Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Islam

2009-04-27T23:28:48Z

Bloodsliver: /* Islam and Christianity */ liberal Christian's are still Christian

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a seventh century [[Arab]] religious and [[politics|political]] figure. The word "Islam" means "submission [to Allah]" in [[Arabic language|Arabic]].

A follower of Islam is called a Muslim or Moslem, a term which means "one who submits (to God)". The older term [[Mohammedan]] means "follower of Muhammad", and has been used for centuries. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. State University of New York Press, 1992.</ref>. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be [[God]]'s last and greatest [[prophet]]. The faith teaches that the [[Archangel]] [[Gabriel]] appeared to him.

Muslims believe that God ("Allah", '''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) revealed the [[Qur'an]] (or Koran) to Muhammad and, despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it <ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an is considered to be the pure and [[holy]] word of God. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]]. Islam claims to trace its roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Based upon this belief, [[the Bible]], [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]], is believed to have become corrupted as well.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]
Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.5 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates, in both Muslim-majority and other countries . Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

Many believe that Islam is, with [[Atheism]], currently the greatest threat to [[Christianity]] and [[Christian values]], <ref>[http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1134840164.htm Is Islam a Threat to Christianity?]</ref><ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/8/183305.shtml Islam's Threat to the West]</ref><ref>[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/stock/050413 Why Islam Hates Christianity]</ref> and the overwhelming majority of modern [[terrorist|terrorists]] are Muslims. It should be noted that only a small extremist sect of Muslims participate in this activity, using the concept of "Jihad" (Holy War), to justify their actions.

==Historical Background==
According to Islamic belief, in 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], in the Arabian desert (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] to "recite" the message of [[Allah]] (Arabic for God). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgement day. The message to Muhammad was to be God's last; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muhammad's forces starting attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632. It is believed that Muhammed is the last Prophet.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]
Tribal elders elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through the sword into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name apparently taken from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God. Some utterances that Mohammed was unsure about, dubbed the Satanic verses, would later be incorporated in a novel in modern times by [[Salmon Rushdie]] who would then be subject to a death degree from the leader of Iran for his writing.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Amirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners. It is hard to know the truth. Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
For the most part, the Qur'an treats men and [[woman|women]] equally, applies the same injunctions and prohibitions to men and women, and grants many of the same privileges and benefits. But women are treated separately in certain instances. For example, women are required to "... draw their outer garments around them ... that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed (by men)." (Qur'an 33:59) Covering the head and body in public (hijab) is viewed by many Muslim women as a protection of their modesty, a way to discourage men's covetous eyes. The principle of hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and regular "street clothes" may be voluntary and acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the only two Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of modest garb.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, and point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, and point to past Christian-dominated cultures such as medieval Europe as examples that other religions can be distorted to justify oppression.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Some critics claim that Muslim men oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities. Defenders of some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect, not constrict, women, or that many Muslim women adopt the life style of the veil voluntarily. There are Muslim women who agree and disagree with the critics.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the Dome of the Rock mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims are proscribed from drinking alcoholic beverages. Observant Muslims do not collect interest.

====Non-Muslim Practices====
Some practices have been associated with Islam because they occur in Islamic countries, but actually are not a part of Islam. For example, female circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an, but is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" but not obligatory condition. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, notably in Eritrea, Yemen, and Egypt. Another example of a practice that has been associated incorrectly with Islam is honor killing, in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that dishonored the family through unmarried pregnancy or promiscuous behavior. The "honor killing" is more ancient and possibly tribalistic pagan in origin.

==Islam and Christianity==
While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him and his mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified:

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."

Qur'an 5:73-75

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.

Both Islam and the majority of Christianity accept the theory of [[intelligent design]] as correct, and do not recognize [[evolution]]ist views.

==Islam and Paganism==

Although Muslims profess belief in a single [[God]], some believe Islam has its roots in an earlier polytheistic system.<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/]</ref> By this thinking God is linked to an earlier moon deity, although it should be brought up that there is no mention of this in the Qur'an, where Allah is cited as the God of [[Abraham]].<ref>The Qur'an, Sura 37 [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Quran-Allamah-Nooruddin/dp/0963206702]</ref><ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]].]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}

Sharia law is used in many modern Islamic theocracies and prescribes very harsh treatments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death.<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

----
''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]

==Prominent Muslims==
*[[Muhammad]]
*[[Muhammad Ali]]
*[[Ahmed Deedat]]
*[[Yusef Islam]]
*[[Prince Naseem Hamed]]
*[[Rezazadeh Hossein]]
*[[Ayatollah Khomeini]]
*[[Ayatollah Khamenei]]
*[[Mohammad Khatami]]
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]
*President [[Barack Hussein Obama]] (suspected)

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Unitarian Universalist Association

2009-04-27T23:07:49Z

Bloodsliver: /* Beliefs */ wording din't seem right. "In this land of make-believe, dead and dry, You're so cold, but you feel alive" i love that song.

The '''Unitarian Universalist Association''' was formed in 1961 by a merger between the main body of American Unitarians and the Universalist Association of America. The Unitarians emerged from the [[Congregationalism|Congregational]] denomination about 1800. In recent decades turnover has been very high, as people use it as a vehicle to leave or enter other Christian denominations. In 2002 the denomination reported 1010 churches with 215,000 full members and 1267 pastors.
==Beliefs==
It is a liberal, nondoctrinal denomination, whose members' beliefs can be summarized as follows:

'''God'''--There is a God who created and watches over the universe.

'''Jesus'''--There are no incarnations of God, or that all incarnations are the embodiment of God, or Jesus is God's Son, or Jesus is not Son but God's chief prophet.

'''Creation'''--Most say the ''Bible'' is a holy book of great symbolic value, but not to be taken literally.

'''Heaven'''--Heaven and hell are symbolic and are not actual places, or are states of consciousness either in life or continuing after death.

'''Sin'''--Most reject original sin. People are inherently good but immoral behavior comes from free will.

'''Satan''' is a metaphor and does not actually exist.

==Politics==
The Unitarian Universalism Association takes liberal positions on most issues. For example they hold that women should be free to choose abortion. They argue for equality for homosexuals, gender equality, and work to end poverty, promote peace and nonviolence, and environmental protection.
==Creed==
Unitarian Universalists lack a single creed or dogma, but is organized around the following seven principles:

# The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
# Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
# Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
# A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
# The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
# The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
# Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part
==Europe==
see [[Unitarians]]

==Unitarian history==
In the United States, ''Unitarianism'' is also an informal name for the beliefs of a religious denomination, originally the ''American Unitarian Association,'' known since its 1961 merger with the Universalists as the ''Unitarian Universalist Association.'' Members of the denomination are often called "Unitarians", although members of the organization, not wishing to overlook Universalism, prefer to call themselves "U-Us." The Unitarians appealed to a Harvard-educated Boston elite, while Universalism was common in the hard-scrable farmers f remore New England villages.

The American Unitarian Association was founded in 1825, based on principles espoused in the sermons of [[William Ellery Channing]], notably an 1819 sermon entitled "Unitarian Christianity."<ref>[http://www.transcendentalists.com/unitarian_christianity.htm Unitarian Christianity], text of Channing's sermon</ref>

Unitarians emerged primarily within the Congregational churches of New England, in reaction against the excessive emotionalism of the [[First Great Awakening]] (from 1734) and subsequent revivals. Unitarians were rationalists who distrusted emotionalism and saw revivals as unholy. A sharp division emerged between the liberals and conservatives within Congregationalism; in 1805 the Hollis Professorship of Divinity at Harvard College was filled by Unitarian Henry Ware. The bitter debate that ensued was responsible for a great number of schisms among the New England churches. The most celebrated leader of the new liberal theology was [[William Ellery Channing]], especially for his sermon "Unitarian Christianity" at Baltimore in 1819. The American Unitarian Association was formed in 1825 as an organization of individuals; not till 1865 was a conference of churches formed. The philosophical movement of [[Transcendentalism]], typified by [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], further liberalized the Unitarian churches, as a result of the influence of Emerson and [[Theodore Parker]]. They vigorously championed the abolition of slavery and many other reforms. Parker brought to the denomination a social consciousness and a political activism that has continued strong through the years.

Unitarians moved throughout the [[Yankee]] diaspora, and became leading citizens in the upper Midwest. Many were active against slavery. Many leading literary and scientific figures have been Unitarians, including Emerson's contemporaries [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] (1809–1894), a poet who was the father of the justice; and Henry W. Longfellow (1807-1882), along with many scholars and educators. Unitarians include four presidents : [[John Adams]], [[John Quincy Adams]], [[Millard Fillmore]], and [[William Howard Taft]].

===Channing===
William Ellery Channing reacted against Calvinism, and at first tried to bridge the gulf between Unitarians and Trinitarians. Although he resisted the idea, there was a transcendental element in Channing's religious outlook. It stemmed from the Puritan tradition and 18th-century rationalism, and produced a belief of human perfectibility expressed in rational vocabulary.

Channing, in his 1819 sermon "Unitarian Christianity," did much to define Unitarianism. Channing described Jesus as a man sent by God to inspire moral excellence on earth by his exemplary virtue. Thus the connection between God, Jesus, and human beings was moral, with God's universal love transmitted throughout. Therefore, there was no need for the distinctions of a Trinity. Influences on Channing toward this Christology included the writings of [[Francis Hutcheson]] and Joseph Butler.<ref> Nian-Sheng Huang, "William Ellery Channing's Christology and Moral Power: Rereading 'Unitarian Christianity.'" ''Journal of Unitarian Universalist History'' 1999 26: 1-17.</ref>
===Parker===
Unitarian minister Theodore Parker (1810-60) viewed religion as an instinctive expression of human needs. Critics say he was following German philosopher [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] (1804-72) from Hegelian idealism into speculative atheism. Parker did agree with Feuerbach that religion was a spontaneous affair of the heart, but whereas Feuerbach believed that such concepts as God were an illusion without foundation, Parker consistently affirmed that human religious sentiment actually made the transcendent reality of God accessible to human beings.<ref> Elisabeth Hurth, "From Idealism To Atheism: Theodore Parker and Ludwig Feuerbach." ''Journal of Unitarian Universalist History'' 1999 26: 18-46. </ref>

===Emerson===
[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] was the most important American intellectual of the 1830s-1850s. His influence was greater outside religious circles than inside--[[Abraham Lincoln]] read him closely.

A copy of [[David Friedrich Strauss]]'s ''Leben Jesu'' (1835), which argued that Jesus was not the sole prophet but that all human beings are the incarnation of the Word, reached Boston in 1836-37. It disturbed most Unitarians but inspired Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was struggling to see the authority of Christianity in the message and not the messenger, to deliver his 1838 "Divinity School Address," in which he followed Unitarian assumptions in transcending Christianity itself. The controversy that greeted Emerson's "Divinity School Address" was a symptom of the erosion of basic assumptions about religion, truth, and social order. Strauss inspired Emerson, who was struggling to see the authority of Christianity in the message and not the messenger. Emerson's radical assertion of the individual's ability to perceive spiritual truth without the aid of scripture both reflected and contributed to a growing split between liberal and conservative tendencies in Unitarian theology. But the address became a sensation throughout Boston because Emerson's transcendentalist attack on institutional religious authority resonated with two political movements of the 1830s that similarly challenged the political, cultural, and moral authority of Boston elites. Although Unitarianism began as an insurgency against what it considered stale Congregationalist orthodoxy, when Emerson asserted that [[Transcendentalism]] implied that Unitarianism should reject the veracity of Christian miracles, moderate Unitarians asserted the existence of a new Unitarian orthodoxy that excluded Emerson's radical ideas.
===Radicalism===
The "Free Enquirers", led by former Universalist minister Abner Kneeland, an associate of the radical [[Frances Wright]], linked freethinking on social issues with a Tom-Paine-like radicalism akin to the Workingmen's movement. Abolitionists led by Unitarian [[William Lloyd Garrison]] made a broad-based assault on legal authority, attacking even the legitimacy of the Constitution. This emergent discursive pluralism reflected the pervasive effects of the transformations wrought by Jacksonian politics.<ref> Mary Kupiec Cayton, "Toward a Democratic Politics of Meaning-Making: The Transcendentalist Controversy and the Rise of Pluralist Discourse in Jacksonian Boston." ''Prospects'' 2000 25: 35-68. 0361-2333 </ref>
===Darwinism===
Unitarians were among the first to accept Darwinian [[evolution]] views as applied to religion and "higher criticism" of the Bible and have continued to modify their theology to accord with new fads. Since the 1930s the Unitarians have been influenced greatly by religious humanism--the belief that mankind should set aside unsolvable theological problems and concentrate on the application of the scientific method to the task of creating a better life

===Modernity===
The Unitarian-Trinitarian controversy reflected the tensions created by modernization and urbanization in New England. Some Congregationalist ministers rejected the modernity of the Unitarians and fought back in the name of traditional rural values. The Connecticut Congregationalist minister Elizur Wright, Jr. protested against the loss of traditional values and issued a bitter cultural and theological indictment of Unitarianism. Wright castigated Unitarians for their personal corruption, bigotry, fanaticism and alcoholism. Adamant over the bitter verdict rendered in the Dedham pulpit case (1820), which favored the Unitarians, Wright attacked the Unitarians as a wealthy social elite, composed of lawyers and centered in evil Boston, who intended to destroy Christ's true church.<ref> Lawrence B. Goodheart and Richard O. Curry, "The Trinitarian Indictment of Unitarianism: The Letters of Elizur Wright, Jr., 1826-1827." ''Journal of the Early Republic'' 1983 3(3): 281-296. 0275-1275 </ref>

Unitarianism spread rapidly in Boston and other upscale urban areas of eastern Massachusetts during 1803-35, but it did not prosper in rural western Massachusetts, despite the efforts of missionaries funded by the newly formed American Unitarian Association. This occurred in part due to a lack of money, entrenched orthodox theologies in the region, the competition of the Universalists, and a greater ease of communication with ministers from orthodox theological schools.<ref> Conrad Wright, "Unitarian Beginnings in Western Massachusetts." ''Proceedings Of The Unitarian Universalist Historical Society'' 1989 21(2): 27-40. </ref>

===European positivism===
European positivism had a major impact on Unitarian intellectuals. Positivism in its English and French versions was eagerly received by many, and, for some, it helped undermine the Old Unitarianism and suggested forms for the New. Unitarians never adopted European positivism totally; rather, they selected those segments which fit their needs and often modified their original composition in the process. One from whom they borrowed heavily was French philosopher [[Auguste Comte]], who with F. C. Baur, James Martineau and [[Charles Darwin]] were important in the transformation from Old to New Unitarianism.<ref> Charles D. Cashdollar, "European Positivism and the American Unitarians." ''Church History'' 1976 45(4): 490-506. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3164350 in JSTOR]</ref>
===Seminary===
Harvard Divinity School was the main seminary in the east. The Meadville Theological School was established in Meadville, pennsylvania, 1844 in order to train Unitarian ministers to work in the West. The chief founder was Harm Jan Huidekoper, a local businessman and land agent, who believed that the West was ripe for conversion to religious liberalism. His son Frederic, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, taught at the new institution during 1844-77. Rufus Phineas Stebbins, president from the school's establishment to 1856, initiated a program of studies modelled on Harvard's. Stebbins devoted much energy to developing ties with the [[Christian Connection]], a nearby church which was a major source of theology students. The entente with the Christian Connection began to deteriorate in 1848, but Stebbins continued to seek an accommodation with that body, and became a member of its Western Reserve Conference. However, the alliance was short-lived, and the Unitarians did not have great success in winning western adherents.<ref> Bruce M. Stephens, "Liberals in the Wilderness: The Meadville Theological School, 1844-1856." ''Pennsylvania History'' 1975 42(4): 291-302. 0031-4528 </ref>
===African Americans===
Unitarians were leaders of the abolition movement and always advocated racial equality, but never attracted many black members. One exception was civil rights leader [[Whitney M. Young]], Jr. (1921-71), director of the [[Urban League]] during 1961-71. He bemae intellectually attracted to Unitarianism in the 1940s, and was a member of Unitarian churches from the 1950s until his death. While the white Unitarian denomination was proud to claim and honor him, in 1963 Young was bitterly disappointed that the denomination refused to deny privileges to churches maintaining racial segregation. He was also disappointed in the separatism of the Black Power movement in the denomination in 1967-70. Shaken by the discrepancy between the professed values of unity and the reality of division in the denomination, and caught in a religious dilemma between the intellectual Unitarianism that he believed in and the culture of the separate black church that increasingly nourished him, Young died in 1971 with his inner religious tension unresolved.<ref> Dennis C. Dickerson, "Black Leader in a White Denomination: Whitney M. Young and the Unitarians." ''Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 1998 25: 26-40. </ref>

===Universalists===
While the Unitarians of the 19th century were upscale well-educated city people, the Universalists were farmers in the backwoods of New England.

A major controversy set New England Universalist ministers, led by [[Hosea Ballou]], against the and Restorationists, led by Edward Turner, Paul Dean, and Jacob Wood. It began in 1801 and reached crisis proportions during 1817-24. The Universalists believed there was no punishment after death and the Restorationists held as an article of faith that a purifying punishment followed death.<ref> Peter Hughes, "The Restorationist Controversy: Its Origins and First Phase, 1801-1824." ''Journal of Unitarian Universalist History'' 2000 27: 1-57. </ref>

Social status differentials kept the two groups apart until the 1950s, when they formed a Council of Liberal Churches as a preliminary step to merger. They merged in 1961.

==Beliefs==
Unitarian Universalism is noncreedal. A Unitarian Universalist minister answers the question "Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?" with a forthright "Yes and no."<ref name=wesley>[http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html Our Unitarian Universalist Faith: Frequently Asked Questions], Alice Blair Wesley</ref> She notes that "At a Unitarian Universalist worship service or meeting, you are likely to find members whose positions on faith may be derived from a variety of religious beliefs: [[Jewish]], [[Christian]], [[Buddhist]], naturist, [[atheist]], or [[agnostic]]. Members might tell you that they are religious [[humanist]]s, [[liberal Christians]], or world religionists."

Many small-town Unitarian church structures are picturesque white-painted frame structures of the sort that are emblematic of New England. They are likely to have a rainbow flag flying in front however, as the denomination is at the forefront in welcoming [[homosexuality|same-sex couples]]; one U-U pamphlet is entitled "Unitarian Universalism, A Religious Home for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender People."<ref>[http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3065.html Barbara L. Pescan, "Unitarian Universalism, A Religious Home for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender People"], </ref>

As one sermon put it:
:"Sometimes we act as if we believe we can effect a complete separation of our liberal faith and our politics. Some of us confuse liberal religion with liberal politics and seem to operate under the belief that if we are registered with the Democratic party we have fulfilled our religious obligations in the public sphere. Both these beliefs are actually false. I say this even though I myself have at different times acted as if I believed one of these two things."<ref>[http://www.uunewbedford.org/excerpt.htm Dan Harper, "An Election-day Sermon for Religious Liberals"] </ref>.

The ''American Unitarian Conference,'' founded in 2000, believes the Unitarian Universalists have departed from the "Unitarian Christianity" of Channing. The splinter group regards itself as a "reborn" version of the American Unitarian Association, which it says "disbanded" in 1961 when it merged with the Universalists.<ref>[http://www.americanunitarian.org/ American Unitarian Conference: Promoting the American Unitarian Tradition]</ref>

==Unitarian Universalists and Christianity==
A Unitarian minister has answered the question "Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?" in these words:<ref name=wesley/>
:Yes and no.
:Yes, some Unitarian Universalists are Christian. Personal encounter with the spirit of Jesus as the Christ richly informs their religious lives.
:No, Unitarian Universalists are not Christian, if by Christian you mean those who think that acceptance of any creedal belief whatsoever is necessary for salvation. Unitarian Universalist Christians are considered heretics by those orthodox Christians who claim none but Christians are "saved." (Fortunately, not all the orthodox make that claim.)
:Yes, Unitarian Universalists are Christian in the sense that both Unitarian and Universalist history are part of Christian history. Our core principles and practices were first articulated and established by liberal Christians.
:Some Unitarian Universalists are not Christian. For though they may acknowledge the Christian history of our faith, Christian stories and symbols are no longer primary for them. They draw their personal faith from many sources: nature, intuition, other cultures, science, civil liberation movements, and so on.

==External Links==
*[http://www.uua.org/ Official Website]
* [http://www.questia.com/library/religion/unitarianism.jsp full text of scholarly books at Questia]
===Video Testimonials by Members===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15R3EFI3BJU&feature=related ''Why I Am Unitarian Universalist''] (Part 1)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-m4By4yHo&feature=related ''Why I Am Unitarian Universalist''] (Part 2)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq8kzuy2a3M&NR=1 ''What Unitarian Universalists Believe''] (Puppet show)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezp1W2HKlU&feature=related ''Voices of a Liberal Faith - Unitarian Universalists''] (testimonials and clips from actual services)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh0TY4gig_Q&annotation_id=annotation_531002&feature=iv ''Unitarian Universalism: You're a Uni-What?''] (Apologetic video, defending itself against religious denomination confusion such as "a cat with a hat")

==Further reading==
* Albanese, Catherine L. ''Transcendental Religion and the New America'' (1977)
* Buehrens, John A.. and Forrest Church. ''A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-Faith-Introduction-Unitarian-Universalism/dp/0807016179/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233546268&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Bumbaugh, David, ''Unitarian Universalism: A Narrative History'' (2001)
* Hewett, Phillip. ''Unitarians in Canada: How the Unitarians Have Exerted a Powerful Influence on Canadian Life for over 150 Years.'' (1978). 390 pp.
* Robinson, David. ''The Unitarians and Universalists.'' (1985). 368 pp.
* Smith, Leonard. ''The Unitarians: A Short History'' (2008)
* Stange, Douglas C. ''Patterns of Antislavery among American Unitarians, 1831-1860.'' (1977). 308 pp.
* Williams, George H. "American Universalism, a Bicentennial Historical Essay" ''Journal of the Universalist Historical Society'' v.9#1 pp 1-94, the best history

====references====
<references/>

[[category:religion]]
[[category:Christian Denominations]]

User:Bloodsliver

2009-03-16T01:50:39Z

Bloodsliver:

hi my name is duo and I am a (sorta)liberal hear to play the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate Devil's advocate]
im a Eagle Scout and like reading, anime, scouting, editing wikis, astronomy, nature, soccer\hockey, history, and mythology

== other pages ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blood_sliver wikipedia] 
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Blood_sliver

Gundam

2008-10-26T02:47:48Z

Bloodsliver: that was a duble redirect

#REDIRECT [[Japanese animation]]

Gundam

2008-10-26T02:46:53Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[anime]]

User:Bloodsliver

2008-10-10T03:05:51Z

Bloodsliver: just cleaning

hi my name is duo and I am a freethinking, liberal pagan hear to make pages look better with formating and play the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate Devil's advocate]
im a Eagle Scout and like reding, anime, scouting, editing wikis, astronomy, nature, soccer\hockey, history, and mythology

== other pages ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blood_sliver wikipedia] 
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Blood_sliver

Talk:Mormon

2008-10-05T00:36:52Z

Bloodsliver:

The polygamy entry is wrong, the Church of Latter Day Saints has banned polygamy for over a century. Only small splinter groups maintain that practice. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 04:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
 Should there be something linking to [[Mitt Romney]] in the See also thing?--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 20:36, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Indestructible

2008-08-12T18:49:46Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[disturbed]]

Down With The Sickness

2008-08-12T18:42:18Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[disturbed]]

Disturbed

2008-08-12T18:40:39Z

Bloodsliver: chicago

'''Disturbed''' is a popular alternative metal [[band]] from in [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]]. They spawned many hits such as "Down With The Sickness" and "Stricken".

[http://www.disturbed1.com/| band homepage]

[[category:bands]]

Disturbed

2008-08-12T18:30:20Z

Bloodsliver: added bands site

'''Disturbed''' is a popular alternative metal [[band]] from [[Illinois]]. They spawned many hits such as "Down With The Sickness" and "Stricken".

[http://www.disturbed1.com/| band homepage]

[[category:bands]]

ManBearPig

2008-04-08T22:26:28Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[South Park]]

Tenderfoot Scout

2008-04-08T22:22:38Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Boy Scouts of America]]

First Class

2008-04-08T22:20:39Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Boy Scouts of America]]

Star Scout

2008-04-08T22:18:53Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Boy Scouts of America]]

Puberty

2008-04-08T22:16:01Z

Bloodsliver: See Also secshon

'''Puberty''' is a period, mainly in the teenage years where [[boy]]s and [[girl]]s begin developing adult characteristics.

In girls, it is shown by:
*[[Breast]] development
*Widening of the hips (to deliver babies)
*Beginning of [[menstruation]]

In boys, it is shown by:
*Appearance of facial hair and body hair
*Widening of the shoulders
*Deepening of the voice

== See Also ==
[[hormones]]

[[Category:Health]]

Puberty

2008-04-08T22:07:59Z

Bloodsliver: format and removed link

Talk:Jesus Christ

2008-03-31T00:40:06Z

Bloodsliver:

==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)
----

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>

== 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)

== 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)

== 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

== 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

Adult Swim

2008-03-30T15:49:15Z

Bloodsliver: replased athf with Family Guy becals it is more widley known has its own artical and athf is on hiatis

'''Adult Swim''' is late night programming featuring a myriad of not quite family friendly (i.e., adult-oriented), humorous cartoons with a mix of [[anime]]. Some of the more prominent featured shows include Robot Chicken and [[Family Guy]].

It runs after 10:30 PM Monday-Thursday, after 11 PM Saturday, and after 10 PM Sunday on the [[Cartoon Network]]. The shows vary in ratings, from TV-PG to TV-MA. Adult Swim began airing September 2, 2001, and in March 2005 was split from Cartoon Network completely for ratings reasons.<ref>http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/6516.html</ref>

Adult Swim has proven its strength by continuously being the highest rated programming for young adults and men.<ref>http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1179981,00.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:broadcasting]]

Boy Scouts of America

2008-03-25T02:13:18Z

Bloodsliver: grammer

The '''Boy Scouts of America''' was founded on February 8, 1910 by James West. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Lieutenant-General [[Robert Baden-Powell|Sir Robert Baden-Powell]], a hero of the Boer Wars, founded the Boy Scouts.

Today the Scout Movement is the largest voluntary youth group in the world. Its membership exceeds 28 million, counting boys and girls. Most (95 of 155 National Scout Organizations) are now mixed at at least some ages.

Baden-Powell wrote in a pamphlet "Scouting & Christianity" (1917): "Scouting is nothing less than applied Christianity." Since then, various Scouting Organizations have been founded for members of other religions, or which are not specific to any religion.

Many presidents have praised and addressed the Boy Scouts over the years. President [[Calvin Coolidge]] said this to a group of Boy Scouts in 1924:

<blockquote>The three fundamentals of scouthood are reverence for nature ... reverence for law ... and reverence for God. It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Doubters do not achieve. ... No man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is part of an unending plan.</blockquote>

In designing the Scouting program, Baden-Powell drew ideas from the Japanese warrior's code or "[[bushido]]", on educational methods of the African Zulu tribes, on the Victorian "ragged schools" movement, and the educational methods of Montessori.<ref>Baden-Powell, ''Scouting for Boys"[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0192805479&id=LdtVxcFpWFQC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&ots=j1TxsQhuis&dq=baden-powell+scouting+bushido&sig=6nhFG3I_TD7AB0mP7lzSHebCT7c#PPA44,M1]</ref><ref>[http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-bp.htm Robert Baden-Powell as an Educational Innovator</ref>

==Cub Scouting==

Cub Scouting is a program in place for boys who are not yet old enough to be Boy Scouts. Cub Scouts range in grade level from first to fifth grade. Cub Scout units are referred to as "packs" rather than "troops", and packs subdivide further into groups known as "dens" often led by "den mothers". Fourth and fifth grade Cub Scouts are called "Webelos", <ref>The acronym, thought up in the early 40s, does NOT presently stand for "Wolf, Bear, Lion, Scout" as before; it now stands for "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts!". [http://www.infinetivity.com/~blkeagle/webelos.htm]</ref>
and one of the main goals of the Webelos program is to transition boys from Cub Scouting to Boy Scouting. The highest award that a Cub Scout can earn is the Arrow of Light Award, which is also the only Scouting award that can remain on a Boy Scout's uniform from his Cub Scouting days.

==The Scout Oath & Law==
'''Scout Law:'''<blockquote>
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, kind, courteous, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
</blockquote>
'''Scout Oath'''<blockquote>On my honor, I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my
country, and to obey the Scout Law, To help other people at all
times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally
straight.</blockquote>

The Scout Oath & Law are the guiding principles of Scouting, and are generally recited at the beginning or end of a Troop meeting.

==Ranks==
The requirements and order of the BSA ranks have changed over the years, although the names have only changed little. The current order is as follows:
* Tenderfoot
* Second Class
* First Class
* Star Scout
* Life Scout
* Eagle Scout

==Rank of Eagle Scout==

The highest rank that may be attained by a Boy Scout is that of Eagle Scout, which 2% of Scouts nationwide earn. <ref>http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0410/d-news.html</ref> One of the requirements for this rank is leading a service project to benefit either the community at large, or a specific non-profit organization, such as a school or a church. Other requirements include earning at least 21 merit badges (earned over the span of the last three ranks - including 12 predetermined ones), being active in the troop for a minimum amount of time, holding a position of leadership within one's troop, and appearing before a Board of Review. All of the requirements for an Eagle Board of Review must be completed before a candidate's 18th birthday (although exceptions may be made for Scouts with mental disabilities), although the Board of Review may occur after this date. Some notable Eagle Scouts include:

*[[Neil Armstrong]]
*[[Marion Barry]]
*[[Lloyd Bentsen]]
*[[Stephen Breyer]]
*[[Mike Crapo]]
*[[James Dale]]
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gerald Ford]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[John Murtha]]
*[[Ross Perot]]
*[[Rick Perry]]
*[[Donald Rumsfeld]]
*[[Gordon Smith]]
*[[Steven Spielberg]]
*[[Sam Walton]]

==Controversy==

As some consider a result of their strong adherence to traditional Christian morality, the Boy Scouts of America have come under criticism for their policy regarding [[homosexuals]]. As stated in a press release from the organization:<ref>http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2002/020206/index.html</ref>

::The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.

This has led to several high profile lawsuits, such as the one brought by the ACLU of San Diego<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/boy_scouts/boy_scouts_082800.html</ref>, which proposes that the discriminatory practices of the organization should make them ineligible for the use of public funds or public lands.

Prohibition of homosexual scout leaders is not universal within the BSA, however. The Massachusetts Minuteman Council, for example, adopted a bylaw in 2001 barring exclusion of anyone on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. The bylaw, which resembles the U. S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, permits homosexuals to lead troops so long as they do not discuss their sexual orientation. A few other councils have similar policies.<ref>[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010802/ai_n13920546 Mass. Scouts permit gay leaders], Chicago Sun-Times, Aug 2, 2001</ref>

Atheist Scouts have also been removed from the organization on the basis of the twelfth point of the Scout Law being "reverent". <ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/116/story_11619_1.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Service Organizations]]
[[category: U.S. Government Chartered Organizations]]

User:Bloodsliver

2008-03-23T03:40:32Z

Bloodsliver:

hi my name is duo and I am a freethinking, liberal pagan hear to make pages look better with formating and play the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate| Devil's advocate]
im a Eagle Scout and like reding, anime, scouting, editing wikis, astronomy, nature, soccer\hockey, history, mythology and hentai(sorry addicted)

== other pages ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blood_sliver| wikipedia]

Talk:Boy Scouts of America

2008-03-23T03:28:43Z

Bloodsliver: /* Scouting and Christianity? */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Scouting and Christianity?==
Baden-Powell may well have said "Scouting is applied Christianity," but I am not so sure that the modern BSA should be associated with Christianity, as in the sentence
:As a result of their strong adherence to traditional Christian morality...

It seems to me that the Boys Scouts are better characterized, not as Christian, but as embracing the sort of "generic religion" espoused by Benjamin Franklin. The [http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv BSA mission and vision statements] mention God and reverence, but make no reference to Christianity. BSA fact sheets include titles such as

*[http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-209.html Scouting in the Buddhist community]
*[http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-928.html Scouting in the Islamic community]
*[http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-547.html Scouting serves the Jewish community]

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:20, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Interesting points, but this seems to be on the fringe of Scouting. Christian schools often welcome non-Christians also. In the U.S., Boy Scouts tend to be overwhelmingly Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 23 February 2007 (EST)

*Not the troop my son was in! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

I think that the comment about Christian morality can be interpreted in a couple different ways. In a nutshell, BSA is based upon Christian morality, even though there is no "official" requirement within the program that Scouts be a Christian. Although I did have to switch troops because one troop would not let me advance because I was a Baptist rather than a Nazarene. Religious emblems are awarded to Christians, and for other religions as well. I know that the religious emblems aren't given out by the BSA, but the BSA literature did reference the pamphlets for the other one. I remember that my troop brought in a speaker once who talked about the twelth point of the Scout law and said that it didn't matter what you believed as long as you believe something. I did come across Jewish and Mormon troops I know the Mormons have strongly embraced the Scouting programs.

However, it's undeniable that the BSA's principled are strongly based upon Christian morality, even if there are a number of non-Christians within the program. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:30, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:"BSA is based upon Christian morality"? Well, I never noticed it. What I did see was a strong basis of respect for the environment, social activism, general "reverent" ecumenism, and paramilitary organization in order to keep everyone safe and "get the job done". [[User:Human|Human]] 02:43, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::National BSA has taken the position that a Scout must believe in a higher power. What that higher power may be is up for interpretation. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:09, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I hate to be the one who wets the blanket but the morals that the BSA upholds are fairly universal and exist outside the christian communityas opposed to only inside, indeed also exist outside any theological community as well. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:37, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

When I was in Scouts, they brought in a speaker who said that you can't be an atheist, but otherwise, they don't care as long as you believe something. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:And yet, you can be an atheist nonetheless. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:45, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

You would just have to keep quiet about it, and when they ask you about your religious beliefs when you're going for Eagle, lie. Part of the process involves a recommendation from a religious leader. If there isn't anybody available to do that for you, you have to write a paper about what you believe. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Dan my point is, you could adhere to a nature based theology and it would technically be alright. Even a pure atheist can have metaphysical beliefs that can be interpreted as a higher power/powers. The BAS is not Judeo-Christian only. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

You could lie and say your Shinto or some thing they wouldn’t want to look up - that’s what I did--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 23:28, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Discuss proposed changes here while the article is locked==

As a protection against vandalism, this article has temporarily been locked from editing. If there's anything you want to change or add to this article, discuss it here or on my TalkPage. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I was just looking around and noticed "Organisations" in the article. It needs to be changed to "organizations." Thanks.

*Thanks! I changed a couple of them, however Conservapedia has now dropped the proibition against UK English spellings. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I was a boy scout =)

==Den mothers==

If that's the case, I had two male den mothers back in the day. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ditto. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Adding Organizational Coherence==

This article does not flow well. I would like to begin re-organizing it, but I will not delete any contributions. I aim to re-organize it and add to it. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Life Scout

2008-03-23T03:22:17Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Boy Scouts of America]]

Talk:Pornography

2008-03-23T03:08:43Z

Bloodsliver: /* Needed fixes */ lik brok

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of p.enises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

shuld be in the Sexual sins catagory--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Addiction ==

Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal wants to help! ==

Okay, I am liberal. I admit it. I accept that conservatives and/or Christians do not like pornography, etc. and I respect your decisions. My ex-boyfriend is a Christian and didn't view porn and was waiting until marriage, etc. so I understand how people like you guys think (we're still friends). As much as I'd love to edit articles like this one, the abortion one, and the cannabis one for content, I understand that this is a conservative website and I would gladly respect that and maintain your right-winged perspectives. I am mainly on this site because I want to broaden my horizons and see what the other side of the arguments are. I'm curious about the right-winged perspective, and even though I don't agree, I respect it and want to understand it.

Now, here's my problem with conservapedia. It's not that this is conservative. You guys have every right to post this conservatively biased stuff because you're up front about it and say you're conservative and don't try to hide it. You display it proudly. More power to you. My problem is that a lot of these entries use vague words like "very bad" or, in the case of this porn article, you say that porn "has an effect." That is quite vague. How is it bad? What are the effects? What is "very" bad? Furthermore, many sentences in this site are just poorly written, grammatically speaking, and it is difficult to read. If you want respect from the liberal world, at least take the time to sound intelligent, back up everything with lots and lots of sources, use good grammar and strong vocabulary. "Very bad" is not a strong choice of words. "Harmful" might be. Then again, once you say "harmful," you'll have to say WHY it's harmful. In the sentence "everything is a perversion of one sort of another" ... well, "of" should be "or." I recognize this is a common typo, but I would love to edit it and make this site better! There's hundreds of entries where it is just poorly written and I'd love to edit it JUST FOR FLUIDITY. In other words, so it's more readable, free from typos and other errors, etc. Also, there are some things which are obviously biased, but I don't think has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, such as the use of "he" in this article. Anyone, male or female, can be desensitized to sex via porn, and as a female who happens to enjoy porn, I think that this article should recognize that people of both genders view porn, and that sex is not as stereotypically male as many people would like you to believe. After all, it takes two...

I've worked with a number of newspapers and I study linguistics. I've won numerous awards for my writing and read countless books on how to persuade people with words and make the most use out of every word. I regularly edit my peer's essays and I do not change their opinions, but make their opinions come across as stronger through a better method of writing. I would love to do this for this website, but unfortunately I am blocked from editing most articles because they are controversial and have been locked. I could probably find other examples of unclear sentences, but I can't remember which articles I have looked at.

Keep up your beliefs. It takes all kinds to make up this world, and we need both conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'd love to help you guys, but you consistently block me. Oh well. Your loss.

Peace.

-Neko1337

:I don't think the number of locked articles are as bad as you seem to think. Surely there are ''some'' that you'd be interested in editing that are not locked. And once the administrators see that you are doing a good job, they might even be willing to unlock articles for you to tidy up.
:I suspect that the original author(s) use male pronouns in a generic way, not specifically indicating males.
:I improved the article a little bit in line with your comments (but I agree it could do with more).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Pornography consumers are overwhelmingly male (by a nearly 3:1 margin), so the only substantive point made by "Neko" above is not persuasive.[http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't know the actual figures, but yes, I had meant to mention something along those lines also. Nevertheless, I gather (it's just an impression) that pornography use by females is on the increase. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I read somewhere (I actually think it was a claim by Pat Robertson, so take it with a grain of salt) that women tend more to read erotic literature.

In any event, I think it's very interesting to present this from both a Christian and an Islamic perspective, as Ed has done here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why porn is actually bad ==
Should we sight more sources for why pornography is bad...maybe we should offer counterpoints to why pornography is bad, then shown arguements against those to make our case stronger. {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}

==Him Vs Her and Person==
Why are all the references to males?
"Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different '''women'''''(my girl isn't interested in women)''; true eros says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person"

"Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes '''him''' more withdrawn, and makes '''him''' view '''others''' ''(and other males?)'' like objects rather than the people they are."

I wanted my girlfriend to look at this page because she does use porn quite regularly much to my disappointment. Its something we are trying to deal with and work through, but the inherit bias toward males in the article has turned her attention to topics of feminism and such and the original point of asking her to read this as been lost on her. --[[User:DjWizard|DjWizard]] 20:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get your point - or if I do, I disagree with it. We assume a porn user is a man, the same way we assume a nurse is a woman. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::And both assumptions would be invalid some of the time. My general answer is that "male" terms are actually generic terms (as "man" is a reference to a member of "mankind"), although some specific instances might bear being reworded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't see oyur problem with you Girlfriend looking at porn, I mean, is it causing any actual relationship problems? {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}
:You don't see a problem with portraying someone in a degrading manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

==Religious perspectives==

Perhaps it's time to re-visit this issue. Much as it is a touchy subject, it does need to be addressed. A well-balanced and scholarly article would explain why it's bad, and not (as "Neko" suggested) merely make general assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography actually lowers rape rate ==

I was looking at statistics for rape rate in Japan, and It would seem that pornography and rape are inversely related. As porn sales go up, rape rates go down. Should we include this in the article? {{unsigned|Bias}}

: "It would seem"—seems rather uncertain to me. Is the source on-line? If so, post it here (on this talk page) and we can look into it further.

No, sorry, it's not online. If you would like, look in to it. [[User:Bias|Bias]] 22:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I do remember seeing an article that pointed out that pornography has become much more widely available in recent years, because of the Internet, and in that same time, the rate for rapes in the U.S. has gone down, although the article pointed out that law enforcement procedures had improved over that time too. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the article or where I saw it, but it's an aspect of the issue that's worth investigating.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Pornography

2008-03-23T03:06:04Z

Bloodsliver: /* Needed fixes */

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of p.enises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

shuld be in the [[Sexual sins]] catagory--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Addiction ==

Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal wants to help! ==

Okay, I am liberal. I admit it. I accept that conservatives and/or Christians do not like pornography, etc. and I respect your decisions. My ex-boyfriend is a Christian and didn't view porn and was waiting until marriage, etc. so I understand how people like you guys think (we're still friends). As much as I'd love to edit articles like this one, the abortion one, and the cannabis one for content, I understand that this is a conservative website and I would gladly respect that and maintain your right-winged perspectives. I am mainly on this site because I want to broaden my horizons and see what the other side of the arguments are. I'm curious about the right-winged perspective, and even though I don't agree, I respect it and want to understand it.

Now, here's my problem with conservapedia. It's not that this is conservative. You guys have every right to post this conservatively biased stuff because you're up front about it and say you're conservative and don't try to hide it. You display it proudly. More power to you. My problem is that a lot of these entries use vague words like "very bad" or, in the case of this porn article, you say that porn "has an effect." That is quite vague. How is it bad? What are the effects? What is "very" bad? Furthermore, many sentences in this site are just poorly written, grammatically speaking, and it is difficult to read. If you want respect from the liberal world, at least take the time to sound intelligent, back up everything with lots and lots of sources, use good grammar and strong vocabulary. "Very bad" is not a strong choice of words. "Harmful" might be. Then again, once you say "harmful," you'll have to say WHY it's harmful. In the sentence "everything is a perversion of one sort of another" ... well, "of" should be "or." I recognize this is a common typo, but I would love to edit it and make this site better! There's hundreds of entries where it is just poorly written and I'd love to edit it JUST FOR FLUIDITY. In other words, so it's more readable, free from typos and other errors, etc. Also, there are some things which are obviously biased, but I don't think has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, such as the use of "he" in this article. Anyone, male or female, can be desensitized to sex via porn, and as a female who happens to enjoy porn, I think that this article should recognize that people of both genders view porn, and that sex is not as stereotypically male as many people would like you to believe. After all, it takes two...

I've worked with a number of newspapers and I study linguistics. I've won numerous awards for my writing and read countless books on how to persuade people with words and make the most use out of every word. I regularly edit my peer's essays and I do not change their opinions, but make their opinions come across as stronger through a better method of writing. I would love to do this for this website, but unfortunately I am blocked from editing most articles because they are controversial and have been locked. I could probably find other examples of unclear sentences, but I can't remember which articles I have looked at.

Keep up your beliefs. It takes all kinds to make up this world, and we need both conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'd love to help you guys, but you consistently block me. Oh well. Your loss.

Peace.

-Neko1337

:I don't think the number of locked articles are as bad as you seem to think. Surely there are ''some'' that you'd be interested in editing that are not locked. And once the administrators see that you are doing a good job, they might even be willing to unlock articles for you to tidy up.
:I suspect that the original author(s) use male pronouns in a generic way, not specifically indicating males.
:I improved the article a little bit in line with your comments (but I agree it could do with more).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Pornography consumers are overwhelmingly male (by a nearly 3:1 margin), so the only substantive point made by "Neko" above is not persuasive.[http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't know the actual figures, but yes, I had meant to mention something along those lines also. Nevertheless, I gather (it's just an impression) that pornography use by females is on the increase. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I read somewhere (I actually think it was a claim by Pat Robertson, so take it with a grain of salt) that women tend more to read erotic literature.

In any event, I think it's very interesting to present this from both a Christian and an Islamic perspective, as Ed has done here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why porn is actually bad ==
Should we sight more sources for why pornography is bad...maybe we should offer counterpoints to why pornography is bad, then shown arguements against those to make our case stronger. {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}

==Him Vs Her and Person==
Why are all the references to males?
"Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different '''women'''''(my girl isn't interested in women)''; true eros says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person"

"Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes '''him''' more withdrawn, and makes '''him''' view '''others''' ''(and other males?)'' like objects rather than the people they are."

I wanted my girlfriend to look at this page because she does use porn quite regularly much to my disappointment. Its something we are trying to deal with and work through, but the inherit bias toward males in the article has turned her attention to topics of feminism and such and the original point of asking her to read this as been lost on her. --[[User:DjWizard|DjWizard]] 20:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get your point - or if I do, I disagree with it. We assume a porn user is a man, the same way we assume a nurse is a woman. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::And both assumptions would be invalid some of the time. My general answer is that "male" terms are actually generic terms (as "man" is a reference to a member of "mankind"), although some specific instances might bear being reworded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't see oyur problem with you Girlfriend looking at porn, I mean, is it causing any actual relationship problems? {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}
:You don't see a problem with portraying someone in a degrading manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

==Religious perspectives==

Perhaps it's time to re-visit this issue. Much as it is a touchy subject, it does need to be addressed. A well-balanced and scholarly article would explain why it's bad, and not (as "Neko" suggested) merely make general assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography actually lowers rape rate ==

I was looking at statistics for rape rate in Japan, and It would seem that pornography and rape are inversely related. As porn sales go up, rape rates go down. Should we include this in the article? {{unsigned|Bias}}

: "It would seem"—seems rather uncertain to me. Is the source on-line? If so, post it here (on this talk page) and we can look into it further.

No, sorry, it's not online. If you would like, look in to it. [[User:Bias|Bias]] 22:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I do remember seeing an article that pointed out that pornography has become much more widely available in recent years, because of the Internet, and in that same time, the rate for rapes in the U.S. has gone down, although the article pointed out that law enforcement procedures had improved over that time too. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the article or where I saw it, but it's an aspect of the issue that's worth investigating.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Yuri

2008-03-16T14:40:51Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Pornography]]

User talk:Bloodsliver

2008-03-16T14:34:45Z

Bloodsliver:

Bi

2008-03-16T05:26:58Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Bisexual]]

Bisexuality

2008-03-16T05:25:35Z

Bloodsliver:

Being [[sexually]] attracted to both [[genders]]. See [[Bisexual]]

[[category:psychology]]

Eagle Scout

2008-03-16T05:14:11Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Boy Scouts of America]]

User talk:Bloodsliver

2008-03-16T05:01:37Z

Bloodsliver: me sad

{{welcome}}
if you need me to format pages for you post them hear

:All your edits have to do with pages dealing with rape and pornography. That's rather troubling in my opinion. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:i was in a raping and i dont want any one to go thru that --[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 01:01, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Hentai

2008-03-16T04:36:39Z

Bloodsliver: important tipe of media

'''Hentai''' is term that in [[Japan]] is an insult with a strong negative connotation, and is commonly used to mean "sexually perverted". <ref>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/lexicon.php?id=9</ref> In the West the term is used as slang for sexually explicit or pornographic comics and animation particularly Japanese pornographic [[anime]], [[manga]] and computer games.<ref>http://www.seekjapan.jp/article-1/744/The+(Almost)+Complete+Japanzine+Dictionary+of+Japan+Sex</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Talk:Rape

2008-03-09T19:33:01Z

Bloodsliver:

Why on earth was this page deleted? Is ignoring this scorge a good way to cope with it? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought rape was just unwanted penetration. Like someone giving you a "wet willy". o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 11:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Rape and the Bible==
Since the Bible is the source of our morality, our articles on crimes and other offensive activities tend to cite the Bible. Shouldn't we do the same thing here, especially since the Bible has so much to say on rape? [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 18:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:I agree. The subject isn't complete without a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, with Lot willing to give his virgin daughters to appease an insane mob. The Bible speaks volumes on rape, but sadly it is restricted by PC liberals. [[User:JKaplanek|JKaplanek]] 12:59, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== minor ==
by the way this isent in the sin Category

User:Bloodsliver

2008-03-09T19:01:00Z

Bloodsliver:

Pornographic

2008-03-08T03:48:16Z

Bloodsliver: made

#REDIRECT [[Pornography]]

Hentai

2008-03-08T03:37:06Z

Bloodsliver: made

'''Hentai''' is term that in Japan is an insult with a strong negative connotation, and is commonly used to mean "sexually perverted". In the West the term is used as slang for sexually explicit or pornographic comics and animation particularly Japanese pornographic anime, manga and computer games.

[http://www.seekjapan.jp/article-1/744/The+(Almost)+Complete+Japanzine+Dictionary+of+Japan+Sex]

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Sin]]

User:Bloodsliver

2008-03-08T02:56:24Z

Bloodsliver:

User:Bloodsliver

2008-03-08T00:17:28Z

Bloodsliver: link expired

User talk:Bloodsliver

2008-03-08T00:13:31Z

Bloodsliver: New page: if you need me to format pages for you post them hear

if you need me to format pages for you post them hear

User:Bloodsliver

2008-03-08T00:12:19Z

Bloodsliver: made

hi my name is [http://www.projectbag.com/gw/pics/duo2.jpg| duo] 
I am a freethinking, liberal pagan hear to make pages look better with formating and play the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate| Devil's advocate]

== other pages ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blood_sliver| wikipedia]