Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Was the media attention needed?

2007-07-23T14:44:18Z

Dollanganger: /* The attention was needed */

{{debate}}

I discovered Conservapedia from the media but it has also seems to have attracted unwanted attention. Do you think we really needed all that coverage? --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia ==
I'm sorry... the what? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think it just made YEC viewpoints get mocked further. Look at the articles, who could blame them. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The word that Gospel is from in the greek can mean "good news" as well, so it's not necessarily a bible thing :-). "It was needed to spread the ''good news'' of Conservapedia" --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I am uncomfortable with the word Gospel. The word today is viewed in a religious context. Gay means happy, but would people find it offensive to call the site Gay Conservapedia? Of course.

== The attention was needed ==

There is rarely such a thing as bad publicity. Now people know about it. But in order for Convervipedia to succeed it must have more articles on history or no one will use it.

== It should have only been mentioned, not covered ==

== No, but if it was not for it, I would not be here ==
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages ==
why do you have to " protect" anything, just provide facts, not spin and you should be okay.--[[User:Dugless mcspud59|Dugless mcspud59]] 16:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-07-23T14:33:53Z

Dollanganger: /* No */

== Yes ==
The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretation[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I've never read the bible completly, but alot of what I have read is soo violent and alot is degrading towards women. I am not saying the WHOLE bible is that way, but it seems that way. Yes, lets kill anyone who breaks the silliest of rules. It says thou shalt not kill for one of them comendment things, but then its like PUT THEM TO DEATH YAY FER KILLING PEOPLE. Overal, it's a poor display of morals and ethics and makes it sound okay to be mean and hurt other people and destroy stuff [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Its all open to interpretations. I mean, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, obey your parents, it's not like those are a bad set of morals. Now, when the Bible contradicts itself is when you have to apply your own judgment. At least, thats how I view it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

i think it's only fair to point out that the ten commandments were only intended to apply to other jews (judaism being the religion of moses tribe) therefore Thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not kill other jews (or christians) and so on. what the bible basically says is that you can do anything to someone who is not of your religion, and that there is nothing morally wrong with that. in todays multicultural society that is obviously not an accebtable source of morals. {{unsigned|Bolly Ottihw}}

:It's really "yes and no" but I'll post here.

:The Bible puts on display the poor ethics and morals of a number of people. The first that comes to mind is King Herod. Some of the ancient Egyptian kings were pretty bad, too. Then there was the king who wanted Abram's wife and was going to kill him to get her. I tell that one in Sunday School, whenever the kids get too rowdy to pay attention to theological stuff. The good examples of [[Ruth]] and [[Esther]] make the little girls sit up and pay attention, too. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I am reminded of a novel by Irving Wallace, ''Seven Minutes'' where a book publisher is being prosecuted for selling a pornographic novel. His attorney, reads several passages from novels/books and asks a ''community person'' as to whether or not she thought the passages were ''pornographic'' - and in the novel, she concludes three of the four passages as fine, while the fourth passage, she declares as ''pornographic'' - the three passages she claimed were NOT, were from books that were BANNED, while the fourth passage was selected from the Bible. The author goes onto say that ofcourse he was not implying anything about the Bible being pornographic - but that when passages are taken out of context, any conclusions can be drawn. The Bible includes stories that describe good and evil - and so can be taken out of context. Peter McWilliams had, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Bible in a book titled 'Aint Nobody's Business if you do" [[User:Seekcommon]]

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing wether the nations the isrealites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But i can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment. And who knows, maybe in the afterlife, how he'll judge his people. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]] 8:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is of course a distinction here between the God of the old testament and that of the new. The God of the new testament is a forgiving God, and the God of the old testament was a vengeful God. I would argue that ethics and morals vary civisilisation to civilisation, and era to era. You can only judge the God of the time by the morals and ethics of the time. Until we hear differently, we must assume the current God is that of two millennia ago. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==From Eye For An Eye To Turn The Other Cheek==

The contrast between the Old and New Testaments are stark. In the Old Testament the Israelites are told to kill all their enemies, even their wives, children, and animals.

Yet in the New Testament Jesus says pray for your enemies and if they take your shirt let them take your shoes as well.

I the think a more accurate pattern is that God is preaching against violence. He is telling the Israelites during those savage times, an eye for an eye, not a life for an eye. Kill your enemies but do not kill for the sake of killing.

Jesus is furthering this by saying that all violence is wrong. Still a hard concept for us today. How many of us would not defend our families or our country with violence?

Pacifism would not have worked in the savage BC times and so God was taking it one step at a time.

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-07-23T14:20:59Z

Dollanganger: /* Definite YES. */

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.