something corresponding to a hell is highly objectionable, offensive, insulting, and illogical.
A God is not going to punish anyone in a horrible fashion especially not forever for happening to not believe in a certain thing or person or idea. If there are souls, most would deserve to go on to something corresponding to a heaven. The relatively few really bad apples could be easily simply snuffed out, they would not continue, but be eliminated.
Traditional standard beliefs are often nowadays without merit, all things need to be reconsidered and reevaluated, modified, improved, updated, for the benefit of all mankind. Many are resistant to change or modification, the old holds sway everywhere over many people, but radical change (significant improvement) is needed in this part of the world as well as everywhere else.previous unsigned comment added by [[User:AtomZapl|AtomZapl]]

I disagree, first of all people don't just "happen" to believe what they believe they '''choose''' to believe it. God is perfectly just, but his justice may not be what you see as just; he knows what the bad apples "deserve". Unfortunately, according to the bible, the standard for "deserving" heaven is not merely the good outweighing the bad; 50% is not a passing grade. God demands (and has every right to demand) that we be perfect. Bibically, everyone deserves an eternal hell. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:08, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

:This touches upon the doctrine of [[Annihilationism]] which certainly deserves an article of its own [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:54, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sourcing==
The biblical account of hell seems contradictory here, especially considering the sources given. While the original article states that hell can only be avoided by Jesus' sacrifice, it also contains quotes from sections of the bible which state the opposite. In Matthew 25:31-46, for example, the criterion seems to be solely determined by the goodness of the person's actions in life. However, two quotes come directly from this section of the bible. Revelation 20:10-15 also mentions a similar methodology: "each person was judged according to what he had done" and it also has two quotes from it. The quote of Mark 9:43 shows similar theological problems: if salvation comes through grace, why do we need to cut off our hand?

I'm new here, so I'm unclear on how such an edit would be done, much less whether it would be advisable. --[[User:Lester|Lester]] 19:19, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Reversion explained==
The edits by SMI were reverted because the font was changed to Comic Sans and a deliberate misspelling introduced. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hell&diff=next&oldid=388740] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2008-12-02T00:05:10Z

Lester:

Biblical fundamentalists, [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrantists]], ultra-orthodox Jews, Catholics, and [[Conservative Christianity|conservative]] [[Christians]] in general claim that the [[Bible]] is the infallible Word of [[God]], and therefore contains no contradictions. Critics generally reply that the Bible is full of contradictions, cannot consequently be the infallible Word of [[Yahweh|God]], and for this reason nowhere claims to be. (Given that both facts are simply general knowledge, neither needs specific referencing.) The following article is designed to test both assertions directly against what the Bible itself says.

== Types of alleged contradictions ==

Claims of contradictions in the Bible may fall into one of a number of common types.

===Mismatched lists===

Different authors might each list people, words, or events that do not correspond exactly. However, in most cases, none of the authors claim that their lists are exhaustive, so items missing from one list that are on another list is not in itself a contradiction.

===Omitted details===

One author might mention details of an event that another author omits, with the sceptic claiming that if it really happened, both authors would have mentioned it. This "argument from silence" is logically invalid, and usually ignores possible reasons for a given author not mentioning those details, particularly as each author generally had a particular purpose or audience in mind when writing.

===Differing languages or reference points===

One author might mention details using one language, clock, calendar, etc., while another might mention the same details using a different language, clock, calendar, etc.

===Genuine contradictions===

One author might give details that flatly contradict another. Only careful examination of the texts (independently of personal preconceptions or conjecture) can decide whether or not this is the case.

== Contradictions need to be proved ==

Apologists might often disagree as to how an apparent contradiction is to be best explained, due to nobody knowing for sure what the correct explanation is - whether merely circumstantial or a case of genuine contradiction. However, for a sceptic to ''prove'' the charge of contradiction, the onus is on him to eliminate all possible realistic explanations. The onus is not on the apologist to know which possible explanation is correct. By the same token, however, neither is it legitimate for the apologist to insist that any given explanation ''must'' be correct merely because it fits his or her preconceptions or has been argued by highly selective commentators with similar views. Indeed, the persistent citing of such commentators is liable to lead to an unresolvable 'battle of the commentators' that is likely to leave the general reader (who is in no position to judge the merits of the various commentators) just as nonplussed as before. True, the fact that there is a possible explanation means that the charge of contradiction may fail, depending on the inherent likelihood of the explanation. On the other hand, an unreasonably large number of not-very-likely or highly conjectural explanations may cast doubt on the apologist's case.

== Examples of alleged contradictions ==

The following is a list of the most frequently adduced contradictions, arranged (for clarity and concision) in brief question-and-answer form. Translations are from the KJV. ''The more usually advanced objections are appended in italics, and may be added to, as this article is not locked - though long semantic 'wriggles' may not redound to the entire credit of the poster's argument.''

*How long did it take God to create the world?
::Genesis 1: Six days (Hebrew ''yom'')
::Genesis 2: One day (Hebrew ''yom'')
:::''Objection: The context indicates that the word ''yom'' in chapter 2 is used in the sense of "when", as many translations have it.''
::::Counter-objection: Linguistic studies do not support the use of "when" to translate ''yom''.
:::''Objection: The phrase "be yom", "in the day" in chapter 2 is used in the sense of "when", as many translations have it.''

*Was man created before or after the animals?
::Genesis 1:24-6: After the animals
::Genesis 2:7,19: Before the animals
:::''Objection 1: Unlike chapter 1, with its numbered days, chapter 2 is not intended as a chronological account.''
::::Counter-objection: Since verse 7 comes well before verse 19, it is clear that man came before the animals. Additionally, Gen 2:18 states specifically that the animals were created because God felt it was not right for man to be alone.
:::''Objection 2: At least one modern translation (NIV) replaces the word 'formed' with 'had formed', (showing that the animals had already been created).
::::Counter-objection: That is a clear mistranslation of the Hebrew verb, whose tense and mood is imperfect ('formed', 'was forming'), not pluperfect ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]
:::::''Counter-counter objection: Some sources suggest - on the basis of seeing chapter 2 as ''not'' a contradiction of chapter 2, but as part of its context - that it is appropriate to treat the word as a pluperfect. <ref>See [http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html|Creation Account, Times Two], by J. P. Holding</ref>''
::::::Counter-counter-counter-objection: Which is, of course, an entirely circular argument, and in violation of Semitic linguistics!

*How long is a day as far as God is concerned, then?
::Genesis 1: An evening and morning
::II Peter 3:8: A thousand years
:::''Objection: Increasing time periods have no practical effect on God, who is outside time. This does not preclude Him expressing time exactly to his creatures.''

*Is there only one God?
::Deuteronomy 6:4: Yes
::Deuteronomy 6:14: "Do not follow [[other gods]]" (Follow the one True God), Numbers 33:4 "for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods."

* Does God know the hearts of men?
::Psalm 139:2,3 Acts 1:24: Yes
::Genesis 22:12, Deuteronomy 8:2, 13:3: Evidently not

*How many of each kind of living creature did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
::Genesis 6:19: One pair
::Genesis 7:2: Seven pairs of birds and ‘clean’ creatures, and one pair of the rest
:::''Objection: It is common for the Bible writers to give an overview initially, and more detail later.''
::::Counter-objection: Given that there are far more clean than unclean animals, it would seem that the predominant seven pairs would be given in an overview (absent, of course, the usage of any phrase meaning "at least two").

* Is God warlike?
::Exodus 15:3: Yes
::I Corinthians 14:33: No

* Is God's anger fierce and long-lasting?
::Jeremiah 17:4: Yes
::Psalm 30:5: No

*On which mountain did Moses receive the Ten Commandments?
::Exodus 3: Horeb
::Exodus 19: Sinai
:::''Objection: They are both the same mountain.''
::::Counter-objection: The Biblical text indicates that Horeb was the proper name of the mountain, and that the mountain was located in the Sinai desert.

*Are we punished for our parents' sins?
::Exodus 20:5: Yes
::Ezekiel 18:20: No

*Is it right to kill?
::Exodus 20:13: No
::I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8: Emphatically yes
:::''Objection: Traditionally, 'Thou shalt not kill' was simply taken to mean 'Thou shalt not kill ''Jews''.
::::Comment: The word should actually be 'murder', not kill.

* Does God require burnt offerings and sacrifices?
::Exodus 29:36, 29:18, Leviticus 1:9: Yes
::Isaiah 1,11-14: No

*Did David have thirty companions, or thirty-seven?
::II Samuel 23:24: Thirty [all named and listed]
::II Samuel 23:39: Thirty-seven in all

*How many stables did Solomon have for his horses?
::I Kings 4:26: Forty thousand
::II Chronicles 9:25: Four thousand
:::''Objection: This one is probably a copyist error.''<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/af/copyisterrors.html Copyist Errors and Estimations], by J. P. Holding.</ref>
::::Non-objection: The Bible is thus not infallible.

*How many overseers did Solomon have?
::I Kings 9:23: 550
::II Chronicles 8:10: 250

*Did Michal have children?
::II Samuel 6:23: No
::II Samuel 21:8: Yes

*Who was the mother of Abijah?
::II Chronicles 11:20: Maachah the daughter of Absalom
::II Chronicles 13:2: Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

*At what age did Ahaziah come to the throne?
::II Kings 8:26: 22
::II Chronicles 22:2: 42

*Who succeeded King Josiah?
::II Chronicles 36:1: Jehoahaz
::Jeremiah 22:11: Shallum

*At what age did Jehoiachin come to the throne?
::II Kings 24:8: Eighteen
::II Chronicles 36:9: Eight

*Can God be seen?
::Genesis 32:30: Yes
::Exodus 33:11: Yes
::John 1:18: No, not at any time

*Is God is to be found by those who seek him?
::Proverbs 8:17: Yes
::Proverbs 1:28: No

*Should children be corrected with "the rod?"
::Proverbs 13:24, 23:13-14, 29:15: Yes
::Colossians 3:21: No
:::''Objection: Colossians mentions nothing about physical punishment.''

*Is God mercfiul, or merciless?
::Jeremiah 13:14: Merciless
::I Samuel 15:13: Merciless
:: James 5:11: Very pitiful, and of tender mercy

*Does God tempt men, or not?
:Genesis 22:1: Yes
:James 1:13: No

*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time
::Joshua 10:12: Yes.
::Psalm 136:8-9 No.
::Genesis 1:16: No.
:::''Objection: There is no contradiction: the last two references are to 'ruling', not 'appearing'.''
::::Non-objection: The parallelism in the language means that the Moon plays the same role with respect to "night" as the Sun plays with respect to "day.''

*Should one answer a fool?
::Proverbs 26:4: No.
::Proverbs 26:5: Yes.
:::''Objection: Taken together, the two verses mean, 'It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence.'<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/proverbsfool.html I Pity the Fool I Answer], by J. P. Holding.</ref>
::::But the text [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Pro&chapter=26&verse=4&version=KJV#4] does not actually say this.

*Is there an afterlife?
::Luke 16:22-23: Yes.
::Ecclesiastes 9:5: No.
:::''Objection: Ecclesiastes is merely recounting Solomon's opinion; the closing words in 12:9-14 show that the purpose of the chapter is to portray Solomon as a wise leader, and that not everything in it is should necessarily be taken as true.''
::::Non-objection: thus we see the value of allegory over inerrant literal truth.

*Which of the two genealogies of Jesus is right – Matthew’s or Luke’s (both of them traced through the man who was supposedly not Jesus’ father in the first place)?
::Impossible to say: they are totally incompatible
:::''Objection 1: One of them is traced through Mary, his mother.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2875/ The Virginal Conception of Christ], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
::::Counter-objection: Both of them are specifically traced through Joseph, as the texts themselves make clear.''
:::::''Counter-counter-objection: Restating the claim is not a counter-objection.''
::::::Counter-counter-counter-objection: The cited article states that the genealogy in Luke goes through Mary however it includes Joseph.
:::''Objection 2: One is traced through Joseph's father, the other through his step-father.
::::Counter-objection: The text doesn't say so.

*Who was Joseph's father, then?
::Matthew 1:16: Jacob
::Luke 3:23: Heli
:::''Objection: This is merely the previous objection restated.''

*Who visited Jesus in his crib?
::Matthew: Astrologers
::Mark: Not mentioned (no birth story)
::Luke: Shepherds
::John: Not mentioned (no birth story)
:::''Objection: Matthew does not say that the magi visited Jesus in the crib. The "contradiction" is imaginary.''
::::Counter-objection: The texts states 'where the young child was'.

*Did Jesus tell his disciples to go out with or without a stick?
::Matthew 10:10: Without a stick
::Mark 6:8: With a stick
::Luke 9:3: Without a stick
::John: Not mentioned
:::''Objection: In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is telling his disciples not to go and get a staff. In Mark, Jesus is saying that they can take with them the staff that they already have. ''<ref>[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html Good question... Well, did Jesus tell them to take a staff or not? Another contradiction?!], by Glenn Miller.</ref>
::::Counter-objection: The text does not say so.

*Where was the Sermon on the Mount delivered?
::Matthew: On a hill
::Mark: Not mentioned
::Luke: At the bottom of a hill
::John: Not mentioned
:::''Objection: Luke is usually translated as "on a level place", not "on a plain". He could therefore be referring to a level place on a hill.''
::::Counter-objection: The text [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk006.html#12] says 'He went out into a mountain [v.12]... ''came down'' [v.17]... and stood in the plain' [my italics].

*Where in each gospel does Jesus make the all-important claim 'I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me'?
::Matthew: Not mentioned
::Mark: Not mentioned
::Luke: Not mentioned
::John: 14:6
:::''Objection: How is this a contradiction if only one writer mentions it?''
::::Counter-objection: Evidently either Matthew, Mark and Luke had never heard of it, or else they didn't think it worth mentioning, so it can't have been 'all-important'.

*Was Jesus a bringer of peace?
::John 14:27: Yes
::Matthew 10:34: No

*At what time was Jesus crucified?
::Mark 15:25: At the third hour
::John 19:14-15: After the sixth hour

*Who was present at the Crucifixion?
::Matthew: Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, the mother of the sons of Zebedee and other women
::Mark: Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Salome and other women
::Luke: His friends, and the women who had accompanied him from Galilee
::John: His mother, her sister, Mary wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala
:::''Objection: Mentioning only some of the people present does not preclude others being present.''

*What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
::Matthew: ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ ''Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?''
::Mark: ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ ''Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?''
::Luke: ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’
::John: ‘It is finished.’
:::''Objection: In most cases, the writers do ''not'' indicate that the words they quote were the ''last'' words.''
::::Counter-objection: But they are the last words that they report. Additionally, both Matthew and Mark use Aramaic, which appears more likely to have been used, and which contains a pun on the names of God and Elias.

*How did Judas die?
::Acts 1:18: He fell down and burst asunder
::Matt. 27:5: He hanged himself
:::''Objection: Neither account excludes the other. He hanged himself, and his body fell down and burst asunder.''
::::Counter-objection: Neither account suggests that ''both'' happened.

*Who was the first to reach the tomb on the Sunday morning?
::Matthew: Mary of Magdala and ‘the other Mary’
::Mark: Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
::Luke: Mary of Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James
::John: Mary of Magdala
:::''Objection: None of the authors claim to be listing everybody. None say that the others were ''not'' there.''

*Whom did they find in the tomb?
::Matthew: An angel
::Mark: A youth
::Luke: Two men in dazzling garments
::John: Two angels
:::''Objection: Mentioning one does not preclude there being two. Otherwise, they could all be different descriptions of the same beings.''

*What message did he/they deliver?
::Matthew: That Jesus was going on to Galilee, where they would see him
::Mark: That Jesus was going on to Galilee, where they would see him
::Luke: To remember what he had said
::John: That he was now ascending to the Father

*When did Jesus say he would return?
::Matthew:(a) After three days
:::(b) At some unspecifiable future time
::Mark: (a) After three days
:::(b) At some unspecifiable future time
::Luke:(a) After three days
:::(b) At some unspecifiable future time
::John: Unspecified

*Did those with Saul Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
::Acts 9:7: Yes
::Acts 22:9: No

*Who ever ascended into heaven?
::II Kings 2:11: Elijah
::John 3:13: Only the Son of Man

*Does God approve of observing the Sabbath, or not?
::Exodus 20:10: Yes
::Isaiah 1:13: No
:::''Objection: "The reason why the Sabbath keeping and other observances of the Israelites were not acceptable to God, is set forth by Isaiah, in a subsequent verse, thus: 'Your hands are full of blood.'"<ref>John W. Haley, ''Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible'', 1874.</ref>
::::Counter-objection: The answer seems to be 'Only by those with no blood on their hands', then. Hmm!

*Is God ominpresent and omniscient?
::Psalm 139:7-10, Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:22,21: Yes
::Genesis 18:20-21: No

*Does God change?
::Malachi 3:6: No
::James 1:17: Yes

*Are the followers of Christ obliged to keep the whole of the Jewish Law (i.e. all 613 positive and negative provisions of it)?
::Matthew 5:17-18 (Jesus): Yes
::Romans 6:15 (Paul): No

*Is salvation dependent on faith, or or on deeds?
::Romans 3:28: By faith without deeds
::James 2:24: By deeds, and not just by faith

*Should good deeds be done publicly?
::Matthew 5:16: Yes
::Matt 6:3-4: No

*Is it permissible to call people names?
::Matthew 5:22: No
::Matthew 23:17: Yes

*Should we swear oaths?
::Numbers 30:2: Yes
::Matthew 5:34-37: No

*Is the earth everlasting?
::Ecclesiastes 1:4: Yes
::II Peter 3:10 : No

*When was Jesus supposed to return and the world end?
::Matthew 16:28: In the lifetime of Jesus' audience
::Luke 21:32-33: Before the generation of Jesus' audience passed away
::I Corinthians 15:51: Before all Paul's correspondents died
::Revelation 1:3, 22:7, 20: Soon after the Revelation was dictated/written.

== Notes ==

<references />

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* Cupitt, D., ''The Sea of Faith'' (BBC, 1984)
* Dawkins, Prof. R., ''The God Delusion'' (Bantam, 2006)
* Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N.I., ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* McKinnon, Prof. D.M, Williams, H., Vidler, Dean A.R. & Bezzant, Dean J.S., ''Objections to Christian Belief'' (Constable, 1963)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Robinson, Bishop J.A.T., ''Honest to God'' (SCM, 1963)
* Schonfield, Dr. H.J., ''The Passover Plot'' (Hutchinson, 1965)
* Schonfield, Dr. H.J., ''Those Incredible Christians'' (Geis/Bantam, 1968)
* Spong, Bishop J.S., ''Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism'' (HarperSanFrancisco, 1991)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

Eugenics

2008-12-01T23:53:02Z

Lester:

[[Image:Gtr766.png|right|thumb|300px|Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.]]
'''Eugenics''' (from the Greek. eugenes "well-born, of good stock," from eu- "good" + genos "birth") is the general name for a series of ostensibly [[Science|scientific]] claims about inheritance among humans, which sought to eliminate traits, such as "imbecility" or criminal behavior, by selective [[Eugenics and sterilization|sterilization]], regulation of family size, and restrictions on who could marry whom. It was based upon a number of premises since shown to be demonstrably false (not all eugenecists held to all of these uniformly):

* That "imbecility" -- a catch-all phrase used to label many persons without anything that today would be recognized as mental illness or deficiency -- was necessarily the result of inheritance, and heritable.

* That human "races" as a category were substantial and determinative, and that certain races, such as the "Anglo Saxon," were innately superior to others.

* That "nervous exhaustion", "moral looseness" and other socially-acquired traits were inherited and heritable.

* That families with more children dispersed and diluted the "moral force" of each offspring.

* That immigrant children were less desirable, and that the "white race" or native-born Americans generally were endangered due to their lower fertility rate in comparison to recent immigrants (see leaflet at right).

* That "genius" was readily identified, inherited, and heritable.

The banner of eugenics was taken up by a variety of groups in the United States and around the world, each of which believed that it would lead to the creation of healthier, more intelligent people, conserve society's limited resources, and reduce human suffering. Of course, one of the unspoken aspects of this "reduction" in suffering was that it worked, not by reducing suffering ''per se'', but by reducing the number of people through forced sterilization -- fewer people, ergo, less suffering. Many women were sterilized involuntarily and without their knowledge under Eugenics laws which were passed in many states of the [[United States]] throughout the nineteen-teens and twenties.
===Historical Eugenics===
The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too "weak" or "sickly" would be left to die.

===Eugenics and the state, 1890s–1963===
One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenic ideas (before they were labeled as such) was [[Alexander Graham Bell]]. In 1881 Bell investigated the rate of [[deaf]]ness on [[Martha's Vineyard]], Massachusetts. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf ("Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human Race") even though he was married to a deaf woman. Like many other early eugenicists, he proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.

In [[1907]], [[Indiana]] became the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain
individuals.<ref>Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series,
"Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:"
Reflections on 100 Years of Eugenics in Indiana, at [http://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/special/eugenics/index.html]</ref> Although the law was overturned by the [[Indiana Supreme Court]] in [[1921]],<ref>''Williams v. Smith'', 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at [http://www.bioethics.iupui.edu/Eugenics/SMith%20vs%20Williams.pdf] </ref> the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia Law allowing for the [[Buck v. Bell|compulsory sterilization]] of patients of state mental institutions in [[1927]]; it was in writing this opinion that Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] Jr. coined the phrase "three generations of imbeciles are enough."<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=194-195}} Citing [[Buck v. Bell]] 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927).</ref>

[[Nazi Germany]] under [[Adolf Hitler]] was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of "[[racial hygiene]]". Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the horrific experiments carried out by [[Josef Mengele]] for [[Otmar von Verschuer]] on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit", an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".<ref>Quoted in Selgelid, Michael J. 2000. Neugenics? ''Monash Bioethics Review'' 19 (4):9-33</ref> The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "[[euthanasia]]" programs.<ref>The Nazi eugenics policies are discussed in a number of sources. A few of the more definitive ones are Robert Proctor, ''Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Dieter Kuntz, ed., ''Deadly medicine: creating the master race'' (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004) ([http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/ online exhibit]). On the development of the [[racial hygiene]] movement before National Socialism, see Paul Weindling, ''Health, race and German politics between national unification and Nazism, 1870-1945'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).</ref>

They also implemented a number of "positive" eugenics policies, giving awards to "[[Aryan race|Aryan]]" women who had large numbers of children and encouraged a service in which "racially pure" single women could deliver illegitimate children. Allegations that such women were also impregnated by [[Schutzstaffel|SS]] officers in the ''[[Lebensborn]]'' are common, but unproven. Also, "racially valuable" children from occupied countries were forcibly removed from their parents and adopted by German people. Many of their concerns for eugenics and racial hygiene were also explicitly present in their systematic killing of millions of "undesirable" people including [[Jew]]s, [[Gypsies]], [[Jehovah's Witness]]es and [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] during [[the Holocaust]] (much of the killing equipment and methods employed in the death camps were first developed in the euthanasia program). The scope and coercion involved in the German eugenics programs along with a strong use of the rhetoric of eugenics and so-called "racial science" throughout the regime created an indelible cultural association between eugenics and the [[Third Reich]] in the postwar years.<ref>See Proctor, ''Racial hygiene'', and Kuntz, ed., ''Deadly medicine.''</ref>

The second largest eugenics movement was in the [[United States]]. Beginning with [[Connecticut]] in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or [[feeble-minded]]" from marrying. In 1898 [[Charles Benedict Davenport|Charles B. Davenport]], a prominent American [[biology|biologist]], began as director of a biological research station based in [[Cold Spring Harbor]] where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the [[Carnegie Institution]] to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The [[Eugenics Record Office]] opened in 1910 while Davenport and [[Harry H. Laughlin]] began to promote eugenics.<ref>The history of eugenics in the United States is discussed at length in Mark Haller, ''Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought'' (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963) and [[Daniel Kevles]], ''In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity'' (New York: Knopf, 1985) ISBN 0-520-05763, the latter being the standard survey work on the subject.</ref>

During the 20th century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized.

In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the [[psychology|psychologist]] [[Henry H. Goddard]] and the conservationist [[Madison Grant]] (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his ''[[The Kallikak Family]]''; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.)<ref>See Kevles, ''In the name of eugenics.''</ref> Though their methodology and research methods are now understood as highly flawed, at the time this was seen as legitimate scientific research.<ref>See Pg. 23 " 'Human Progress’ through Eugenics" from Psychology of Mental Fossils, toward an Archeo-psychology by Douglas Keith Candland at [http://www.douglascandland.com/images/chapter7.pdf] </ref> It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, [[Thomas Hunt Morgan]], one of the few [[Mendel]]ians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.<ref>Hamilton Cravens, ''The triumph of evolution: American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy, 1900-1941'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978): 179.</ref>

The idea of "genius" and "talent" is also considered by William Graham Sumner, a founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association). He maintained that if the government did not meddle with the social policy of ''laissez-faire'', a class of genius would rise to the top of the system of social stratification, followed by a class of talent. Most of the rest of society would fit into the class of mediocrity. Those who were considered to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) had a negative effect on social progress by draining off necessary resources. They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society ("Folkways", 1907).

With the passage of the [[Immigration Act of 1924]], eugenicists for the first time played a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new act strengthened existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool.<ref>Paul Lombardo, "Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html.</ref> Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many [[miscegenation|antimiscegenation]] laws.<ref>Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Laws Against Race-Mixing," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html.</ref>

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in the [[1927]] ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'' case that the state of [[Virginia]] could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of [[Eugenics and sterilization|eugenic sterilization]] was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.<ref>Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Sterilization Laws," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html.</ref> A favorable report on the results of sterilization in [[California]], by far the state with the most sterilizations, was published in book form by the biologist [[Paul Popenoe]] and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for [[war crimes]] in [[Nuremberg]] after [[World War II]], they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.<ref>The connections between U.S. and Nazi eugenicists is discussed in Edwin Black, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection]", ''San Francisco Chronicle'' ([[9 November]] [[2003]]), as well as Black's ''War Against the Weak'' (New York: Four Wars Eight Windows, 2003). Stefan Kühl's work, ''The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), is considered the standard scholarly work on the subject.</ref>

==Eugenics in fiction==

In [[Aldous Huxley]]'s novel ''[[Brave New World]]'', the world government employs massive eugenics through mechanical, automatic breeding and elimination of the unfit. The 1997 film [[Gattaca]] is based on the premise of such as "new eugenics," complete with biometrics, "designer babies," and "in-valids."

== References ==

<references/>

== External References ==

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

[[Category:philosophy]]

==See also==

*[[Genetic engineering]]