Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2009-02-04T20:04:27Z

Burgeson: just a comment

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Theistic evolution

2009-01-19T20:49:49Z

Burgeson:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{unprotected|9 March 2007|Conservative}}

I added a reference to an organization of scientists who are Christians and seem to have no problems understanding evolution. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I will add various source cites shortly.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 15:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Painting with a broad brush here,aren't you? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)

We are tired of so called Christians doing the bidding of Atheists; if the shoe fits wear it. TEists are double-agents; since when do Christians accept the origins theory that all Atheists subscribe to? As the article says, the Bible provides the explanation.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 16:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

First off, who is "we?" There are numerous conservatives and Christians who believe that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create Man, and I hardly think you, I or anyone is in a position to tell them that that they are not good Christians for believing so.

: We = persons who are not fooled by TEists.

Second, your basic premise is flawed. Please show me in the Bible where it specifically states that evolution was not the mechanism used to create Man.

: The Bible is the premier source of Supernaturalism; Genesis says special creation was the origin of Adamkind. Your "question" is phony attempting to make "a point" or you are shockingly ignorant.

Lastly, this entire piece devolves rapidly into opinion and outright insults. If you want to criticize TE, then you need to so more rationally. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: There are no insults; in other words: the truth hurts and since you are an evolutionist your disapproval is the best endorsement I could obtain.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 16:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The part about "which all atheists rabidly support" is perhaps a bit overenthusiastic.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: How so? All atheists do as such.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Well, "rabid" is clearly your opinion, and whether intentional or otherwise it is likely to come across as insulting. Additionally, how do you know that "all" atheists believe the theory of evolution is correct? I would imagine the 2 beliefs tend to co-occur frequently but it's quite plausible one could believe one and not the other.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I removed the word to give the article a more formal tone. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 17:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: I restored the atheist vandalism; I have reported you

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, whatever Martinez. Report me all you like. If this community bans me because I changed rabidly to strongly then it is a very poor encyclopedia. Wikipedia never reverts your edits and says "only atheists may make this change" like you stated in your comment. This "encyclopedia" is starting to look like a joke.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 17:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Essay ==

Most of this article reads like an essay and doesn't address or even attempt to list the Christian denominations which suscribe to TE. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: You have been reported too.

: Did you miss the sub-heading?

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 18:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: Hmm? Which subheading? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

''A critical view of Darwinists in sheeps clothing''

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== So I've looked at the versions in the article history.... ==

...and I'm still not clear on exactly what Theistic Evolution is supposed to be.

Teilhard de Chardin, perhaps? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Essentially, it is the idea that [[creationism]] is compatibel with [[evolution]]. I presumably should have just said that explicitly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re: Which version to keep ==

I think that when it comes to which article best represents an encyclopedic article the revision done by JoshuaZ should bbe selected. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 19:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding locking the page: Comments from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative ==

1. Senior Admin Aschlafly (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aschlafly ) seems to know a lot about the Pope's statements in regards to the Creation/evolution issue. I think he should mediate or arbitrate this particular issue or if he is too busy then more sources should be cited in order to corroborate this matter.

2. I looked at the evolutionists versions and there were many statements uncited by footnotes.

3. I have looked at creationists Ray Martinez's work in the past and I know that he can produce good work. However, I looked at Ray Martinez's version briefly and immediately ran across unencyclopedic language. For example, I found this unencyclopedic: "A critical view of Darwinists '''in sheeps clothing'''" I also think you should have used footnotes instead of a bibliography since the evo/creo issue can be contentious.

: The first thing I said in ''Discussion'' was that all source cites would follow shortly. As far as terminology goes; the page was intended as sharp and blunt sword swings. I will not pursue this anymore. My work will appear on my own Wiki site in the near future - a site which will feature a topic and two views side by side. I realize that my hard line Creationism is too hot to handle and I am comforted that what I wrote made Darwinists see red and froth at the mouth.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::No, what you wrote was unsupportable claptrap and insulting to a wide host of people. Had you presented your views in a rational, reasoned tone, none of this would have been needed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

4. I don't think theistic evolution should be such a contentious issue as far as what it is if you stick to the facts. I suggest the two diametrically opposed sides stick to the facts and scrupuously footnote this article since it is becoming contentious.

5. My opinion regarding TalkOrigins.org being a mostly unreliable source is well known. No further comments about this matter in this particular discussion page. I do realize that creationists have people who produce unreliable material as well.

6. I wish I had more time to Mediate/arbitrate this particular issue but unfortunately I do not. I do appreciate each sides efforts though and decided to temporarily lock the page until a quality article can be created with internal footnotes supporting each fact.

Here is where I suggest creating a new version with footnotes in the body of the work supporting each fact that you state: [[Draft/Theistic Evolution]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:Considering how [[Draft]] may later be used for the, well, draft, the draft should possibly be made at [[Theistic Evolution/draft]] </suggestion from somebody who only noticed that the article imploded after all the action happened> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: Ok, pursuant to these comments, I have started a draft, hopefully with enough sourcing. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== to: Ray, from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative ==

Ray, I do know that you are knowledgeable on the creo/evo issue, however, I just reasonably ask that you footnote your material in regards to its internal statements given the contentious nature of the creo/evo issue. I don't think you should just throw in the towel and give up. I believe you could add some valuable input to a article if you wanted to. I also ask that you refrain from inflamatory characterizations like "sheeps clothing" which I also believe is necesary for an encyclopedia to have. An encyclopedia is much more authoritative in tone if it uses non inflamatory language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Theistic evolution, some slightly suggested sources ==

I don't have the time to read a lot of articles on the topic of "Theistic Evolution". However, I did briefly scan some articles and they did appear to be written by credible sources (for example, one article PHD after the authors name).

Please don't think I think these articles are necessarily good. I just want to create a starting point.

Please take a look at these articles:

Multiple source article with many quotes w/ sources: [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990]

Footnoted article: [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html]

ASA article Written by a PHD: [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm]

5 footnotes in article: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp]

I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

: I'll take a look but will incidentally note that number of footsnotes or the presence of a PhD does not help with reliability by most definitions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I said I don't endorse the sources. I scanned them. Most at least have the appearance of scholarship (footnotes). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:51, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Suggestion from a Admin/SYSOP ==

Participants in dispute, I suggest posting competing versions next to each other here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theistic_Evolution/draft and then decide what you agree on if anything.

I highly suggest you use sources with footnotes or sources that use quotes from good sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Could we unprotect now-+ a comment ==

The criticism of Theistic evolution in this context is not coming from people because they are "evolutionists" but generally due to atheism or other reasons. Also, since we seem to have most users agreeing on a draft, can we take out the protection? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:I am unprotecting now. Again, please do not add the Pope comment yet. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Please do not add the Pope endorsing theistic evolution until Admin Aschlafly decides if he wants to weigh in since he said he studied this matter in depth ==

Please do not add the Pope endorsing theistic evolution until Admin Aschlafly decides if he wants to weigh in since he said he studied this matter in depth. In the absence of Admin Aschlafly weighing in within a reasonable time, further corroboration should be done. I don't want Conservapedia overly dependent on Mr. Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

: He did weigh in on [[Theistic Evolution/draft]] but only briefly and no explanation of his analysis. I will in any event wait until we reach some form of consensus as to a) whether the Pope supported TE and b) whether it makes sense to mention him. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:If I may ask, is Aschlafly the one to give blessing to a particular piece? His opinion about the Pope seems to contradict a common sense reading of what was said. It is one thing to be pro-American and pro-Christian -- it is quite another to be lock step with a single religious mindset. To restrict theological writing to that one opinion (whichever opinion it is) leaves a large portion of Christianity out. If that is the case that the restriction is there, this becomes more a community contributed Aschlaflyian blog with a search engine than a source of information that is free of the bias that he perceives in Wikipedia. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: Mtur, you are not the first person to raise this concern, I suggest you mention it to Andrew directly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Ray Martinez the young earth creationist dissent draft ==

:content erased by Ray Martinez. I own the copyright on my work and I do not give permission to use it on this site. Also, I am not a Young Earth Creationist. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Ray_Martinez]

:[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 16:38, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Draft/Theistic_Evolution"

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:40, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== complaints about my administrative decision yesterday ==

I received some complaints that I was not as fair as I could have been to Ray Martinez. Now before I write anymore about the matter I will say that I think Ray Martinez is knowledgeable about the creation-evolution controversy. However, here is what I wrote to Ray today.

Ray,

You requested my help as a Admin yesterday. I may have been able to help you more yesterday but I had limited time and I didn't have time to implement the rewrite to your material that I suggested.

Before I go into why it needed to be rewritten I want you to read what the owner of the site wrote to me.

Here is what the owner of the site wrote me:

"Conservative, your titles in the The Theory of Evolution are too argumentative. Please present facts without so much of the argumentative terminology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative]

Simply put, you style of writing was too argumentative in the [[Theistic evolution]] article you proposed and I didn't have time rewrite it.

Lastly, if your style of writing is argumentative it is more likely to be erased by people. I simply don't have the time to be watching a lot of individuals material that is written in a argumentative tone. I am not asking you to water down the facts. I am merely asking you to have a less argumentative tone to your writing.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

----

"Evolution was designed to give an alternative to Creation because people did not want to believe in God." Seems like this statement should have some source to back it up, if it's genuinely intended to make the claim that Darwin/Wallace (presumably) specifically set out to create an explanation for life that left God out.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:25, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:I would contend that it is irrelevant if Darwin and/or Wallace were athiests. If the theory is sound, then its sound regardless of theie intent. If we condemned items strictly on who hand a hand in their development, we wouldn't be driving Volkswagens on the Interstate Highway System, both of which had their genesis in Nazi Germany.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Compatibility ==

To what extent is [[creationism]] compatible with [[evolutionism]]?
Maybe this should be one of our [[Debate topics]].

Perhaps it depends on how "the theory of evolution" is defined. Suppose "evolution" means (1) that various forms of life came into being gradually over millions of years and (2) that God had nothing whatsoever to do with this process.
Then certainly this is incompatible with [[Young Earth Creationism]], which directly denies both points. YE creationists say that life came into being during a very short period (as little as six 24-hour days), and that this creation period took place less than 10,000 years ago. They also quite plainly say that God '''made this all happen'''. So I fail to see any possibility of reconciliation or compromise here. The two views are utterly at odds with each other. (To paraphrase Claude Reins in [[Mr. Smith Goes to Washington]], "If they are right, I am that much wrong.")

Some creationists accept certain [[aspects of evolution]] while denying others. [[Old Earth]] creationists accept the timeline posited by geologists and biologists regarding the [[fossil record]]. They agree with mainstream evolutionists - even the materialistic-naturalistic ones - that the fossils are an authentic record of the appearance of the various species of life. That is, dinosaurs came into being tens of millions of years ago and died out long before 4,000 B.C.

This view clashes with YE creationism in terms of dates, while agreeing with the YE idea that God made it all happen; i.e., God created every kind of living creature and Personally created human beings. (Note the capital letter on ''Personally''.)

This view agrees with "evolution" - that is, the version NCSE advocates - in one respect. It accepts the authenticity of the fossil record as showing when each species came into being. But whether it agrees with "[[evolution through natural selection]]" is another story. And here it gets too complex for me to go into before lunch, so I invite everyone's comments on what I've written so far. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think "evolution" is a simple word, or that it has a simple meaning. It is used in very different ways which can be confusing to our typical reader. Our [[Definitions of evolution]] article attempts to straighten out this confusion, but doesn't do so very well.

:Certainly as a general term it means any change over time. This website has "evolved", for example, since late last year. But what causes evolution is an often crucial question.

:In the [[origins debate]], "evolution" can mean (1) how life came from inorganic matter via natural causes, (2) how forms of life changed in response to natural forces, or (3) both of these.

:To make matters worse, Old Earth creationists variously say they "believe in evolution" or "disbelieve in evolution" (using two opposite meanings of ''evolution'').
:*When they say that they believe in "evolution", they mean that they agree with mainstream geologists and biologists that the earth is billions of years old and that forms of life appeared when and where the [[fossil]] record indicates. That is, they agree that new species came into being over 100s of millions of years. On the other hand, they generally disagree with the idea that natural forces (such as mutation) caused these new species to come into being.
:*When they say that the disbelieve in "evolution", they likewise mean that they agree with the authenticity and timing of the events mentioned above, and that they '''reject''' evolution because they reject the idea of purely natural causation.

:When Evolution proponents say that most Americans "believe in evolution", they are including the 12% to 15% who accept [[unguided evolution]] (aka Darwinism or "the [[theory of evolution]]"); along with the 40% of Americans who are Old Earth creationsts and who '''reject''' unguided evolution.

:(This is a distinction which Wikipedia refuses to allow. I am on probation there, on the trumped up change of "POV pushing", for trying to make the distinction I have outlined above.)

:(Evolution partisans don't want to allow clear distinctions. They want to pretend that people agree with them, so they can force their opinions on others.)

:Eventually, I hope to clarify these points. Perhaps you can help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

----

== Unguided by Definition? ==

Why the re-write box? Is Evolution, by definition unguided? And if for our purposes we are saying evolution means unguided, what do we call the belief that 'a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations' is being caused and guided by God? --[[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 14:09, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Baseball

2009-01-15T20:55:10Z

Burgeson: more history

''This article is about the game of '''baseball'''. For other uses, see [[Baseball (disambiguation)]]

[[Image:Busch Stadium.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A baseball game at Busch Memorial Stadium, St. Louis, Missouri.]]

'''Baseball''', is a [[game]] consisting of nine active players on each [[team]] (except for those teams having [[designated hitter]]s) who take turns playing defense on the field and batting one at a time. The object is for the batters to hit a ball thrown by the [[pitcher]] into "fair" territory such that it is not caught in the air and gives the batter time to run to a base. The offense strives to advance these baserunners until they circle the three [[infield]] bases in order and get to the fourth base, called "home". This results in the scoring of a run. Failing to reach a base during their batting attempt results in an out, and the offense is only allowed three outs before they must take the field once again. Each team is allowed nine of these "innings" during the course of the game, an exception being that a team does not bat a ninth time if they are winning after the other teams ninth attempt. If the game is tied after nine innings, additional innings are played until there is a winner.

==History==
A well-publicized [[tradition]] holds that the game was invented by [[Abner Doubleday]] in [[Cooperstown]], [[New York]] in 1839. But not even the [[National Baseball Hall of Fame]], founded on the strength of that tradition, seriously promotes this theory any more:
:After the [1905] Commission [appointed to determine the game's origins] reported its findings in 1908, many of the game's historians disputed Graves' accounts, noting that many of the innovations he attributed to Doubleday were already being practiced earlier in the 1830s. The discovery in 1999 of the original Mills Commission papers, long reported to have been burned, supports the view of many researchers that Baseball developed from, and along with, other bat-and-ball games earlier in the nineteenth century.<ref name=cooperstown>[http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/about/history.htm The Origins of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum]</ref>

The word "baseball" is mentioned in passing in [[Jane Austen]]'s 1803 British novel [[Northanger Abbey]], set in England:
:it was not very wonderful that Catherine, who had by nature nothing heroic about her, should prefer cricket, baseball, riding on horseback, and running about the country at the age of fourteen, to books...<ref>Austen, Jane (1803) ''[Northanger Abbey http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/nabby11h.htm]'', Chapter 1</ref>

but there is nothing in the context that tells any details of the game.

"Base-ball" or "base ball" was being played, under that name, during the [[Civil War]]:
:Captain Kimberly was an experienced and skillful player and base ball player and took the lead in inaugurating a series of games of base ball.<ref>Nash, Eugene Arus (1910) ''A History of the Forty-fourth Regiment, New York Volunteer Infantry, in the Civil War, 1861-1865'', [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0Tt8agPo9LwQQsMG9YEqtf&id=L1eQYSRFhIQC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=base-ball+civil+war&as_brr=1 p. 166]</ref>
:The air seemed full of heavy shot, and as the flew they could be seen as plainly as a base-ball in one of our games.<ref>Johnson, Robert Underwood and Clarence Clough Buel (1888), ''Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,'' Volume IV, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0veexS1IQVEWthmLI7jQgT3&id=rSwOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=base-ball+civil+war&as_brr=1 p. 37]</ref>
A 1902 book about [[Philadelphia]] says that "base-ball" was simply a new name for an older game:
:During the Civil War there was an interesting athletic development when the old game of "town-ball" was rechristened "base-ball." It is believed that the first town-ball club, called the Olympic, was established in 1833.<ref>Edmond, Franklin Spencer, ''History of the Central High School of Philadelphia'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0z6LOHidtNQ5hb4rcxNHUcc&id=wogWAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=base-ball+civil+war&as_brr=1 p. 251]</ref>
In 2004, a baseball historian made national news with the apparent discovery of 1791 bylaw of the town of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, stating that
:for the Preservation of the Windows in the New Meeting House... no Person or Inhabitant of said town, shall be permitted to play at any game called Wicket, Cricket, Baseball, Football, Cat, Fives or any other game or games with balls, within the Distance of Eighty Yards from said Meeting House.<ref>[http://www.pittsfield-ma.org/subpage.asp?ID=226 Pittsfield is "Baseball's Garden of Eden"]</ref>

The Abner-Doubleday-in-Cooperstown tradition was a reaction to famous baseball writer Henry Chadwick, who had stated that the game evolved from the British game of "rounders."<ref name=cooperstown/>. In response, Albert G. Spaulding, another baseball pioneer, urged the formation of a commission to determine the game's origin; one was formed, and in due course issued a report on December 30, 1907 stating "the first scheme for playing baseball, according to the best evidence obtainable to date, was devised by Abner Doubleday at Cooperstown, N.Y. in 1839."
The results of the Spaulding committee led to the 1939 founding of the National Baseball Hall of Fame in the city of Cooperstown.<ref>The National Baseball Hall of Fame was inspired by the Hall of Fame for Great Americans in New York. Established in 1901, with a 600-foot colonnade ultimately containing bronze busts of 98 great Americans, the Hall of Fame was at one time a major landmark, and the additions of honorees to it was a national news event. Ironically, the Hall of Fame for Great Americans has itself passed into obscurity; today, the phrase "Hall of Fame" has practically come to mean the National Baseball Hall of Fame.</ref>
Just how long has baseball been played? The only valid answer known (as of the summer of 2008) indicates that it must have been played before March 31, 1755. In a diary found recently, a lawyer by the name of William Bray wrote as follows: "After Dinner Went to Miss Jeale's to play at Base Ball . . . ." The next known reference to the sport is the 1791 law in Pittsfield, Mass., forbidding the game to be played. There are also some Egyptian carvings in which a bat and ball may be seen, but these are indecisive.

==Modern Baseball==
The game of baseball is now played the world over. In North America, the primary governing body at the professional level is Major League Baseball, which consists of thirty clubs. Major league Baseball is divided into two groups; The American League and The National League. Every year, all of the MLB clubs from each league battle to earn a place in the World Series, the pinnacle of the sport. To date the New York Yankees of the American League have won the most World Series titles with 26 followed by the St. Louis Cardinals of the National League with 10 wins. College baseball in the United States is governed primarily by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

==Miscellaneous==

The baseball as we know it—or at least the familiar "figure-eight" stitched cover—was invented in the 1840s by Ellis Drake of Stoughton, Massachusetts.<ref>[http://www.19cbaseball.com/19th-century-baseball.html Nineteenth-century baseballs]</ref>

The umpire's hand signals for "strike" and "out" were invented by deaf baseball player William "Dummy" Hoy (1861-1961)<ref>[http://library.gallaudet.edu/dr/faq-deaf-place-names.html Deaf Place Names]</ref>

==The ball==

[[Image:Baseball.jpg|left|150px]]
''' Baseball ball ''': The baseball’s core is made of rubber and cork. Yarn is wound around the rubber and cork centre. Then 2 strips of white cowhide are sewn around the ball. Official baseballs must weigh 5 to 5 1/4 ounces and be 9 to 9 1/4 inches in diameter.
 
 
 
== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]
== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]
*[[Baseball (disambiguation)]]
{{baseball}}

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Baseball]]

Theistic evolution

2009-01-15T20:46:43Z

Burgeson: addind link to a Theistic Evolution organization

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}

The largest organization of Christians who are scientists and accept the fact of evolution is the American Scientific Affiliation. Their web site is [[www.asa3.org]]

'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible; this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Heresies]]

Theistic evolution

2009-01-15T20:45:36Z

Burgeson:

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}

The largest organization of Christians who are scientists and accept the fact of evolution is the American Scientifif Affiliation. Their web site is [[www.asa3.org]]

'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible; this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Heresies]]