Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bertrand Russell

2007-06-21T02:34:25Z

Noamsml:

[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Bertrand Russell,''' 3rd Earl Russell (1872–1970) was a 20th century philosopher, mathematician and atheist<ref>His own characterization: "I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 for his writings.

Russell visited the Soviet Union and met Lenin in 1920. In a tract, ''The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism'', he wrote "I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe ... [[Bolshevism]] deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind.But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten.It is because I do not believe that the methods of the Third International can lead to the desired goal that I have thought it worth while to point out [7]what seem to me undesirable features in the present state of Russia. I think there are lessons to be learnt which must be learnt if the world is ever to achieve what is desired by those in the West who have sympathy with the original aims of the Bolsheviks. I do not think these lessons can be learnt except by facing frankly and fully whatever elements of failure there are in Russia. I think these elements of failure are less attributable to faults of detail than to an impatient philosophy, which aims at creating a new world without sufficient preparation in the opinions and feelings of ordinary men and women.But although I do not believe that Communism can be realized immediately by the spread of Bolshevism, I do believe that, if Bolshevism falls, it will have contributed a legend and a heroic attempt without which ultimate success might never have come. A fundamental economic reconstruction, bringing with it very far-reaching changes in ways of thinking and feeling, in philosophy and art and private relations, seems absolutely necessary if industrialism is to become the servant of man instead of his master. In all this, I am at one with the Bolsheviks; politically, I criticize them only when their methods seem to involve a departure from their own ideals. There is, however, another aspect of Bolshevism from which I differ more fundamentally. Bolshevism is not merely a political doctrine; it is also a religion, with elaborate dogmas and inspired scriptures. When Lenin wishes to prove some proposition, he does so, if possible, by quoting texts from Marx and Engels. A full-fledged Communist is not merely a man who believes that land and capital should be held in common, and their produce distributed as nearly equally as possible. He is a man who entertains a number of elaborate and dogmatic beliefs—such as philosophic materialism, for example—which may be true, but are not, to a scientific temper, capable of being known to be true with any certainty. This habit, of militant certainty about objectively doubtful matters, is one from which, since the Renaissance, the world has been gradually emerging, into that temper of constructive and fruitful scepticism which constitutes the scientific outlook. I believe the scientific outlook to be immeasurably important to the human race...The present work is the outcome of a visit to [10]Russia, supplemented by much reading and discussion both before and after. I have thought it best to record what I saw separately from theoretical considerations, and I have endeavoured to state my impressions without any bias for or against the Bolsheviks. I received at their hands the greatest kindness and courtesy, and I owe them a debt of gratitude for the perfect freedom which they allowed me in my investigations. I am conscious that I was too short a time in Russia to be able to form really reliable judgments; however, I share this drawback with most other westerners who have written on Russia since the October Revolution.

"To understand Bolshevism it is not sufficient to know facts; it is necessary also to enter with sympathy or imagination into a new spirit. The chief thing that the Bolsheviks have done is to create a hope, or at any rate to make strong and widespread a hope which was formerly confined to a few...I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born."

His most significant early work was a three-volume attempt to derive all mathematical principles from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic, entitled ''Principia Mathematica'' (1910-1913). He published this work with [[Alfred North Whitehead]]. Although the ''Principia'' is widely considered by one of the most important and seminal works in logic and philosophy, part of its success was in inspiring others to question its propositions. In 1931, [[Kurt Godel]] proved that what Russell attempted could not possibly be both consistent and complete.

During the [[Cold War]] he advocated nuclear disarmament, even if it were unilateral on the part of Western powers, a stance which some people mocked as "better Red than dead".

A member of British nobility with the title of "Earl", Russell remained a hero to those on the political left, particularly in the English-speaking world, throughout his life. In his 1929 book ''Marriage and Morals'', he argued that that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not necessarily immoral if they truly love one another. In the 1960's he became a vocal critic of the [[Vietnam War]].

Russell also famously encapsulated the dilemma faced by all those seeking objective moral truths in the face of almost overwhelming logical evidence to the contrary:

''"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."'' <ref>[http://uk.encarta.msn.com/quote_1861989747/Ethics_I_cannot_see_how_to_refute_the_arguments_for_the.html]</ref>

Philosophy, 1960, "Notes on Philosophy"

==Contributions to Mathematics==

Bertrand Russell was particularly known for the famous "Russell Paradox", which wrecked havoc on intuitivistic set theory. The basic restatement of the paradox is the following: suppose there is a predicate "x is a set that does not contain itself", does the set that is the extension of that predicate contain itself. To solve this, Russell came up with the incomprehensibly complex [[theory of types]], which was later abandoned in favour of the [[Zermello-Frankel axioms]].

==Notes and references==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Russell, Bertrand}}
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Literature]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Religion

2007-06-21T02:22:28Z

Noamsml:

'''Religion''' is a system of belief and practices shared by a community that attempts to answer the ultimate questions of life and death, and, in doing so, goes beyond the verifiable. Religions frequently involve [[supernatural]] elements such as [[gods and goddesses]], [[angels]] and [[demons]], ancestors, transmigratory souls, and [[heaven]], [[purgatory]] and [[hell]]. Developed religions generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, a set of individual and communal practices. Religion played a major role in all human societies prior to the twentieth century. It is a core belief of [[conservatives]] that the recent decline in religious observation are a key source of the undermining of social and moral order.

[[Evangelicals]] disparage the term "religion" as a system of works by which human beings attempt to approach [[God]] without a personal relationship with [[Jesus Christ]]. According to them, for the person who is born again, religion can only interfere and distract from that prayerful union.

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Buddhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]], a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods
* [[Agnostic]], can't make one's mind up about the existence of a god or gods
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Secular Humanism]], an approach to moral philosophy
*[[World Religions by Number of Followers]]
*[[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]], a parody of religion.

[[Category:Religion]]

Utilitarianism

2007-06-21T02:20:09Z

Noamsml: /* Critiques of utilitarianism */

Utilitarianism is a political, and later philosophical, principle which calls for actions to be judged on their usefulness (or magnitude of reward) to society or select individuals.

Jeremy Bentham, one of utilitarianism's early proponents, called the process of determining the most useful possible action the hedonistic calculus. One would, according to Bentham, measure the pleasure of certain actions against the pleasure of other actions. The problems of such a calculus include the feasibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, the weighting of utility through time, and the "artificial" utility gained not from actual actions but from, for example, avoiding risk. The theoretical person which nonetheless succeeds in undertaking such a computation is said to be a [[rational actor]].

==Utilitarianism and utility==

"[[Utility]]" is defined as the good to be maximized. Different thinkers have further defined it as happiness, well-being or pleasure. The idea of utilitarianism as a moral code was first thought up by 18th century reformer and philosopher [[Jeremy Bentham]]. He believed that, "nature has put man under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." Thus, he concluded that good is whatever it is that brings on the greatest happiness. His belief was passed on by others after him.

==Utilitarianism in the social sciences==

Across the social sciences, utilitarianism is encountered in the form of rational choice theories. In [[economics]], it is the foundation of [[marginal analysis]]. In these academic contexts, utilitarianism serves as a tool for the analysis of social behavior. The partial exception to this lies in the field of [[welfare economics]], where some economists have tried to apply modern forms of the "hedonistic calculus" to issues of public choice.

==Critiques of utilitarianism==

Utility has been accused of supporting the idea that the ends justifies means, or that only material means count in the "hedonistic calculus."

In addition, Utilitarianism has been accused of being an unworkable system, since one cannot necessarily know the consequences of all actions.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Deontology

2007-06-21T02:18:11Z

Noamsml: New page: A deontology is an ethical system based on the idea of duty. Examples of deontological systems include Kantianism and Religious Ethics. Other types of moral systems include tho...

A [[deontology]] is an ethical system based on the idea of duty. Examples of deontological systems include [[Kantianism]] and [[Religious Ethics]]. Other types of moral systems include those based on culture (relativistic), and those based on consequences (such as [[Utilitarianism]]).

{{stub}}

Kantianism

2007-06-20T12:17:12Z

Noamsml: New page: Kantianism is a rationalistic deontology first created by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. It is based upon the idea known as the Categorical Imperative, which st...

Kantianism is a [[rationalism|rationalistic]] [[deontology]] first created by the philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]]. It is based upon the idea known as the [[Categorical Imperative]], which states that one should not act in accordance with a maxim unless one would be willing for it to also be a universal law.

{{stub}}

Atheism

2007-06-20T12:12:37Z

Noamsml: One more rearrangement

[[Image:Nogod.jpg|thumb|300px]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

The term "atheism" often is used to include uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence (see also [[agnosticism]]). There are two kinds of atheism, strong atheism, or someone who believes strongly that there is no God, and weak atheism, or someone who believes that there probably is no God. Atheists often equivocate that they actually have a lack of belief in any God, as opposed to having the positive belief that there is no God. This equivocation stems from the fact that if they hold positive beliefs, then their worldview can be categorized as a religion.

== Well Known Atheists ==
In recorded history atheism has been a minority view, although there have been pockets of atheistic thought such as amongst the literati in pre-modern China who followed Confucian teachings.

Well-known atheists include [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Richard Dawkins]] ,[[Douglas Adams]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], and [[David Hume]].

== Atheistic Ethics and Humanism ==
Although it is difficult to generalize about atheism because it has no creed in a way that [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], and [[Islam]] do, atheists typically hold that no religious text can be the only source of morality; they do not look for their morality in revelation, but rather in reason or some other internal force. However, many atheists believe that religious texts contain useful ideas and principles, such as the [[Golden Rule]]. Such people would, however, assert that useful principles entered religion because they are useful, and not the other way around. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people, as they consider them to be one and the same.

One pervading theme in atheistic moral systems is that of [[humanism]], the belief that humans have an intrinsic value of their own independent of any external entity. Humanism, in its basis, is a belief in celebrating, embracing and protecting human life. Humanists can embrace different rationalistic ethical systems such as [[Kantianism]], [[Utilitarianism]], [[Hedonism]], and others.

== Biblical View of Atheism ==
The Bible states:

"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God. - Psalm 14:1 (KJV)}}

In addition, the Bible states:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:20 (KJV)}}

==Atheism and Communism ==
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the opium of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

== Atheist Population ==
It is difficult to accurately determine the proportion of the population that is atheist because survey definitions, and even real life definitions, are often unclear. Some people are unsure of the existence of God, but they are sometimes counted as atheists. People who think that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven are called agnostics (see [[Agnosticism]]). There are people who, despite being Atheists, refuse to categorize themselves as such due to the negative social stigma attached to atheism. Furthermore, surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying atheists. Individuals may believe in some form of god but not subscribe to any particular religion.

Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France.

== Concern about Atheists in America ==
Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision or want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-06-20T12:11:47Z

Noamsml: Rearranging sections and adding some information.

[[Image:Nogod.jpg|thumb|300px]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

The term "atheism" often is used to include uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence (see also [[agnosticism]]). There are two kinds of atheism, strong atheism, or someone who believes strongly that there is no God, and weak atheism, or someone who believes that there probably is no God. Atheists often equivocate that they actually have a lack of belief in any God, as opposed to having the positive belief that there is no God. This equivocation stems from the fact that if they hold positive beliefs, then their worldview can be categorized as a religion.

== Well Known Atheists ==
In recorded history atheism has been a minority view, although there have been pockets of atheistic thought such as amongst the literati in pre-modern China who followed Confucian teachings.

Well-known atheists include [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Richard Dawkins]] ,[[Douglas Adams]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], and [[David Hume]].

== Biblical View of Atheism ==
The Bible states:

"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God. - Psalm 14:1 (KJV)}}

In addition, the Bible states:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:20 (KJV)}}

== Atheistic Ethics and Humanism ==
Although it is difficult to generalize about atheism because it has no creed in a way that [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], and [[Islam]] do, atheists typically hold that no religious text can be the only source of morality; they do not look for their morality in revelation, but rather in reason or some other internal force. However, many atheists believe that religious texts contain useful ideas and principles, such as the [[Golden Rule]]. Such people would, however, assert that useful principles entered religion because they are useful, and not the other way around. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people, as they consider them to be one and the same.

One pervading theme in atheistic moral systems is that of [[humanism]], the belief that humans have an intrinsic value of their own independent of any external entity. Humanism, in its basis, is a belief in celebrating, embracing and protecting human life. Humanists can embrace different rationalistic ethical systems such as [[Kantianism]], [[Utilitarianism]], [[Hedonism]], and others.

==Atheism and Communism ==
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the opium of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

== Atheist Population ==
It is difficult to accurately determine the proportion of the population that is atheist because survey definitions, and even real life definitions, are often unclear. Some people are unsure of the existence of God, but they are sometimes counted as atheists. People who think that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven are called agnostics (see [[Agnosticism]]). There are people who, despite being Atheists, refuse to categorize themselves as such due to the negative social stigma attached to atheism. Furthermore, surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying atheists. Individuals may believe in some form of god but not subscribe to any particular religion.

Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France.

== Concern about Atheists in America ==
Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision or want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Christianity

2007-06-20T11:42:31Z

Noamsml:

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just deleted the descriptors after Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Church. Why I did this: The descriptor for Catholic Church used the word ''original''. There would be huge arguments over the use of that word. All of the ancient churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Non-Chalcedonians lay claim to that word. The Descriptors for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches made them seem like different branches of the same church, which of course, is not true. They are not in communion with one another and hold very different ideas about soteriology and ecclessiology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 05:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations. Whether or not someone "argues that there are more than one Christian Church" is a non-issue. People can argue whatever they want--that does not mean their points are grounded in truth. The study of the doctrine of the Church, Ecclesiology, is based upon what does Scripture say about who believers are, and what the Body of Christ is. All orthodox (meaning non-heretical)denominiations officially believe there is only one Christian church, one Body of Christ, because that is the Scriptural position. This Body is composed of all those who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead for them, justifying them before the Father and giving them eternal life.
"Catholic" has two meanings: with a small "c" means universal; "C" refers to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity, ruled by the Pope and Magesterium. Christians in the Nicene creed claim to believe "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", meaning one universal body of believers, founded upon the Apostles' teachings we have in the New Testament. This is not a confession believing in Rome's positions, but in the Biblical position of there being only one body of Christ.

Quite honestly, they are widely accepted as Christian. Just because they don't fit your theology doesn't change that. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons are not widely accepted as Christians. For example, The Orthodox Church (2nd largest Christian church) accepts the baptisms of almost every church (e.g. baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.) but requires Mormons to be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy.

== Beliefs ==

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect, or incomplete. Not all Christian denominations have the "born again" stance. In some branches of Calvinism, for example, everything is predetermined. No need to be "born again". The Catholic church has also a different interpretation. I guess the orthodox too. What the article describes here is just an anabaptist view, by no means the mainstream view. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

--You are inaccurate. Calvinism does believe in the need for regeneration and being born again. Calvinism is inconsistent, however, and is a good example of what happens when we arrive at a wrong understanding of doctrine, and then try to develop a system of belief around that concept. It would be a natural consequence that if everything is predetermined, there would be no need to be born-again, as you say. Calvinism sees that would be contrary to Scripture, and tries to work around this, but is not able to do so and still arrive at correct doctrine. We should be willing to reject those teachings of our leaders which prove to contradict Holy Scripture. It is inspired by God and inerrant; we are sinful humans,and easily err.

If a denomination does not "have the born-again stance", it is not a Christian denomination, at least on that doctrine. All believers are born-again, regenerated by God at the moment of their belief in Jesus. The sole place of revelation about these issues is in Scripture, and the data must be interpreted correctly, or we arrive at false conclusions, which are un-orthodox and heretical.--[[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] 14:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: You have a very evangelical view of the Christianity. But is not the only one. In Catholic church you indeed become a new person when you are baptized, but this can happen as an infant. No need to be "born-again" at later age. Also, Scripture is in Catholic Church only one of the sources, the Cathechism is also important. The Scripture can not be freely interpreted, but the Vatican has an important say in how to live the faith. You position is very protestant or evangelical, but it is just part of the picture. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

The previous few versions were build on [[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] view on Christianity. These view were by no means inclusive. If bible study leads you to a certin conclusion, then it good for for the individual, but its quite a stretch to claim that others are misled, or mistaken. This entry should include all denominations. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)
:Where does a Christian denomination end and a non-Christian sect feigning Christianity (i.e., a cult) begin? Are Mormons Christians on your view? They stretch a LOT of things, but it is just a matter of degree, right? This is a slippery slope I don't think we should risk traipsing on. If Conservapedia is to live up to its name, it can't be "inclusive" of everyone who calls themselves Christian. The Bible clearly states that the only way to God and Heaven is through belief in the sacrifice of Christ. There will always be those who attempt to take passages out of context (Romans 2:14-16 is a popular victim of this) but that shouldn't get in our way of reporting plain truths. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 18:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Mormons are Christian, if you like it or not. Catholics could also claim that you should all adhere to what the pope says and stop interpreting the scripture as you like. But it doesn't belong here either, because it divisive. The current entry clearly states that different denominations have different views. If you want to put forward the views of your particular denomination, create a new entry on it, put your stuff there, and add a link it to the list of denominations on the Christianity page. If you want to criticize Mormons, create an entry on Mormons, describe them neutrlly, and add a section on criticism on Mormon teachings. But let this page be as inclusive as possible. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

== "the only way to God." ==

In Romans 2:14-16 we read "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" You have Paul saying that those people who have not heard the law will still be allowed into heaven (and to God) if their life is sufficiently good. One need not only go through Jesus. I will also point to a more controversial translation of Acts 16:17. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#yng Young's Literal translation] reads "she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'" The word [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=17&strongs=3598&page= hodos] is literaly translated as 'a way' - '''a''' course of conduct, '''a''' way of thinking, feeling, deciding, '''a''' travelled way, road. To say that the Bible is the only way contradicts what was written by Paul. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Twisting facts==

This article is very one sided with its representation of the statistics given by the Harris poll that is sourced. Having looked through the source it is clear that only the stats that praise Christianity. For example the article states that "99% of all American Christians believe in God". but fails to mention that the source informs us that just 90% of Americans believe in God. All of the stats given are of the percentage of people that believe in God, which is very bias, as it doesnt show the full picture. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: This article is about Christians and their beliefs. Therefore, only the numbers from the poll on the beliefs of Christians are of interest here. The numbers for non-Christians and average Americans are still interesting, but if you think they are important, add them to the appropriate articles on "Americans" or "Non-Christians". This has nothing to with bias, but just that the article should stick to its subject ''Christianity'', and not wander off in all kinds of directions.

== Are Evangelicals the only Christians? ==

I just noticed that the artcile on Christianity turned into an evangelical sermon. The Nicean creed is the smallest common demoniator, therefore useful to include, but there is more. The artcile has become less enceeclopedic as it used to be, and omits the little fact that, for example, Catholics do not share the evangelical view on salvation and atonement. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:35 (AEST)

==Revert==
I think a revert is needed. This article has become less informative more a call to christians to a particularly baptist position. I think it needs to be slimmed down and made less opinion based. I'm quite partial to my last edit. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my changes have made the article's tone more neutral and factual. I still read a distinctly protestant, southern baptist tone, however. It still rambles a bit, but after my changes it still rambles less. There should also be mention of "fringe" denominations like LDS, Jehova's witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anglican ==

Is Anglican Communion part of Protestant Christianity? I think they are not Protestant. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the answer.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==History==

Um... Why doesn't the article include ANYTHING on Christian history?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Etymology==

"Jesus Christ" is not actually Jesus's name. Both "Christ" and "Christianity" come from the Greek word "Christos", meaning "Savior" --Noam Samuel