Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:DJBlair

2008-03-25T20:22:21Z

DJBlair:

Do not vandalize my user page again do so again and I'll report you --[[User:Deborah|Deborah]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
I am transferring articles from a Encyclopedia to Conservapedia to actually increase the amount of articles on Conservapedia
you on the other hand are vandalizing my user page --[[User:Deborah|Deborah]] 16:15, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Deborah] to see why I write on my user page which articles I create --[[User:Deborah|Deborah]] 16:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Holy freaking run-on sentence. Maybe its best for this site if you spent less time on it. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 16:22, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Massachusetts liberal

2008-03-25T19:23:26Z

DJBlair: Is this for real?

So, would it be at all relevant that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html], one of the lowest crime rates. [http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm], [http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/], [http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm], one of the lowest murder rates [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12] and (I don't have a citation at the moement) one of the lowest adultery rates? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:56, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::This is indeed overspecific on some of their errors. [[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we really need this article ==

I am very conservative but I don't see a need for this article. Why not simply include it in the MA article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

-I agree. Only the first four words are relevant to the article title. The stats belong in the MA article. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

I agree with y'all. This "article" doesn't even discuss what a specific liberal from MA would believe/do/say/etc. Instead, it raises petty concerns over MA generally. Get rid of this. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 15:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Internet slang

2008-03-25T18:23:32Z

DJBlair: Undo revision 412933 by Special:Contributions/HelpJazz (User talk:HelpJazz) - we need to keep the swears in so people will know when they are dealing with an internet potty-mouth

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms, designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

== List of Internet slang ==

'''2:''' Substitution for to, too, and two.

'''4:''' Substitution for for and four.

'''AFAICT:''' As far as I can tell.

'''AFAIK:''' As far as I know.

'''AFAIR:''' As far as I recall/remember.

'''AFAIAW:''' As far as I am aware.

'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard.

'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.

'''ATM:''' At The Moment.

'''BBL:''' be back later.

'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit.

'''BRB:''' Abbreviation for Be Right Back.

'''btw:''' By the way.

'''ch00b:''' Person who acts like a n00b, but has skill levels or a kill/death ratio of someone who is considered 1337. Typically spends time bragging, flaming, and asking question he or she should know.

'''D00d:''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".

'''ffs:''' For f___'s sake. Expresses exasperation.

'''ftw:''' For the win.

'''GDR:''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.

'''g2g:''' got to go, gotta go.

'''gg:''' Good game. Somtimes an 'a' is added to make gga: good game all.

'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.

'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly.

'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.

'''IMHO''' In My Humble Opinion

'''l8r:''' later.

'''1337''' Leet. Usually means good, but some say it stands for Elite. Also the name for turning letters into numbers and symbols.

'''LMAO''' Laughing My Ass Off

'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud.

'''lvl:''' Level.

'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience.

'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.

'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own".

'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt. Usually spelled with an 'ed' rather than a 't'.

'''ROFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing.

'''Roflcopter:''' An extreme version of "rofl," or, "rolling on the floor laughing."

'''stfu:''' Shut the f**k up.

'''U:''' Substitution for you.

'''Ur:''' Substitution for your, you're, you are.

'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.

'''ZOMG:''' An extreme version of "Oh my God!"

[[category:internet culture]]

Talk:Professor values

2008-03-25T18:20:12Z

DJBlair: /* Professor Values on Wikipedia */

...does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic.<br /> My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it.<br /> I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are about 250,000 professors currently active in the US, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.0052% of that population. Given that some examples are from earlier times, the total population of professors is more like 500,000 or 750,000 (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Derek Hagan

2008-03-25T17:45:37Z

DJBlair: created "most wanted" article

Derek Hagan, born Samantha Whallops,(1934-present) is best known as the first American to have undergone a complete gender reassignment procedure. Samantha had lived a normal life, complete with husband, two children and a career as an accountant. Upon reaching the age of 30, Samantha determined she wanted to be a male, and began her procedure.

By 1970, Samantha's procedure had been completed. Samantha spent years working with doctors and surgeons at UPMC Shady Side, a [[hospital]] within the [[University of Pittsburgh]] network.

Currently, "Derek" works with the American Civil Liberties Union, actively crusading against sexual discrimination.

Talk:Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-24T00:10:33Z

DJBlair:

Do we have to have a debate page about Jesus with such an ungrammatical title? Can a sysop please do something about it? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:We never [[have]] to do anything, except pay taxes and die. Sometimes we just choose to do different things, even if for arbitrary reasons. You know? --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 19:31, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a lunchtime discussion at a public school. If you want to display your ignorance of the English language then I suggest that you become a journalist. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Or maybe I cleverly used poor grammar because my interpretation of what encyclopedias are "supposed to" do is different than yours. Additionally, my interpretation is always going to be better than yours, because your vision is predicated upon some sterile notion of technical rules used to complicate what should be a simple communicative process. Your world, sir, is boring. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 20:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-23T23:31:35Z

DJBlair:

Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-23T23:21:58Z

DJBlair:

I don't think Jesus really raised from the dead. Maybe he was faking his own death, and had his friends build him an underground fort to live in for a while, and then he could have just flown out of there when he ran out of food.

If he actually came back from the dead, though, he would have encountered a very significant problem - decomposition. Jesus would have been in the ground for a while, and bugs and other creepy-things would have started their feast. You'd think that the people that saw Jesus fly out of the ground and into the sky would have noticed whether or not his face had peeled from his head.

What do y'all think? --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 18:56, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:After being on the cross all that time, I think he would have been dead. If her hadn't, that would've been a miracle in itself. He was only dead for three days so he wouldn't have decomposed. He was obviously in some sort of burial clothing, so I doubt bugs could have "started their feast". :) --[[User:Hammer|Hammer]] 19:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most people who try to argue this point approach it in a lot more serious manner than you do. I can tell you haven't done even any basic background reading. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:03, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Hammer, I think that decomposition would have had an effect on Jesus' body during his 3 days under. He was roughed up pretty good beforehand, so he was already tenderized before they buried him. Also, because he had a lot of blood and flesh all torn up and whatnot, he would have made a great target for scavenging animals. I'd have to think that something would have taken a shot at him. Or else - do you think that maybe someone stood guard duty over the body, to make sure wolves and scorpions couldn't get to it?

Dan - what "basic background reading" do you think I should do? Better yet - tell me what it says so we can continue this. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 19:09, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:Debates between websites like the Skeptical Web and Tekton Ministries for instance. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
::I find debates like that somewhat amusing yet pointless. --[[User:Hammer|Hammer]] 19:12, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, maybe when he was born again his body was healed. Because I don't think anyone was keeping watch over his body. They would have seen him rise, right? --[[User:Hammer|Hammer]] 19:12, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:That's an interesting point, but I don't think its very practical. It seems that only God or Jesus could have possibly healed the guy's body. At least, I think it would be one of those two, but I'm assuming it wasn't something crazy - like a wizard, or whatever. Jesus couldn't have healed his own body, because he was dead. But God couldn't have either, because that would really discredit the notion that he sacrificed his son. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 19:16, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::If it were possible God that could raise someone from the dead, which is the basic premise of Christianity, then you would think God could overcome decomposition. Just saying... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:18, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::No doubt, if God is magic, I'm sure he can do all kinds of tricks. But if that were the case (still not convinced that it is, but lets just play with the hypothetical), wouldn't it seem funny to say that the big guy ever really sacrificed his own son? Cause, you know - he just brought the kid back right away. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 19:21, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-23T23:17:27Z

DJBlair:

Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-23T23:16:43Z

DJBlair:

I don't think Jesus really raised from the dead. Maybe he was faking his own death, and had his friends build him an underground fort to live in for a while, and then he could have just flown out of there when he ran out of food.

If he actually came back from the dead, though, he would have encountered a very significant problem - decomposition. Jesus would have been in the ground for a while, and bugs and other creepy-things would have started their feast. You'd think that the people that saw Jesus fly out of the ground and into the sky would have noticed whether or not his face had peeled from his head.

What do y'all think? --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 18:56, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:After being on the cross all that time, I think he would have been dead. If her hadn't, that would've been a miracle in itself. He was only dead for three days so he wouldn't have decomposed. He was obviously in some sort of burial clothing, so I doubt bugs could have "started their feast". :) --[[User:Hammer|Hammer]] 19:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most people who try to argue this point approach it in a lot more serious manner than you do. I can tell you haven't done even any basic background reading. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:03, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Hammer, I think that decomposition would have had an effect on Jesus' body during his 3 days under. He was roughed up pretty good beforehand, so he was already tenderized before they buried him. Also, because he had a lot of blood and flesh all torn up and whatnot, he would have made a great target for scavenging animals. I'd have to think that something would have taken a shot at him. Or else - do you think that maybe someone stood guard duty over the body, to make sure wolves and scorpions couldn't get to it?

Dan - what "basic background reading" do you think I should do? Better yet - tell me what it says so we can continue this. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 19:09, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:Debates between websites like the Skeptical Web and Tekton Ministries for instance. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
::I find debates like that somewhat amusing yet pointless. --[[User:Hammer|Hammer]] 19:12, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, maybe when he was born again his body was healed. Because I don't think anyone was keeping watch over his body. They would have seen him rise, right? --[[User:Hammer|Hammer]] 19:12, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:That's an interesting point, but I don't think its very practical. It seems that only God or Jesus could have possibly healed the guy's body. At least, I think it would be one of those two, but I'm assuming it wasn't something crazy - like a wizard, or whatever. Jesus couldn't have healed his own body, because he was dead. But God couldn't have either, because that would really discredit the notion that God sacrificed his son. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 19:16, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-23T23:09:23Z

DJBlair:

Debate: Did Jesus really raise from the dead?

2008-03-23T22:56:37Z

DJBlair: New page: I don't think Jesus really raised from the dead. Maybe he was faking his own death, and had his friends build him an underground fort to live in for a while, and then he could have just f...