Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Are we saved by faith or works

2014-08-06T19:02:47Z

Exwikipediaperson:

{{debate}}

Works, I say. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:26, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:Bible says differently. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 21:37, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

There is nothing to be saved from, at least not anything beyond our own lives. The above argument is part of the reason I have no faith. How can a man that believes in God and the Jesus is the son of God escape eternal damnations without doing right? Then if faith alone is not the key, why not just do works? So that's what I do.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 22:58, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==What does the Bible say?==
Some people see a contradiction in the bible here, but it's actually clear in that faith and works go hand in hand. Let me explain.
James chapter 2:24-26 shows that faith without works is dead. So to have faith in something, but not do anything with it is dead. So if I believed that a bridge would get me across the river, but never used it, it is pointless, and means nothing..."Oh, but I don't like bridges" doesn't make proof that I have faith that a bridge will get me across a river. Or a car...imagine getting in a car, and saying "I know that this car will get me to work", but after getting into it, a person just sits there. Faith without works is dead.

Where the contradiction comes in some people's eyes is when Paul speaks of works as opposed to faith. It is in Romans chapter 3 and 4, and shows that the people's faith declares them righteous APART from works...of law....Paul is speaking to the Romans here, and he even says after that statement "Or is he the God of the Jews only?

A better clarification is with Abraham himself, and in Romans 4:3 quotes an earlier scripture that says "For what does the scripture say? "Abraham exercised (a very important word to consider with this faith) faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.

So a man's faith is shown by his works, as a mans works will also show up his faith.

In other words, as James says to us "become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning."

[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 15:02, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

User talk:Exwikipediaperson

2014-08-06T18:49:15Z

Exwikipediaperson:

{{welcome}}
Please sign your discussion entrys with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:30, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Thanks Joey. Thanks for the links.
[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 14:49, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2014-08-06T18:32:04Z

Exwikipediaperson:

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. No one is really interested in this page. That's because divorce is a problem best dealt with in the real world, and god, moses and all the biblical team have nothing relevant to say on the matter. They're dead, as are their god and their thoughts

bless you all

Chris Larner

== What's a Christian To Do?? ==

Don't get married. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. Marriage is the key to a happy life. True love is being focused on being honorable, faithful and loving to your spouse. The Bible teaches us marriage is a good thing and encourages us to stay married.

==Foolishness==
Sheer mockery or just convoluted thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:15 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

To those without wisdom: Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fail to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

I pray that some day you will seek wisdom so that you will be able to understand God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Truth is, God was married to Israel, divorced her, invited her back (in contradiction to Deuteronomy 24 which he even says so in Jeremiah 3). The New Testament Church is now the bride of Christ, and awaits return of the bridegroom who is coming back for his bride. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not actually. Israel is the bride to be wed. The bridegroom (Christ) who was rejected at His first coming has yet to return at the Second Coming. Christians are the branch grafted into the tree of Israel. Israel is the bride that will recognize their Messiah upon his Second Coming. There are no contradictions to that in God's Word. The contradictions come from mankind misunderstanding that Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think you have reiterated what I've said; now, what is the meaning of Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 3:8? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 54:5 "For you Maker is your husband the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is you Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."
Israel is often portrayed as the bridegroom or bride in their relationship with God. So then the role plays out when Israel misbehaves a divorce certificate is issued. Israel is sent away from her home into exhile in 721 B.C. such as in Jeremiah 3:8
But remember that Israel hasn't actually been wedded to their Messiah because they didn't recognize Him the first time. Not until the end of Jacobs 70th week known as the Tribulation. Read Romans 11:25-27

Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."
Many people will try to use mention of a divorce certificate to say that God has ridden Himself of Israel. That now the church is His bride. Of course this is in conflict with every book of the Bible. This is one of the signs of an apostate church. Israel is the tree and root while the Christian church is the branch grafted onto the tree. Romans 11:17-21--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for clarifing that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

well its quite clear that God does not approve of divorce but if certain rules are followed
it is allowed...I.E you CAN'T get re-married. This was not Mose's wish but the people. Jesus
still disapproving it allowed for that law to remain in place. so move on, its not a good
choice but it is allowed. For me its still unclear though is divorced allowed ONLY if your
spouse is NOT a virgin OR is divorce allowed for any reason EXCEPT thier NOT a virgin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:*''Jesus ...disapproving ..allowed for that law to remain in place...''
::Interesting doctrine; are you somehow implying that Jesus's mission was to rewrite the law, and he did so, and that now Christianity follows some form of "biblical law" based upon the teachings of Jesus? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeshua Messiach's mission, as it were, isn't to rewrite the Law. It is to fulfill it. By revealing its meaning. Divorced for not being a virgin? I don't think so. Sounds like some other religions' doctrine and not the Judeo-Christian kind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

umm read the verse again...it says fornication...sex without being married....which would
implie they were not virgins...you got a better explaination? its exactly what Joseph considered
doing with mary as he thought she no longer was a virgin. what bible you reading from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

if he allowed the law to "remain"..how is that re-writing it? sounds more like a confirmation
yes?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Joseph did exactly what Jeremiah 3:1 says,
:*''It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless '''return to me''', saith the Lord, '''and I will receive thee'''.

:Here the Lord amends himself; Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to stick a bill of divorcement into his wife's hand and send her out if he hated her. But Joseph, following the spirit of the law, said, "return unto me." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

This is what Christ himself had to say about this subject:

Matthew 19:7-15 (King James Version)

:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

http://www.myspace.com/zelemiah
{{unsigned|Zelemiah}}

== Given for hardness of hearts ==
Jesus actually clarified this, saying that Moses included the ruling not because it was originally God's will, but because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts (Matthew 19:7-9). It was in other words a commandment derived from the will of men and not God.

{{Bible quote|They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.|book=Matthew|chap=19|verses=7-9|version=KJV}}

Isaiah 50:1 appears to suggest that God never divorced Israel.

{{Bible quote|Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.|book=Isaiah|chap=50|verses=1|version=KJV}}

Therefore, according to what Jesus said, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 was specifically given because of the hardened hearts of the Israelites.

{{Bible quote|When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement '''<k@riythuwth>''', and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}

Therefore, since Jesus already explained Deuteronomy 24, there is exactly one unexplained usage in the Bible of divorce, and that is Jeremiah 3:8. Perhaps this verse was included by Pharisees because of their desire for a teaching on divorce, per the condemnation in Revelation 22:18.

--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 03:21, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Paul reaffirms that God has not cast away His people, Israel, in Romans 11.

{{Bible quote|I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,|book=Romans|chap=11|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}

Therefore, Jeremiah 3:8 must be getting misread. Perhaps the correct translation into English should be, "for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I '''wanted to''' put her away, and give her a bill of divorce". If that one little word translated had is wrong, it would completely explain the whole verse and put the whole controversy to rest. Therefore, that verse needs to be carefully examined to be sure it's translated correctly into English. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 04:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Interesting title, terrible first comments!==
Well, firstly, each of these four people don't disagree on the divorce. Firstly, Moses was given by God an allowance of a certificate of divorce, yet Jesus clarified that later that it was due to their hard heartedness, and then he reiterated the statement "that is why a man will leave his mother and father and stick to his wife and become ONE (not ONE OR MORE) flesh.

Ezra also showed that the marriages to the nations were against the laws of Moses, in that they had unlawfully married. Therefore, to equate it to today's terms, the marriages were annulled, and worse than that, illegal. If a person did this today in most countries, they would be imprisoned.

Then we come to Jesus, who stated what was written above. He also stated though that divorce was ONLY permitted on the grounds of fornication (sexual immorality on the part of the other party), and didn't state they HAD to divorce, but that it was permitted. As for Paul, he also shows that divorcing is wrong. The problem with the understanding here is that the difference between a separation and a divorce are two different things. Paul's information about the unbelieving husband/wife leaving never mentioned that they could remarry, did it. It only showed that if the party wanted to leave, they were free to let them leave. Still, for them to marry without any grounds of fornication would in ITSELF be an act of fornication.

So hopefully this clears up a little bit of stuff. It isn't disagreement, as ultimately, it isn't Moses, Ezra, Jesus or even Paul who have the saying that JEHOVAH, or God has hated a divorcing...yet he's permitted it due to mankind's sinfulness. It isn't right, but it happens. Also, any legal divorce not based on a scriptural reason is technically not a divorce at all unless for fornication. If mankind was faithful, then there would never have been a divorce.

Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?

2014-08-06T18:21:06Z

Exwikipediaperson:

My understanding of Biblical teaching is that the Sabbath should be kept as a day of rest and prayer, free from work. Surely this precludes even the Godly work being carried on by the editors and administrators of Conservapedia. I suggest that access to Conservapedia be barred on Sundays, and that this bar should take account of changing time zones - ie it should begin when the first part of the world enters Sunday (Western Pacific, Fiji etc) and ends only when the latest part of the world enters Monday (Eastern Pacific, Hawaii, etc).

:I don't think the wiki software on which this website is based is even capable of doing something like that short of locking every single page every Sunday which would defeat the whole purpose of your idea since it would be a whole lot of work. Not to mention the idea that Sunday is the Sabbath Day is a matter of some debate. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Can't the server(s) just be disconnected from the internets? Or turned off? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:09, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

If that is so, then maybe the front page could ask people not to edit or use Conservapedia on a Sunday. Or administrators could set a lead and example by not working on Sundays.

:The problem with that is if the administrators don't work on Sunday than it would essentially be a free for all day for vandals. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you mean vandals? This is an encyclopedia. (And how do you get your 'signature' on the end of each posting, please?)

:Which version of the Sabbath should be kept though? Many sects believe it to be a Saturday rather than a Sunday. Making ''everybody'' stop on Sundays, would be good as it would force the semi-believers to do the Right Thing; I suspect they might complain about it though. (Signature: The swirly thing in the buttons, tenth button from the left.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 06:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

To make a signature use this <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. From [[Wikipedia]]:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==No==[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 14:21, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

</blockquote>

While Wikipedia and Conservapedia do have many [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|differences]] their basic definition of vandalism is applicable here. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. [[User:John11:35|John11:35]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No, but...==

There should be an edit rule (suggested but not enforced - a guideline), that after six days of frantically creating, improving and discussing articles, and contributing to these magnificent debate topics, an editor should take a day of rest and go outside. Sysops and admins could work out a rotating schedule so they don't all accidentally rest on the same day. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== OY ==

<pre>
1. Well for one your question is flawed the sabbath is NOT sunday.
2. its a long story but you'll need to read your bible on what happened to the sabbath.
3. again read your bible..is it okay to do good or evil on the sabbath or sunday?
</pre>
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== For who? ==

The Sabbath was instituted for the nation of Israel and was contained in the Mosaic law (Exodus 31:16, 17). Observant Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, continue to observe the weekly Sabbath (usually from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday).
*Christ Jesus set the standard for doing good work on the Sabbath when he healed the sick, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees who tended to be rigid in their interpretation of work. Jesus responded that just as his Father continued working, so he continued working. (John 5:5-17)
*Romans 10:4 states that Christ is the end of the Law (see also Galatians 4:9-11 and Ephesians 2:13-16). This means that Christians are no longer under the multitude of rules and regulations associated with the Law, but can have an approved standing with God based on Christ's sacrifice.
**Christians are still bound by the ''principles'' contained in the law as noted by Jesus himself when answering a Pharisee's question as to the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-39). Where the moral standards set out in the Ten Commandments, and other portions of the Mosaic Law, are restated and thus binding on Christians in the New Testament; the sabbath law was not included.
[[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 18:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think so. I already find it hard enough to get time to do stuff before the stupid editing locks come on. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 18:51, 15 December 2007 (EST)

= In my opinion... =

I must agree with what Sulgran said, it does seem that doing such a thing would be hard. However, if it can be done, then I fully agree with it. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 20:35, 19 December 2007 (EST)

= Not so fast... =

First Jesus made His remarks in the context of a situation that required urgency, secondly it would not be appropriate to enforce a one-size-fits all policy on an issue like this; it should be left to the individual. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 15:51, 22 December 2007 (EST)

: Right, it's up to the individual. For most of us, Conservapedia is enjoyment. I don't think hobbies and enjoyment have ever been banned on the Sabbath. Some small sects do ban the use of technology, such as automobiles, on the Sabbath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 22 December 2007 (EST)
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]
::I concur with both of you gentlemen; as long as one doesn't forget the reason for Sunday in the first place. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 22:16, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Dedication ==

I would say that contributing to Conservapedia and dedicating one's self to the site is a way of helping push God's word to the masses. This should surely be allowed on the Sabbath day? [[User:JNeumann|JNeumann]] 08:17, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Absurd ==

Not all Conservapedians are religious. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 11:43, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?

2014-08-06T18:18:00Z

Exwikipediaperson:

==Not Necessarily==
I understand killing yourself is an ultimatum sin. But what about people who suffer from depression? They have a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them intense grief. They become so helpless they turn to suicide. Would God punish someone for dieing of cancer? Someone who commits suicide from depression is not thinking with a clear mind due to the depression. However, their are those who commit suicide out of cowardice. I believe those who commit suicide to escape punishment are the ones who go to hell. Not the ones who can't mentally control their emotions. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 24:05, 15 March 2009.

:Just as we don't know who goes to Heaven or hell (that is for Jesus alone to decide), we don't know if all suicides end in hell. The mercy of God's love is not fathomable. All humans are not worthy of God's glory, yet he loves us no matter. I can see instance where a good holy person and mother loses a child to suicide. The Lord would never break her eternal heart saying she must separate her from her beloved offspring in Heaven, because of the evil one's bidding. For all we know, some suicides may end up in Purgatory. This being just a purification stop with a guarantee of Heaven eventually.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 02:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

::Strictly speaking, suicide is a mortal sin, but not an ''unforgivable'' sin. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I think we have reason to hope that, in at least some cases, suicide is forgiven. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:::In the Divine Comedy, only one suicide is shown outside Hell, namely [[Cato the Younger]], who guards the gate of Purgatory. He committed suicide rather than surrender, which the Romans considered a noble act. However, Dante doesn't explain why Cato should escape Hell so the exact reasoning behind his placement is a bit of a mystery, even for scholars.

:::I forgot about Purgatory jpatt. As for Dante one should remember he was going on the seven vices and came up with it from his imagination. However Dante gave a great perspective. [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 18:30, 15 March 2009

::::I don't think all suicides go to Hell. For example: King Saul, the first king of Israel, falls on his own sword after a horrible defeat and to escape capture by the Philistines. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=31] In fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that committing suicide automatically send you to Hell. As stated above, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I think that ''if'' the Bible said suicide was okay, lots of people would be killing themselves just to get to Heaven.) -[[User:Solomos|Christopher Solomos]] 01:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I've heard it said that suicide is a sin because it is the intentional destruction of a gift of God. Not only that, its the intentional destruction of God's greatest gift -- the gift of life itself. Now, if you take the traditional Protestant position that all your sins must be forgiven to avoid Hell, and that you must request forgiveness to receive it, then suicides do go to Hell, because they commit a sin and then die before they could ask forgiveness. (Well, ignoring cases like someone who jumps off a bridge, thinks better of it, and asks forgiveness on the way down.) However, we must ultimately remember that God is a loving God. I don't think God would condemn a person who did not have control over their own actions due to mental illness. I also don't think God would condemn the poor people who chose to jump out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 rather than burn to death.

:::::: Nobody would deny that suicide is a sin. However, that does not mean it is unforgivable. If anyone who ever sinned went to hell, then we'd all be there. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:22, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::However, this leads to another question: what about actions that aren't strictly speaking, suicide, but still self-destructive? For instance, the case of someone who "drank himself to death". (The question of whether or not drinking alcohol is a sin in and of itself is an entire new topic....) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 07:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::Couldn't you claim that soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others committed suicide? God would have to be very strange to condemn them for that show of love. --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I would simply like to point out the Samauri of Japan, who would rather commit suicide than live with any sort of cultural dishonor. [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 12:55, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

There's a difference between sacrificing yourself '''for''' someone, and merely refusing to live with emotional pain. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 5:13) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

It is my opinion that anyone who commits suicide, with a feeling of complete despair that death seems to be the only solution, that they are not truly thinking clearly, and are thus not held accountable for their action --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Yes==

I do not think anyone that is Truly a born again Christian can commit [[suicide]]. The reason being that the [[Holy Spirit]] indwells them, which would disable them from getting to the point of suicide. I believe this applies to people on drugs or with supposed "mental" illnesses. [[User:Baronvonbob]]

==No==

Suicide is no worse than any other sin. John 3:16 doesn't say "unless you commit suicide". [[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]] 14:25, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Yes, but not because they committed suicide==
I believe that all (they may be some very rare exceptions) people who commit suicide go to hell. Not because they comitted suicide, but because salvation can only be found through Jesus. I don't believe that anybody who is a true and proper Christian could end their own life. Therefore, they go to hell - not because of the sin, but because they are not a true Christian.--[[User:Newton|Newton]] 21:18, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

==In God's Mercy==
God is the one who judges whether someone will be resurrected after committing suicide. As mentioned already, it is a sin that one can't be sorry for because it's too late, but also it is normally based on the feelings related in this psalm. Psalm 51:17. "The sacrifices to God are a broken spirit; A heart broken and crushed , O God, you will not despise."

So ultimately, Jehovah being a God of love will consider all circumstances, and knowing his love and mercy, there is no reason to feel hopeless about a lost loved one by suicide, although there are no guarantees.

Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?

2014-08-06T18:11:46Z

Exwikipediaperson:

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
== What does Christianity say about sex with children? ==

I know bible condems homosexuals to Death/Hell...

Leviticus 20:13 - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall :surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) - "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual :offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

...and therefore guessing that applies to all Sexual Perversions.
But then, what would be the concenting age limit ?
And, would the Death/Hell penalty apply to concenting children as well ? (for example a 10 year old boy and 8 year old girl having sex)
--[[User:Ne0Freedom|Free Your Mind]] 12:51, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

I, too, would be interested in hearing more debate about this subject. In some places in history, the consenting age was as low as 14 (I believe, don't quote me), but then, even now, when you turn 18, you're "good to go" with anybody from 18 to 70 (ech).

==The Law==
Where the law of the land doesn't contradict God's Laws, God expects us to abide by them. A man of 40 who has sexual relations with a woman of 40 but isn't married is a sexually immoral person in God's eyes. If they recognise they've offended God, and are genuinely sorry, they can be forgiven if they cease practicing what they do.

If it is a child who has sex with another child, the child will normally recognise their mistake when they grow up if this is the case. I'm surprised at the subject matter, as if it's a question about pedophilia, then being a sexual predator is not only a form of sexual immorality, but is preying on the weak and vulnerable. A person who practices such things will not inherit God's kingdom, as it is not only a form of sexual immorality, but a taking away of someone elses rights for their own satisfaction. A perverse form of covetousness.

As for the quote of Leviticus and the putting to death, without repentance, yes, indeed, these people are worthy of death in God's eyes. As for the innocent child, it is not accountable to them by being violated by some filthbag.

And what's this with Christianity saying about it? There are so many divisions that Christianity is a misnomer these days. The bible states that a person who practices these acts is worthy of death. No holds barred.

As for consenting ages, that isn't a subject that I would go into, but find if an older person is talking about it, then they need to take a deep serious look at themselves and how they stand before their creator, as well as their fellow man. Predatory overtones ring out.

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2014-08-06T18:00:44Z

Exwikipediaperson:

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Trying to define what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy")

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Seriously on that last sentence? I've yet to see a Bible that uses the phrase "homosexual". Pretty recent word IMO, certainly not in any Bible I've read.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 23:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's 1 Cor 6:9. NET and WEB use homosexual. Rotherham uses Sodomite. It seems to be missing from my version of the Vulgate. All other versions I have use some construction of "men who abuse themselves with men." Shouldn't this be a Discussion or Debate?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 02:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

--NET and WEB are new versions of the bible which have undergone many translations and transformations. If you look at the King James Bible - accepted all over the world as the most accurate, the "Authorised Version" - you'll see it's not about homosexuality at all. It says "nor abusers of themselves with mankind". So don't accept the word of people who just decide for themselves that's what an ambiguous verse is about, twisting words until they are unrecognisable like so many preachers do. And they do. Proof of that is in the existence of countless different kinds of Christianity.

Whats with that one that calls fornicators sinners? I still fail to understand why sex in marriage is ok and sex out of it isn't. Adultery is wrong yes, but just fornicating? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:09, 22 April 2007

:Fornication covers far more than just sex outside marriage. My KJV dictionary describes it as "sexual immorality," which, as you can imagine, covers a wide array of behaviors, many of which hadn't even been invented when the Bible was compiled. (Likewise, certain behaviors considered immoral then may be moral today; but let's not go there.)

:For the sake of argument, let's accept sex outside of marriage = fornication. Imagine a child born out of wedlock in an ancient, tribe-based society. Imagine trying to determine the rights and obligations of all parties involved, to include care of the child, inheritance, legal lineage, etc. Back then, it was much easier just to restrict who is having sex with whom. Today, we have the benefits of contraception, paternity testing, etc., so it's not as big a deal. But there is always a counterexample to make us think that maybe the ancients were on to something (see: DannieLynn Stern/Birkhead/Whoever).--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, the Bible says plenty against homosexual sex out of the context of a relationship, but the only comment it makes about a loving homosexual relationship is between David and Jonathan, which is even said to be better than that of a man and a woman: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26, King James). They formalised the relationship: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Samuel 18:3-4, King James). I thought with so many negative quotes from the Bible on this page, it might be refreshing to have a positive loving one :-) [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 18:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Wrong''' David and Jonathan were not homosexual. <s>Take this as a block warning.</s> --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the quotes check out (though they may be out of context). We don't block for ideological reasons, according to your awesome proposed block policy, CPA1. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, no block warning. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry - didn't realise I was near a nerve. I'll back up slightly. I will say though that the view that they were homosexual seems to me no less conservative than that they were not - it has been believed by many for centuries (e.g. "indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus", Life of Edward II, 1326 AD).
:::: Dont worry, you will be had, sooner or later I am sure. I mean, check out the link related to Schlafly on wikipedia and provide them here and you will see how quickly you will be BLOCKED. Oh yes, that most Reverend Haggard also, not a peep about that man here nor will we ever see any mention. Ah yes, Our Vice President and how angry he got when CNN Wolf Blitzer started down the road about his daughter. So, watch out, big brother IS watching and WILL stop you when they find anything they deem objectionable (Oh yea, the reasons will not be what you think they are or what they state
:::I don't know whether we can say categorically that they were not homosexual, but I do admit there is a grey area. The key word seems to me to be 'ahabah', which is the Hebrew word in the text for the love that they shared. It is the same word as between Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:20). It also features between a man and a woman in Pro 5:19 and 2Sa 13:15. It is also used often to describe God's love for his people.

:::The argument that their relationship could be political does not to me seem very credible as all of their covenants were made in private. Although David was married to many women, the Bible never states that he loved them, only that one of them loved him. In fact, when he learns of Jonathan's death, he states that his love for him was greater than that of women (as quoted above). What is the argument that they categorically were not homosexual? [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::P.S. the quotes were only out of context as it would be a little counterproductive for me to paste the entire passages here. I gave references so that they could be read in context which, I believe, supports my point.

yeah your totally out of context...it would depend on your definition of love..does that ALWAYS
include sex? IF you Love God even more then a women, does that mean you had sex with God? does
"1 Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us. " mean God had sex with us? That verse you
so need to be homosexual is talking about a brotherly love greater then love between a husband
and a wife.--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Please, guys, get over it! Read another book. The bible is - er - out of date and was written by a bunch of chaps who were not exactly up-to-the-minute. Anyone who says being gay is wrong is immoral. Anyone who says that sex is wrong is immoral. We must find other codes to live by, beyond those outlined in the bible, which is a book completely irrelevant apart from some cultural and literary interest. The bible is wrong. It is not the word of god. God does not exist, except in the minds of the emotionally depleted and the intellectually feeble. Is this clear?

much love and best wishes

chris larner

The Church discourages it and in some cases it is condemned and forbidden. Like marriage = A man + a woman only. --[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 23:54, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe Christian teaching is that all homosexuals should be put to death. (LEV 20:13) ----[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] --[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT) (Sorry, forgot to sign)
:You may wish it were so Charles, but it does not make it true. Christianity is about mercy and recognizing that all have sinned and are in need of forgiveness. If you have a desire to argue the point, you may wish to log onto a jewish wiki or a jewish website and see their views as they do not believe in the New Testament message and give a prominence to the Torah that is often lacking in Christian circles. As I have been active in different debate forums and come across many "Charles" in my life, I already know that you have no desire to do so -- your barbs are aimed at Christianity specifically, not the originators of the scriptures. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Allow me to rephrase... In the Bible, it states that homosexuals should be put to death: Leviticus 20:13 - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 03:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it does, but let's be clear. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is the New Testament. In Paul's writings, in the New Testament, he let us know that under the law ALL are condemned. (The section of the Bible you are quoting from is the law.) General Christian theology is that first came grace, then came the law. We live under grace. The law is there to make you realize you can't fulfill it, and you need a savior. And, just in case you're thinking it, does that mean we are free to go out and sin? Paul brings that up too - no. We live for Christ, but just because we miss the mark doesn't mean we put people to death.

:::That's the Christian view. Now you've quoted from the section of the Bible that is most holy to Jews (some Jews believe that only the first 5 books of the Bible are the inerrant word of God, the rest is fallible), so really your concern is with Judaism. But that being said, ancient Jewish writings do not show this being enforced either. For a system of belief that most follows the literal punishment of the laws, you may wish to turn to Islam where some practices are still in effect today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

What exctly is wrong about a man loving a man ? [[User:Tieum512|Tieum512]] 07:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I think the issue being discussed is not a man's loving a man, but rather engaging in sexual relations with a man, or perhaps a man treating another man as a woman rather than a man. I'm not as much an expert on the Bible as I should be, unfortunately. Does lesbianism even play into this at all? [[User:Anmeris|Anmeris]] 14:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

----
'''
== Brief responses to primary homosexual arguments ==
'''

The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. While not much is given here, i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism.

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, as in "to know them") is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, but is very often used in such a context (as btwn humans to personally know) to denote gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25), and which fits in perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.

In Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 the, attempts to negate such injunctions rely upon imposing a hermeneutic that negates the other prohibited moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), but which negation the rest of Scripture disallows. Another attempt is to make these injunctions only for purposes of distinction (team colors) btwn Israel and the pagan nations, yet the Bible treats them as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites.

Another attempt is to make them only applicable to the Levites, but which the context denies (Lev. 18:2; 19:2; 20:2).

Another attempt requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions (Lv. 18:22; 20:13, and only one of the death penalty for it (20:13). This ought to be enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignores that fact the the more common a sin then the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), while not all the types of fornication are repeated elsewhere in the O.T. Meanwhile (in my research), not all the of the other specific sins of fornication in Leviticus 18 + 20 are condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament, though they are part of universal prohibitions, and the death penalty for at least one (Lv. 20:12) is only mentioned once, as is the penalty for perjury that caused a mans death (Dt. 19:15-21). In addition, the idea that the prohibitions against homosexual fornication simply refer to "ritual uncleanness" is as absurd as forcing the other injunctions against fornication, adultery, etc. into that category. And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, and moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.

Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only homo-eroticism that is part of idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. And the text goes on to list other sins as further manifestations of degeneration, and which are likewise universally evil. Neither was the condemned homosexual eroticism forced, but consensual, and that it was driven by lust, as it typically is today, does not allow for any practice of homosexual eroticism that is not, any more than it allows for "loving" heterosexual eroticism outside marriage, which is never provided by God for homosexual.

As for the dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, thus further affirming the general applicability of Levitical prohibitions (which do not use that term), rather than the opposite, as homosexual apologists wrest it to mean. These were also addressed to Israel as a whole, as part the mixture of religious, civil and moral “statutes and judgments” that began in chapter 12. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such

A final objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As homosexuals like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.

Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), both of which details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).

As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage (as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals - and also would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it out to be - then it would be unholy fornication), such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.

Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms), and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known for keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).

Regarding Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments, ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of Aaron upon his son. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.

As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia). As for "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was very sadly for good, and the only real friend the hunted David likely had) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.

Finally, as regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and as for “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being of a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love. But evidently many homosexual apologists lust to see what they seem to value the most when they force it in here.

David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him. David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it). Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.

As for Ruth, if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they propose or assert, then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority

I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture, suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.

For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine)
and http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html (see Homosexuality) --[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==It's Wrong, But...==

Christianity says homosexuality is wrong. I won't deny that. But that doesn't mean Christians have to adopt an anti-gay agenda and enforce it upon non-Christians or people who are Christian but not as religious. I am Jewish, and my religion teaches that eating pork is wrong. On a side note the book of Leviticus even describes eating non-kosher meat and homosexuality using the same phrase - "it is an abomination", which should eliminate any debate regarding degrees of sins. But, while I would therefore not eat pork, and I would consider a religious Jew who ate it to have violated their religion, I would absolutely not consider any of you sinners if you eat bacon and sausage every day for breakfast. And for that matter, I wouldn't consider a less religious Jew a sinner if they did so. After all, I've seen many posts here fearing that radical Islam will come to America and enforce their views on us, so why is it ok when American Christians attempt to do the same? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:34, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

==What about the Bible?==
Ok, so people have quoted scriptures, and the theme is "christianity". It is plain that a practicing sexually immoral person of ANY type will not inherit God's kingdom. The scriptures at 1Corinthians 6:9-11 show that VERY clearly. But note verse 11. It says "but that is what some of you WERE...". The point is that any person who practices sexual immorality is a sex offender in God's eyes, and this includes homosexuality. Yet if one STOPS their offending behaviour, or rather repents (recognises it as wrong and feels bad about it) and turns around (stops doing it) their sins can be blotted out, and they can stand in line to inherit the blessings of what our creator wants for us...but a sexually immoral person of any type who is unrepentant stands in their sins. (Acts 3:19) (Galatians 5:19-21)[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 14:00, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?

2014-08-06T17:48:43Z

Exwikipediaperson: /* Yes, they were */

I just wanted to know your opinions on this topic- [[User:AmeliaW]]

I have not heard of Achan, but if I had to guess, I would say yes, and yes.

[[Category:Debate]]

==Yes, they were==
Achan brought destruction onto his whole family. As a matter of fact he brought destruction onto the Israelite camp, causing death to other families.(Joshua 7:5) Achan's actions weren't hidden, and according to Jewish law at the time, a person who witnessed a sin and didn't report it was guilty. Now as for the age of his children, we don't know. But what we do know is that Achan hid the merchandise in his tent. It would be a bit hard to hide things in a tent...not like there are secret compartments or trapdoors into the sandy desert floors or skins...(Joshua 7:20-21)

Was it just? We may think "How could God be so unjust so as to kill a child?", yet we know very well that mankind does that on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, as I'm typing this, there are those who are being killed by multimillion dollar corporations by exploiting lands on which people need to live, but they don't care. Secondly, there is warfare where the targets are families, to cause a form of terror in the hearts of the people and get the media on the bandwagon. But what about God's actions? Was THAT unjust?

Here's a possibility, not an absolute. Maybe Achan's sons would have grown up resentful and caused more damage. Also, maybe Achan's sons were young men, not little tots. A similar misunderstanding happens often with Abraham and Isaac, where people think of Isaac as being a baby or something, when he was actually carrying the wood, and he would have been a young man.(Genesis 22:6-8) He voluntarily lay on the altar, not like a little baby. This is a side point, but just something to think about.

Ultimately, God is just, so his actions would have been just. More than likely, Achan's actions killed many families affecting women and children and the "eye for eye, soul for soul" law may have applied...but we don't know the specifics. Still, God is just.[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 13:37, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?

2014-08-06T17:37:29Z

Exwikipediaperson: /* Yes, they were */

I just wanted to know your opinions on this topic- [[User:AmeliaW]]

I have not heard of Achan, but if I had to guess, I would say yes, and yes.

[[Category:Debate]]

==Yes, they were==
Achan brought destruction onto his whole family. As a matter of fact he brought destruction onto the Israelite camp, causing death to other families. Achan's actions weren't hidden, and according to Jewish law at the time, a person who witnessed a sin and didn't report it was guilty. Now as for the age of his children, we don't know. But what we do know is that Achan hid the merchandise in his tent. It would be a bit hard to hide things in a tent...not like there are secret compartments or trapdoors into the sandy desert floors or skins...

Was it just? We may think "How could God be so unjust so as to kill a child?", yet we know very well that mankind does that on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, as I'm typing this, there are those who are being killed by multimillion dollar corporations by exploiting lands on which people need to live, but they don't care. Secondly, there is warfare where the targets are families, to cause a form of terror in the hearts of the people and get the media on the bandwagon. But what about God's actions? Was THAT unjust?

Here's a possibility, not an absolute. Maybe Achan's sons would have grown up resentful and caused more damage. Also, maybe Achan's sons were young men, not little tots. A similar misunderstanding happens often with Abraham and Isaac, where people think of Isaac as being a baby or something, when he was actually carrying the wood, and he would have been a young man. He voluntarily lay on the altar, not like a little baby. This is a side point, but just something to think about.

Ultimately, God is just, so his actions would have been just. More than likely, Achan's actions killed many families including women and children and the "eye for eye, soul for soul" law may have applied...but we don't know the specifics. Still, God is just.[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 13:37, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?

2014-08-06T17:37:07Z

Exwikipediaperson:

I just wanted to know your opinions on this topic- [[User:AmeliaW]]

I have not heard of Achan, but if I had to guess, I would say yes, and yes.

[[Category:Debate]]

==Yes, they were==
Achan brought destruction onto his whole family. As a matter of fact he brought destruction onto the Israelite camp, causing death to other families. Achan's actions weren't hidden, and according to Jewish law at the time, a person who witnessed a sin and didn't report it was guilty. Now as for the age of his children, we don't know. But what we do know is that Achan hid the merchandise in his tent. It would be a bit hard to hide things in a tent...not like there are secret compartments or trapdoors into the sandy desert floors or skins...

Was it just? We may think "How could God be so unjust so as to kill a child?", yet we know very well that mankind does that on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, as I'm typing this, there are those who are being killed by multimillion dollar corporations by exploiting lands on which people need to live, but they don't care. Secondly, there is warfare where the targets are families, to cause a form of terror in the hearts of the people and get the media on the bandwagon. But what about God's actions? Was THAT unjust?

Here's a possibility, not an absolute. Maybe Achan's sons would have grown up resentful and caused more damage. Also, maybe Achan's sons were young men, not little tots. A similar misunderstanding happens often with Abraham and Isaac, where people think of Isaac as being a baby or something, when he was actually carrying the wood, and he would have been a young man. He voluntarily lay on the altar, not like a little baby. This is a side point, but just something to think about.

Ultimately, God is just, so his actions would have been just. More than likely, Achan's actions killed many families including women and children and the "eye for eye, soul for soul" law may have applied...but we don't know the specifics. Still, God is just.

Debate:Why did God allow Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Forbidden Tree?

2014-08-06T17:25:04Z

Exwikipediaperson: /* Free Will */

This is a question that has been stinging in my head for a while. Surely, God, being all knowing and omnipotent would have known Satan was in the garden, and he would have known with certainty that Eve was being tempted, but yet, he did nothing to prevent the fall of man. Yes, he warned Adam and Eve never to eat the fruit, yet they did, in spite of his will, but that is not the question being asked.

Thinking a bit more, why did God even place the tree in the Garden when he simply could have removed it or placed it somewhere else?

Please help, I am completly unsure what to think or believe. It pains me to think that an all-loving Lord stood by and watched as we gained original sin. [[User:JohnI|John]] 13:40, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:Original sin was not the only thing at work in the Fall. By placing temptation in Eden, God was offering mankind a choice of two paths - a pure and simple existence in a Paradise free of sin, or a more complicated existence in which we have to find our own path to Heaven by making the right choices. As a result of the Fall, God gave us sin and mortality, but also freewill, thought and choice. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:10, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Free Will==
So you teach your children to read and write. You teach them how to cross the road. You even hold their hand and make sure they understand the dangers. You give them good food, and teach them poisons, and what not to touch. When they are now 30, are you still holding their hand crossing the road? Are you still telling them that the bottle with the word "poison" will kill them or make them sick? No, now they are responsible for their own actions as adults. They have brains, hopefully.

Well, God did the same. He created Adam. He told him "All this is good, but not that. Don't eat from that because you'll die"...a bit like telling your child "Don't drink THAT!!! It'll burn your mouth and may KILL YOU!!!"

So some nasty murderous creature tells your 30 year old child that it's actually a drug that will get them high and will make them feel like they are God, and will learn new things, and that you didn't want them to know because it was your little secret stash.

This is what Satan did. Actually, he told Eve to try it, who then gave it to Adam, who decided to also take of it.

In summary, if God hadn't allowed mankind to reap the consequences of their disobedience, then no lessons would be learned. We live in the world today with all the problems because mankind knows "a better way". God's way was right. Actually, if they didn't eat from it, Adam and Eve would never have died. Yet God allowed them to choose for themselves. Sadly, they did it before they had children. Therefore, ALL children born to them had this poisonous bite from this fruit in them, namely sin (missing the mark of how God expects people), so they all died...we all die. If Adam and Eve had a child first, THEN ate from it, only the partaker of the fruit would have died, and the others would have learned the lesson "Don't drink bottles with poison written on it" as such...but Satan destroyed the first couple, and ruined ALL of God's physical creation that he made in his image. Why did he not step in? Because if he was going to continue to just buffer Adam and Eve into a life of strict robotics, that isn't life. Free will is a gift. Unfortunately, Adam's choice was so selfish that he affected all others. God's allowing him to do it was in fact a loving provision to allow him to choose to do what he wanted...a bit like the son who's 30 who decides he wants to now go and take up a heroin habit. Sure, off he goes, but not in my house...hence, out of the garden they were cast. The difference here though is that the heroin abuser is able to stop, as they weren't created perfect thanks to Adam's sin. God is love, and as much as God can be all knowing, he is also loving, and allows things that he chooses NOT to think about, but put's faith in us. You, me...all of us.[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 13:25, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate:Why did God allow Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Forbidden Tree?

2014-08-06T17:24:44Z

Exwikipediaperson:

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2014-08-06T17:11:13Z

Exwikipediaperson:

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

One of the geneologies is of Mary and the other of Joseph. To Mary in Luke, and to Joseph in Matthew. Both contain David. Cheers, Adam

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez
: 1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
: 2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects ''history'', or that you don't find the God it portrays to be ''attractive''? Those are two entirely different propositions.
: 3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be ''credible'' or not. That's a whole other inquiry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

It implied thay went to hell, as they couldn't follow the law or Jesus. I read Romans 1-2, and have some questions:
1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.
2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.
3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.
And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

''It implied thay went to hell, as they couldn't follow the law or Jesus.''
: Again, it only implied that if you assume that the author believed that you automatically go to hell if you don't have the law or ever hear of Jesus. I don't see any evidence in the text that the author of Exodus assumed those things. I don't see the words "Hell" or "Jesus" anywhere in that book, nor any implication that the author had any idea what either of those things are. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
''1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.''
: Many different opinions on that issue. My personal opinion is that the "faith, not works" passage is badly misinterpreted by contemporary Christianity. Faith is not "mere belief." To be faithful as a spouse is to keep your promises and fulfill your role and duties, even when you don't feel like it. That's what I think "Faith" means in that context. To be faithful to God as to a spouse -- by keeping our promises and living out our commitment. And I think the argument he's making is to legalistic people who think they are saved by doing X,Y, and Z ritual, and saying, "Don't take pride in your ritualistic works -- they aren't what save you -- it is your keeping of your commitment as a whole, which is grounded in HUMILITY. 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

''2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.''
: Again, many opinions. My personal opinion is that the two passages do not contradict each other. God ''judges'' all people by the same standard, but selected Israel to be a city on a hill -- an example to the rest of us. Nowhere does it say that only Jews go to heaven, or that only Christians go to heaven. But it does say that both groups were selected for a special purpose to fulfill ''on Earth''. Personally, I'm glad to be a gentile, 'cause I like bacon and lobster. I have fewer restrictions than they do, and still can be judged righteous. Google [[Noahide laws]] for info on how the Jews think we're judged. Seems to me ''they're'' the ones that got the raw deal in their ''own belief system''. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
''3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.''
:Not sure what you're getting at. It says the Gentiles will be judged ''by their conscience'', not by the letter of the Jewish law. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
''And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.''
: I don't claim to know. I'm open to the possibilities that "A) it happened, and was just as unfair as it seems to me; B) it happened and was fair in some way I don't understand; C) It didn't happen, and later writers stuck that in there because they wanted to emphasize God's greatness and power. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
''I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know.''
: That I can understand. I just think it's important to separate issues of ''fact'' (Does this God exist as described?) from issues of preference (assuming this God exists, do I want anything to do with Him?). Your arguments so far have centered around whether or not he is a ''good'' God ... my question is, what reason do you have to believe that the book is factually and historically false? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Apply your principle to road rules and see how you go==
If I decide "Well, I think stopping means to actually stop moving my head, therefore I stopped", I have no excuse when the lawman questions me...unless he notes me as insane. 
If I decide to read the building standards but do it my own way, according to what I feel would be nicer, I have no excuse when the lawman questions me...unless I've liaised with him over some misunderstanding. 
If I decide to read the scriptures and make my OWN interpretation, then technically, I have my OWN religion, but it won't be registered with man, nor with God. Still, as for the perspective of the Bible having infallible words of God, the answer is yes. How can I say this when the Hebrew scriptures speak of warfare, and in the Christian era those who used to be soldiers gave it up for a life of peace? There must be an understanding. Either it contradicts itself, or it's worth reading to see where this change took place, and even where it was mentioned that it WOULD take place (clue: Isaiah 2:2-4, Micah 4:1-4)

Talk:CE

2014-08-06T17:03:08Z

Exwikipediaperson:

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes <ref>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html</ref> --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Merrium websters ==

I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis. But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)
<pre>
Main Entry:Common Era
Function:noun
Date:1846

: CHRISTIAN ERA

Main Entry:Christian era
Function:noun
Date:1657

: the period dating from the birth of Christ

Main Entry:CE
Function:abbreviation

1 chemical engineer
2 civil engineer
3 Christian Era — often punctuated; Common Era; often punctuated
4 Corps of Engineers

</pre>

== Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary? ==

There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term? ==

CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --[[User:JerriahD|JerriahD]] 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Weekdays ==

Why this was eliminated?
: Those pagan names were successfully replaced only in Portuguese, due to the efforts of Martinho de Dume, roman catholic bishop of Braga (518 - 579). See, for example [http://www.portuguese-resource.co.uk/?page_id=344 this text in Portuguese] or [http://gobrazil.about.com/od/travelportuguese/qt/daynames.htm this text in English]
Just because it shows that Portuguese is a more Christian language than English? :-) [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:45, 9 March 2010 (EST)
:Let Portugal do as it pleases, but don't bring Portuguese policy here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 9 March 2010 (EST)

:This has nothing to do with atheistic denial of the basis of a dating system. And, by the way, atheists seem just fine with the pagan weekdays while they insist on erasing reference to Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)

:: I don't dispute your basic point, but in fact atheists ''have'' abolished pagan names for weekdays - at least in the past. The atheistic and socialist French Revolution instituted a calendar in which there were 12 months of 30 days each, named largely after the Parisian weather, and in which each week had ten days simply named after numbers (primidi, duodi, tridi and so on). You are totally correct that modern atheists seem more intent on removing references to Christianity than references to more primitive religions, however. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:54, 9 March 2010 (EST)

== General clean-up ==

Hey everyone! I fixed some grammar issues, and generally tried to make this article more encyclopedic and 'clean.' I also added some more history about where the terms CE and AD come from; hope I helped! God bless. [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:02, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

== "A later edition (11th)" in the lede ==

"A later edition (11th)" in the lede is confusing. Edition of what? What did the earlier edition say? Thanks! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 12:51, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
<references />

== Ab Urbe Condita ==

Couldn't the science movement use the AUC notation, or since the founding of the city (of Rome). Classical antiquity is arguably the start of modern science, and if they use AUC they won't have to deny the Saviour of mankind in order to remain politically correct.[[User:PeterZ|PeterZ]] 23:51, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

: People can use whatever system of dates they like. But if they use the Christian dating system, then honesty requires stating its source: BC and AD, not something that erases the basis of the dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

==Other Reasons==
If someone says they were born in 1942, but they were really born in 1940, but they stick with 1942, they are lying. To say they travelled abroad in 1940 and travelled ALSO in 1942, this is acceptable. Christ was only born as a human once. Because of the bad mathematics, BC is a bad terminology. Imagine saying then that from now on, we'll use pharaoh's cubit's to measure the distance light travels in a second, or we'll use the speed that it takes for the light to reflect from the moon and back and average it out over a few years. It's like using a ruler made of jello. Christ wasn't born on BC or AD, or even in between (whatever the hell we'd call that! Zero maybe?), so we can't say he was. It's not a major issue, but if there is going to be a whole article on how we should use BC/AD instead of CE/BCE, I totally disagree. May as throw out the IUPAC measurement systems too, and go back to Dalton's Plum Pudding model of the atom.

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2014-08-06T16:46:06Z

Exwikipediaperson:

{{debate}}

With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions.
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied.
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.
::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work.
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''" and "''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''": True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''. This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the "scientists as an authority" argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.
::::: "''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''": No, "deep time" was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.
::::: "''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''": Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.
::::: "''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''": Yes. Faith is trust ''based on evidence''. If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.
::::: "''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''": Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method. To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator. Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''. The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:Most of that post is simply assertion. When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly. Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''. The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid. All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it. Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information! That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::I have to disagree here - genetic variation rarely introduces or destroys genetic information - it, more accurately, mangles it. Usually you get two results - missense and nonsense. Missense is something that reads incorrectly - usually something small, like a substitution of one base pair for another. It can have no effect, or be harmful or beneficial. Then there's nonsense. Nonsense is when the resulting genetic code is totally, completely unreadable. This usually occurs when you get a frameshift mutation - since genes are read in codons of 3s, adding one or two base pairs or deleting one or two will 'shift' every single base pair down the chain. This results in more dire genetic disorders. Now, how this relates to evolution: missense is actually a good thing: it can introduce new alleles (variations of a gene - usually just dominant/recessive) into a population, add new genetic strings, duplicate a chromosome, etc. So long as it doesn't result in that organism being infertile or dying, it will cause a change that can be compounded in its successors. Lots of evolutionary trends can be explained by gross mutations that, by a quirk of luck, did not end up killing the organism. The best example I can think of is the duplication of the hox gene (a homeobox gene; it determines how body segments develop) in invertebrates. As you go from invertebrate to vertebrate, you find more and more copies of the hox gene; invertebrates have one, simple vertebrates have two, vertebrates with seperate, complex jaws have three. These large mutations, when they don't kill the mutant, can be passed on and slowly, gradually edited via trial and error until you have an astonishingly interesting result. The best example of genetic information being "introduced" and resulting in a beneficial (to the organism) evolution are antibacterial resistant disease strains; bacteria reproduce at an incredibly fast rate, and as such a bacterial population has quite a few different mutations and alleles in its gene pool at any given time. As such, when you expose the population to waves of antibiotics, the tiny fraction of bacteria that survive by a combination of luck and good genetics pass these genetic changes onto their offspring. Not only this, but bacteria can also pass the genetic changes on to other, non-related bacteria by conjugation and plasmid exchange. Anyways...Yeah. Kinda run out of steam, but there's a shortish explanation of the mechanisms I believe power evolution.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion. And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::: "''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''": In order to "support evolution", the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''. Creation also predicts a "rich history of different species of animal[s]", so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.
::::: "''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''": [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.
::::: "''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''": They show no such thing. Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they "show" that that's what actually happened. That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.
::::: "''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''": Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave. And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.
::::: "''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''": Huh? What's that?
::::: "''...or 'flood extinctions...''": How are there "too many"?
::::: "''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''": See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.
::::: "''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''": They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Actually, I'd say fossils pretty well _DIS_Prove the [http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm Whole Silly Flood Story]. If all those animals really had died at once, you'd expect they'd be a lot more mixed-up, with whales and stonefish next to trilobites and Devonian fishes, instead of being neatly arranged in strata, with the animals that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy tells us are the oldest at the bottom, and more recently-evolved ones higher up. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: So you know enough about flood geology to know the processes involved well enough to make predictions about how things would be buried? The ones at the bottom are generally the ones that lived on the bottom of the seas and would have been buried first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually, I'd expect the first ones to be buried would be LAND ANIMALS, who '''can't swim'''. But instead we find invertebrate water-dwelling animals at the bottom-most layers, with the vertebrate fish appearing further up, then the amphibians, then the reptiles, THEN mammals. A result that looks to me like it makes more sense from an evolution-based model than a Genesis-based one. Go read the article I pointed to, it goes into a LOT more detail than I can. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Massive undersea landslides have been noted travelling at high speeds that quickly bury anything in their paths, whether they can swim or not. Land animals could initially escape to higher ground before being buried, particularly the larger, more mobile animals, whilst amphibians and reptiles, which can't move as fast, would be buried sooner.
::::::::: As far as your linked article is concerned, it has so many misrepresentations in the first two paragraphs that I didn't bother reading any further.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Wait, wait. These undersea landslides move so fast that nothing can escape them.... escept the things that moved to higher ground. Which is why we find Devonian-era giant dragonflies in the same strata as modern birds.... oh, wait. No we don't.
::::::::::I am totally unsurprised you didn't read it. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

One can believe in evolution and God. If we look at the theory of evolution, it is widely believed that life started from extremely simple almost non-living organisms in the thermal vents of the oceans. Who created these thermal vents? Who created the earth? Who created the sun? who created the solar system? Who created anything and everything in our universe? There has to be something. Evolution could just be a part of the way things happen. The same way an egg hatches or ice melts. It's all science. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
: See [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Are evolution and the idea of God contradictory?|here]] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Okay. Now, how does one go about ''scientifically'' testing for God? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::It is not possible to test for God. The only thing people have is what they read and are taught. For all we know, God may have been produced to explain the unexplainable, to take away some of the natural curiousity that comes with human nature. People have the need to believe that there is something more to life than just what we sense. We need a reason for what we do in this life and most humans need the comfort of knowing that there is a place for them when they die. Whether you believe or not, God is the only thing we have to explain the creation of our surroundings. Science is what we have to explain the ways of our surroundings. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}

::: I missed Gulik5' question. My answer would be contained in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], the section about "Proving God", although that assumes you've read the sections prior to that.
::: Jmela09, I think you go too far the other way, seeming to say that we have no way of knowing. Also, it overlooks the possibility that perhaps the "need to believe" is because God created us that way. Why, otherwise, is there a need to believe?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:36, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::::This is very possible, however, how can we explain the origin of the "need to believe"? What scientific evidence do we have? It seems God is proven by the individual and not by science. Some people believe their whole life and others begin believing when they feel the "need to believe". What triggers this "need to believe"? I think it has to do with the way you view your life and experiences. The people that believe are the people that feel God has somehow touched their life or society. The idea of God is very personal and can only be explained by the individual. {{unsigned|Jmela09}}
::::: I would think that everyone has a "need to believe", but some satisfy, at least partially, that need with other answers. It is true that many people believe in God for purely personal reasons, but it's false to say that personal feeling is the only basis for belief. God can be deduced logically, and quite a few people have come to believe in God not because of personal experience or feelings, but because of the overwhelming evidence. See also my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], down to the section about proving God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Economists and people invloved in the Medical field are some of the most intelligent people in our country and they are more likely to believe in God then people of other academic fields, also most professors believe in God-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It is not relelvant to some poeple. Personally I believe in the evolution theory and God at the same time. I think that there is already enough evidence to support the evolution theory. But I follow God's teachings on life, not where life came from. Please do not be offended but there is no evidence of God's existence. It is only a matter of faith. But for "scientific" topics like evolution I think I'd rather believe in science. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Disagree?]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'd say that God's existence ''is'' relevant to everyone, although not of ''interest'' to some people. Which "God" do you believe in? It can't be the God of the Bible, as that God is inconsistent with evolution. And if you don't believe what God said about where life came from, why believe His other teachings? If He got one part wrong, why think that He got another part right? As for no evidence for God's existence, don't be offended, but you are quite wrong. The very fact that we exist is evidence for God's existence, as naturalism, the only alternative, has no coherent explanation for it (the Big Bang: First there was nothing, then it exploded!). Claiming that evolution is science is begging the question, as science is about observing, testing, and repeating, things, none of which can be done with molecules-to-man evolution. Rather, evolution is a story about the ''past'', a claim about ''history'', not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it's just that the scientists who do not believe in God have the thinking that if you can't see it, then it can't be real, or that they lack the depth of thought to actually believe in something. It is almost like they are intimidated by something that they can not grasp or fully understand. Either that or they don't have the full facts on the Bible and the evidence supporting it. --[[User:IndigoiMac|IndigoiMac]] 12:33, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: First of all, it is necessary to establish a difference between "believing in God" and "believing in what is the true God according to the Bible as it is interpreted by Christians". You can believe in God while denying the literal account of the Bible is true. Many people, including some scientists, do this. That being said, anyone who DID believe the literal account of the Bible was 100% true would almost certainly not be a scientist since doing so would force them to contradict their own beliefs. So it doesn't surprise me that leading scientists don't believe in the literal Bible any more than it should surprise me that Hindu priests don't. Science is these scientists' "religion" (which I use in a looser sense of the word than usual, to simply refer to any belief system whether there is a higher power involved or not). That is what they believe in. So this should really not be a surprise. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:52, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

==Easy Answer==
We can view the fact that the leading scientists don't believe in God with the fact that many leading scientists DO believe in God.

Debate: Is America a Christian nation?

2014-08-06T16:41:19Z

Exwikipediaperson:

==Yes==
:[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/poll_of_us_christian_gx3ryO4cJ2tohJhf7KlbHP] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:48, 28 December 2012 (EST)

==No==

==Maybe==

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==National Perspectives==

I will quote three scriptures only here.

John 17:16: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world" - Jesus' words in prayer talking about his followers
Acts 15:14: "Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name." - James speaks up about how God chooses a nation OUT of all nations.
Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite. - Daniel shows by the prophecy given by the dream of a true permanent nation ruled by God that crushes all these kingdoms.

Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?

2014-08-06T16:32:50Z

Exwikipediaperson:

The original Bible says the savior will be born ''not'' from a virgin, but from a woman who has never given birth before. In other words, the savior has to be a first-born. Fundamentalists have taken this mistranslation to "virgin" seriously, and it has become important in many churches that Mary was a virgin rather than a first-time mother. Why has this point become so important? [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:48, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]

If I accept that the word translated as "virgin" really does refer to someone who has given birth, then I would say that the cause of any obstinate refusal to accept the actual translation is two-fold. First, that people see something which they know to be true, and we hold onto the only evidence we have been taught or have thought of. Since the only evidence people know is the mistranslation, they hold onto it. In this case, we know that she was a virgin for other reasons than the mistranslation seemed to give. My practical answer to this is to do what you suggest by (1) rethinking every pertinent thing using the corrected translation (deriving new outcomes) and by (2) knowing whether the previous pertinent outcomes (or facts) of the mistranslation are still correct (but using different words as evidence). Second, many people feel more pressure to conform with their families and friends than whatever the truth of a given situation is; this is destructive to us all in all things and not just here, but it serves here to clarify just why fundamentalists take this mistranslation seriously.
Remember: God knows the true cause for every true effect, even when we don't; God has even revealed much of His knowledge to us. Reliance on God will cause your sense of the truth to be refined as you wait on, ponder and know Him. [[User:GiLGiJ|GiLGiJ]] 18:03, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:Umm, I am a fundamentalist, and I don't think the words in the N.T. or O.T. mean virgin. This is one of those words that got translated wrong because of the Catholic Church's wrong teaching on the Virgin Mary. The O.T. word "almah" means divorced woman or widow, same with the N.T. word "parthenos". In the Old Testament the word for virgin is bethulah, so if Isaiah 7:14 wanted to refer to virgins, that's the word it should've used. Almah appears to be a variation of almanah meaning widow. Both almanah and bethulah are used in Leviticus 21:14 - "A widow <'almanah>, or a divorced woman <garash>, or profane <chalal>, or an harlot <zanah>, these shall he not take <laqach>: but he shall take <laqach> a virgin <bathuwlah> of his own people <`am> to wife <'ishshah>." The Isaiah 7:14 prophecy is repeated in Matthew 1:23 and the word used is parthenos. But parthenos cannot mean virgin. As seen from a reading of 1 Corinthians 7, the correct interpretation is widow. In fact, the incorrect reading of 1 Corinthians 7 led to the Catholic belief on priestly celibacy. As far as I'm concerned, Mary was a widow when she married Joseph, and a number of Jesus' siblings may have come from her other marriage. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 03:13, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

==I'm not a fundamentalist==
People claim I'm a fundamentalist. They also claim I'm anything else that is in opposition to some belief they have that they put a brand name to. Anyway, to clarify a few important points, Mary said when told by the angel that she would give birth to a son "How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?" (Luke 1:34) Being betrothed to Joseph, this would have made her a subject to adultery in her days, and after she fell pregnant, it was revealed to Joseph that she was indeed given God's seed. To consider that word that you've stated as meaning "from a woman who has never given birth before", it is only half the story. It is misleading to say that maiden doesn't mean virgin, as indeed a maiden CAN be a virgin, although as you state, it could have another meaning. The fact though that Matthew and Luke (Matthew was an apostle) state plainly that Mary was a virgin who became pregnant by means of holy spirit, and apply this to the same scripture in Isaiah 7:14 shows that she was indeed a virgin. Otherwise, how else could God's seed be sinless from the stain of man?

As for the parthenos explanation, have you heard of parthenogenesis? It's worth looking up, because it shows that certain creatures who are not widows are having children...they are virgins...and not hermaphrodites. So Mary was no widow, at least not until the births of all of Christ's brothers and sisters.

Also, to say "the original bible says"...
If you have a copy of this original bible, it would be a precious treasure, as last I knew, we only have translations.

My response therefore isn't in defence of fundamentalists, as I don't know these paralegal terminologies of church and universities (which aren't important according to Jesus), but as for the argument about Mary not being a virgin, I disagree with you. The holiness of Jesus depended on him being born of a virgin.

Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.

2014-08-06T16:12:55Z

Exwikipediaperson:

The bible cannot truly be taken literally, because its facts contradict itself. Take the gospels of Luke and Matthew, for example. Matthew states that in the lineage between Jesus and David there are 42 entires, and Luke proclaims only 27, and only three of them overlap. Obviously, both cannot be right, and cannot be used with literal conviction. Also, if Jesus is truly of virgin birth, then he cannot be the Messiah. The Old Testament clearly proclaims that the messiah must be David's descendant. Since Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David, this would make sense, but if he didn't shoot his DNA at Mary, then how can Jesus be the messiah at all? Something is clearly amiss here, and removes credibility from a literal bible. Finally, Matthew chronicles a census ordered by Caesar Augustus happening during the time that Mary and Joseph settled in Bethlehem. However, there were no censi taken at this time by Caesar Augustus. The closest on was done by Qurinin, and that was in 6 AD, no sooner. I question whether any of these bible literalists have actually read the bibles they claim dictate their lives, as if they did, they'd realize how truly ridiculous some of the errors are. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 23:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is not a problem as it is far more appropriate to say that the Bible is only intended to be literarily true, as many of the comments below elaborate upon. Be careful; the Bible has withstood the test of scholarship for milenia and you are putting your scholarship (or lack thereof) on display. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 09:32, 02 January 2008 (EST)

Matthew and Luke give two different liniages. Matthew gave Joseph's, and Luke is giving Mary's. As such, Mary is also a descendant of David, and thus Jesus could still be born of a virgin and be the Messiah of David's lineage.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] March 3 2008

:Firstly, if one is of Joseph and the other of Mary, why are there 41 generations between David and Joseph and only 27 between David and Mary? I know a generation isn't a fixed period of time, but still, it's unbelievably impractical to believe that Mary and Joseph could be anywhere near the same age. By rights, Mary should be several hundred years older than Joseph if you believe that both geneologies are the literal truth. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that Luke is describing the geneology of Mary - in fact, in Luke 3:23, he says "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," and continues from there, which shows that Luke is describing the geneology of Joseph. And finally, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, He was the son of God. What you're doing there is taking two pieces of evidence, realising that they don't fit together, and making up a third piece to try and cover it, and that's how atheists get you. You have to remember that the Gospels were written by imperfect human beings, not God, and that's why they tell two different tales. It's likely that some elements from both are true, but neither is the literal truth, and they certainly can't both be the literal truth. [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 15:02, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::As the Scofield Reference Bible has noted, one is giving Jesus' Davidic line emphasizing His kingly heritage, and those focuses on kings and noble lineage. Some descendants are omitted it would seem to focus on the ruling line.

::To quote the Scofield Reference Bible (I prefer the newer version but the 1917 one is the only one online):

::<blockquote>
(CF) 1 Samuel 24:16 The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.
</blockquote>

::That's why in Matthew 1 you see more noble ancestors: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Joram, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, etc. These were ruling ancestors showing the ruling line through David. Some which didn't rule were apparently omitted because the line's emphasis was on showing descent of rule, not all ancestors. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 17:21, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

==No discernment==
If you are looking for the truth then you'd better start looking harder and longer. Understanding the Word of God is a little different then reading your school textbook. It sounds like you did a rudimentary scan of the Bible only to find everything not to be totally synchronic. The lineage answer is here: http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-josephs-and-marys-lineage-incorrect
You go on from there, but it is only the same type of faulty logic used with an incomplete picture of actual history. You use selective facts in a subjective manner in order to prove your agenda that the Bible cannot be taken literally. What context are you trying to find these literal inconsistancies? The Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, or the Exodus? These are the literal truths of the Bible. If you don't believe in the One that wrote the Bible then don't waste your time in finding any literal truth in it because you don't have the key.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''''Wow'''''. So, this book which you and your sort wish to hold out to me and [[Liberal|my]] [[Atheist|sort]] as being ultimate revealed truth, cannot be understood properly unless I have already accepted your worldview? You know, there are same Christians out there who love the bible, and Jesus, and God, and don't worry about literalism. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Typical response. My main argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible is that "the One" didn't write the entire bible, which includes texts that were never meant to be incorporated with others. Also, the Bible as we knew it has gone through numerous translations; it wasn't originally written in English, because it didn't exist back then. Because of the multiple translations needed to get to English, all sense of context is lost since the original Aramic or Hebrew. A crude but effective test can be done on those free translations websites. Take a slang phrase (or any other phrase) such as "All dressed up and nowhere to go", or something like that. Translate it from English to French, then French to German, then from German to English. You'll find that the new phrase has zero relationship with the original one. Admittedly, translation would be more sophisticated via the human element, but the point is the same. Nobody can accept a literal interpretation of the bible through the English version; the ONLY way to get an accurate interpretation of the Bible is through the original root languages. Otherwise, any literal interpretation is simply a fallacy. And I SINCERELY doubt that you have read the entire collected works of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Aramic. By the way, those websites do not describe how Jesus could have been the Messiah AND of virgin birth. He cannot be both, for if he is of immaculate conception, he doesn't meet the requirements of the prophecy in the Old Testament (on a side note, isn't it funny how god is much meaner and nastier in the Old Testament than in the New?). However, if he is descended from David through Joseph, making him the messiah, that denies a main tenet of Jesus being of immaculate conception. Ergo, it is silly and plain false to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which was purely meant to describe a template for good and compassion in a world lacking those qualities.
One other point: after the Flood, God used the rainbow as a symbol to people that he was so distraught by his destruction of the world that he would never do anything cataclysmic again. So how does that hold against the claims of a coming Judgement or any of that other stuff? [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

In the eternal worlds of Homer Simpson: 'Facts, schmacts. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true.' That's exactly what you are doing: flying in the face of the facts. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

::Typical legalism. I've heard them a thousand times. Usually a big waste of time trying to argue a point. Fine then, for you, this point is worthless. Since you won't accept what it says is the antithesis of your religious belief. Be a nihilist. You wish to slander the wisdom of a book thousands of years older then you'll ever be. You offer nothing to fill the void. By the way the rainbow was the symbol God used to show mankind He would never again destroy the entire world by flood. The Judgement day is when all of mankind will come before their Creator and be judged worthy to live or die. Then you can argue all of your legalist points and tell Him how badly he goofed everything up. That should go good for you. The final 7 year Tribulation that culminates at a little place called Har Megiddo, a.k.a. Armegedon, doesn't result in the total destruction of mankind. Just a third or two of it. But why do I wast my time here? You have no faith in Him, so His words are meaningless to you. They are foolishness to those without faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: You are right, do not waste any time of yours. If you are part of the establishment on this wiki, take such blasphemists off the board since they obviously do not believe in the book that holds ALL the truth and ALWAYS has. Evolution is a theory, what the Bible says about man/life is the truth. All the stuff about fossils and carbon dating and gene structure and function and the similarity between genes and proteins among humans, chimps, worms, mice and rats are all a scientific conspiracy designed to make believers in the literal truth of the Bible look bad. I mean, scientists make up things and are dishonest while men of God are honorable and are always seeking the truth as stated in the Bible. The real problem is that Gutenberg came along and made it possible not only to make copies of the Bible but blasphemies like textbooks in the sciences and humanities. Worse, Galileo was let off the hook last century for his blasphemies, the Sun does go around the Earth and we are the center of the Universe. The real enemies are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Bahais or the Jews - but teachers and professors who have the temerity of teaching students how to think and question everything. And how dare does anyone question the eternal truths in the Bible? All of it is true, and anyone who says anything else is evil. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Roo, just s simple question, "Why do you believe the bible to be true?". Really, what happened in your life for you to believe that this 2000 year old book has more validity than physical evidence that has been provided over the past 100 years? Did you know that most people are Christian, not because they studied other religions and chose one, because they were indoctrinated into it by their parents and communities? Perhaps you should ask yourself the reason why it irritates you so much when people question your beliefs. Maybe it is because you want to answer them but can not find the answers in the religion and now you are starting to doubt what you have been taught? Take the higher road and look at research or research for yourself, if you start to make things up or provide information that is misleading then you are just getting trapped.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know the Bible to be true not only because I have studied it for decades. But because of people who know nothing about it continue to make fun of it just as little children make fun of someone they don't understand at elementary school. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. I read the simplistic little smug attacks on Judaism and Christianity and see only foolishness. Whether or not they are Humanist or Nihilist, I'd prefer them to stick to commenting on something they know something about. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It may be your just not scholarly enough. The religious beliefs in evolutionary theories are what have well documented grave errors and inconsistencies. The theory of evolution is a delusion hatched from a fantasy that never happened and continues not to happen. It is unfalsifiable. This is all that is offered as the antithesis to Gods word. This religious belief you profess as science isn't at all scientific. It's rather called a FAITH. Of which the foundations of that faith are crumbling into dust. Its priestly class of teachers and professors have indoctrinated their faithful students only to mock and belittle those who don't believe in the religion of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, Roo, sounds harsh. I just wanted to know was what made you a Christian? I have to mention that I am a bible scholar, have read many different translations and have seen first hand some of the inconsistencies found in the bible and its chapters. I keep an open mind and look at the bible as metaphorical instead of literal so that I can keep faith in its message, however logically it does have issues. Perhaps you could study it a little bit more and try to see these things yourself? The point I made above about indoctrination still holds true, very few people actually take the time to study the Quran and other religious texts, and perhaps you should spend some time to see the difference between the bible and these texts. As for Evolution, I would have to say you seem not to be aware of the biological sciences. Many biological predictions have come about due to evolution and many observable events have roots in evolutionary theory. It is far from a delusion and fare from unfalsifiable, I have pointed these things out to you on the debate page before but you have yet to respond.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS, Yeshua Messiach's death and resurrection is what makes me a Christian. How about you? I would be very interested to hear about some of your first hand inconsistencies that you've found in the bible and its chapters. Also, be careful in using the open mind or being more open adage. Being so open that you fall for anything while also standing for nothing comes to my mind. Not to infer to be close minded either. Just be mindful. Metaphorically speaking, as it were.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, just a few things. First, how do you know that the story of Jesus is true and not embellished? Second, I am agnostic, I do not claim to be right with any religion. Third, here is a list for you <ref>http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf</ref>. Forth, having an open mind does not mean you take everything at face value. Having an open mind means that you are willing to listen and try to understand the logic of something before judging it false. I have studied the bible, have you studied evolution yet? Here is a link to a wonderful book that would give you the background in evolutionary theory to better debate your position. <ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html</ref> I believe it would help you understand the theory and perhaps come to accept it but if not then it will at least provide you with some background information so you do not fail when debating with someone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Tims, the link you give is from the University of Maryland's Department of Computer Science. When using the search function input with bible I found the list of over 700 inconsistencies along with a description below it that says: "has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to ..." http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/csumd?q=bible&domains=www.cs.umd.edu&sitesearch=www.cs.umd.edu
::::Your so-called list is merely 700 childish statements of ignorant mockery towards the Word of God. None of which presented any actual inconsistencies that couldn't be solved with any serious examination. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be malicious. Since you say you are an agnostic then it's a waste of time to give you directions to a place you've no intention to go to. As for the reference to the book: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, it is another good example of how the adherents to the ideology of Darwin keep changing itself. That's what makes it UNFALSIFIABLE. It is able to change itself by evolving to conform to any new hypothesis, or evidence, especially the lack of it, that comes down the road. Get it? It just keeps evolving.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::That is correct Roo, a link that was a PDF, easier to read. Did you happen to read through the list? There are many inconsistencies that can only be resolved by a liberal application of interpretation, like you mentioned above serious examination. If you take it literally, like you seem to take the creation account in the bible, then you can not explain the inconsistencies. For example how do you explain these two points 1. "The Amalekites were smitten before Amalek (from whom they descended) was born. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen.36:12). 14:7" 2."Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark.” Just looking on line and reading the bible you can see the other inconsistencies that stand out, when you are looking. The logic of the bible is often flawed. I believe it has some very good points about how to live with others but I think it should not be taken literally when other evidence has shown it to be false.
:::::If I understand correctly you are talking about heaven when you said direction to a place where I have no intention to go. Just a point, when you look at the logic of heaven did you ever wonder how a person could be truly satisfied? Think on it, if you are in heaven and your family is below then you would have a longing for them. If you were doing the same thing day after day then you would have a longing for something different. The only logical way for a heaven to exist is to wipe the mind and individuality away of the human. So in essence destroy the being. Does not sound like heaven to me. Perhaps I am wrong but the heaven of the bible sounds worse than any prison on earth.
:::::Roo, once again you show your lack of scientific understanding. Theories do adapt to new research but if the basic premise of the theory is not proven false it still stands. For the theory of evolution the basic premise is that organisms evolve over time in response to their environment. Has anyone provided proof to the contrary of this? That is the falsifiablity of the theory. As we learn more about molecular biology we learn more about the mechanisms that contribute to evolution. It does not change the basic premise of the theory only reinforces it. Like I said it would behoove you to read more on this subject to better educate yourself.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that meets the definition of being unfalsifiable, doesn't it? There will never be the evidence that once and for all will prove its validity, so that neither can it be invalidated. A perfect example of its own circular logic. The only reinforcement you will ever see within the field of evolution theory is the evolution of the theory itself. Forever adapting to whatever the next great new hypothesis comes down the trail. But before you accuse me again of having a lack of scientific understanding let me say that you too also show a lack of understanding. By believing the statements made in the PDF from your link you have indeed proven your own lack of understanding of the Bible. Although as a matter of simple logic you wouldn't want to seek any truth within the Bible. It is inconsistant with your belief in evolutionary theory. You can't believe in a Creator since only creatures are acknowledged without their Creator to an evolutionist. It would be only logical to embrace evolution and reject the Bible. Yes, you are also way wrong with that Heaven thing you got there.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, it does not meet the definition of being non-falsifiable. I gave you examples in previous conversations as to what would falsify evolution. Please read and try to understand them. I never said I believe the statements in the PDF, just that they point out some issues in the logic of the wording. You made a claim that the bible had no errors, I just showed you some of the logic errors that have been reported. I can not understand where you get that my understanding would be flawed when what I presented was black and white. Your statement about not believing in a creator is a bit far fetched, I could be some other religion besides Christian and not believe the same as you do but believe in evolution and a creator. Your logic seems to be limited based on your worldview of the situation. I would advise that you open your mind and try reading some research and come to your own conclusions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, you say you don't believe in the statements of the PDF and yet they point out issues of logic? That in itself isn't logical. The worldview of believing in a Creator while at the same time believing in a theory of Evolution that rejects a Creator is also illogical. I also believe that the kind of open mind your talking about is the kind that stands for nothing and will fall for anything. You can begin to see where this is going, don't you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I got to say, I looked through that list of inconsistencies (reference 1), hoping to find something really juicy, but most of them were nit-picky while the rest were not 100% inconsistent. I didn't read the whole thing, but that list seems pretty bogus (that is, if it were created with the intention of proving false a literal interpretation). I don't like things like that; they foster anger and not discussion.

I just wanted to say a few things here. In reference to an earlier comment made by SeekCommon, I'm a scientist, and I don't think that I make things up more than any given man of God. We are all human, and it is all of our capacities to lie and falsify.

Also, I'd like to defend evolution. Evolution is a theory. So are gravity, the jet stream, eyesight, relativity, electricity, and so on and so on. We scientists realize that we can never be sure to know that anything is completely, certainly, without-any-doubt-at-all true. So we use the word "theory." For instance, in paper I'm writing for publication (hopefully soon), I show some peculiar behavior I've observed in certain compounds then I come up with a theory to explain it. Once published, other scientists might realize that my theory helps explain phenomenon they've noticed, so they would write a paper and reference my theory. This might continue until so much work is at least slightly based on my theory that not many people question it. But we would still call it a theory because, unless God himself comes down and tells us to grab a pen because he's about to explain it to us, we will never be absolutely sure that our theories are correct. There are cases throughout history of relatively-recent theories being proven wrong (classical physics is a famous example of a theory that couldn't understand why it couldn't explain everything), but these are surprisingly rare. That's the beauty of our system; we take nothing for granted, and this makes us able to explain how the world works (and at this point we recognize that we can't be too wrong considering that we having working cars, computers, medicine, and the like).

So, I hope that helps people understand what is meant by "theory." In some sense, the concept of evolution does have to slightly change to stay recent with respect to new research. But the sort of thing that changes in the theory are the scientific details lay-folk don't understand anyway. If the crux of the argument, that slow genetic changes occur in populations over long periods of time, turns out to be wrong, then evolution will be proven false. But a new theory will take its place. So if your problem with evolution is that it contradicts the Bible (which, judging by where this argument is taking place, it probably is), let's not argue the falsifiability since 1) making up new theories could be viewed as ways of extending evolution's lifespan and 2) I could make similar arguments about your beliefs. I read a book about evolution and creation in high school, and it seems from that book that *most* (not all) of the noted inconsistencies (used loosely) can be resolved with metaphoric interpretation of the Bible and consideration of the Bible's original language being Aramaic/Hebrew. I suppose that's why we are talking about evolution on this page.--[[User:Remainder|Remainder]] 15:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

AdamN, you are wrong about the censi. If you care to educate yourself to the truth about this time in history, see the page
here:http://1stokiedoc.tripod.com/census/
Although it is easy to make blanket statements that you may parrot from your educators, it's quite another to engage in good scholarship. OkieDoc 17/08/07

==Two accounts of creation - the Bible contradicts itself in the first chapters of the first book==

In Genesis there are two conflicting accounts of creation that are so blatent the only logical explanation is that they are two different stories about the same thing, written at different times by different people. If the Bible is the literal word of God, this can't possibly be the case.

In Genesis 1 the animals are created on the fifth day, man and women on the sixth day (from the New American Bible):

"Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened:
God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."
God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.
God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day.

Then in Genesis 2, the seventh day is described, where God takes a coffee break, and then he goes and creates man when the land is completely barren, and then gives man creatures to play with (again, from the New American Bible):

"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.
Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being."

Now, I've heard from Biblical literalists that Genesis 2 is supposed to be describing the creation of Eden, but this can't be the case because of the next verse:

"Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed."

The accounts are written in cronological order, so there is no dispute about when things happened, to me, anyway. I challenge anyone to try to give me a convincing argument about why I should believe that the Bible is the literal word of god. Where does this idea come from anyway (let me guess, from the Bible, right? Circular reasoning...)? [stubbstarbuck] 16:24, June 28th, 2007.

:Did you ever stop to think that Genesis 1 describes the Creation, while Genesis 2 just goes into a little more detail as to what happened? Unless of course it's your opinion that it just has to contradict itself... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read the rest of it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:44, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

===Toledoth Accounts===
There's a good explanation here of the "Wiseman Hypothesis" or "Tablet theory", which basically says that the book of Genesis is made up of numerous Mesopotamian family tablets, similar to those found by archaeologists throughout Mesopotamia, and that they were combined by Moses into a single account. Each tablet would have a genealogical table and a narrative about the family's history:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/10/11/the-tablet-theory-of-genesis-authorship.aspx#Article

Basically, the book of Genesis is divided into separate accounts all throughout using the Hebrew word "towl@dah" or toledoth, which roughly translates to "generation":

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/KJV/towledah.html

The word is used in the following places to indicate different generations:

* Genesis 2:4 - Generations of the heavens and the earth
* Genesis 5:1 - Generations of Adam
* Genesis 6:9 - Generations of Noah
* Genesis 10:1 - Generations of sons of Noah; Shem, Ham, and Japheth
* Genesis 10:39 - Generations of families of sons of Noah
* Genesis 11:10 - Generations of Shem
* Genesis 11:27 - Generations of Terah
* Generations 25:12 - Generations of Ishmael
* Generations 25:13 - Generations of sons of Ishmael
* Genesis 25:19 - Generations of Isaac
* Genesis 36:1 (repeated Genesis 36:9) - Generations of Esau
* Genesis 37:2 - Generations of Jacob

Genesis 1:1-2:3 was something different. There were no heavens or earth for descendants to come from, so this section might properly be said to be a history of God's creation, a genealogy if you will. Genesis 2:4-4:26 on the other hand would be a generation of the heavens and earth specifically, and how once created their history and descendants continued, a narrative of specific events.

It's a pattern for the whole book of Genesis to give two sides, a genealogy, and a narrative of major events relating to people in the genealogy. For example, Genesis 5 tells of Noah's genealogy, but then goes into detail about his life in chapter 6-9. Genesis 10 tells of Noah's son's genealogies, Genesis 11:1-9 tells detail about events. Genesis 11:10-32 tells of Abraham's genealogy, while chapters 12-25:11 give detail about events. Genesis 25:12-18 gives detail about Isaac's genealogy, while 25:19-35:29 gives detail about events.

So in other words, it appears to me the first account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 was a genealogy if you will, a factual account about the creation by God, mentioning descendants. Genesis 2:4 was a specific narrative about the events of early mankind. This is a pattern seen all throughout the book of Genesis, and is consistent with the style used in early Mesopotamian genealogical tablets as recovered by archaeology. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 18:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Leaven ==
Being a Christian is bad for a person's mental health because according to the Bible, the Bible contains "leaven".
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Luke 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

According to the Bible, "leaven" is to be avoided.
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

According to the Bible, "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible.
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

According to the Bible, it contains "leaven", "leaven" is to be avoided, and "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible. The unsorted Bible is therefore bad for a person's mental health.
-heretic5 [Being a heretic is not automatically being wrong.]

:You are making a simple reading comprehension mistake. Jesus never said "leaven" was wrong. He said the "leaven of the Pharisees" was wrong. You're misinterpreting the passage, mis-reading it. It's silly reading mistakes like this that drive me crazy. If a lot of "skeptics" had reading comprehension and took basic English courses they wouldn't think the Bible had all these errors, because by and large many "inconsistencies" alleged are just reading comprehension problems on the part of skeptics. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 18:09, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Not Inconsistencies ==
The "inconsistencies" found in the bible are NOT inconsistincies at all. They are merely different points of view, its that simple. If three people went on vacation together to Disney world, then came back home and they decided to write their accounts of what happened in their journals, I can promise that they would have a few similarities; However, they would ALSO show a few different stories. They may include certain by-standers that were important to them, but maybe not important to another person who tells the same story so then left out that person. The story is still the same, with NO lies, or inconsistencies, just simply different points of view.
-matt

::...but not all of those points of view can be correct, if they differ in detail. If Susie says that everybody bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, and Jack says that only half of the family bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, then someone is remembering inaccurately.

It's interesting that the majority of scholars I've researched who defend the Bible against accusations of inconsistency do so by frequently making the point that the English translation doesn't always carry the same context as the original Aramaic. In other words: ''something was lost in translation.''

How can the Bible continually remain whole and inerrant when even its most learned defenders acknowledge translation issues that obscure the original meaning?

In the example of Jesus' resurrection, some gospels say there's one angel present, some say two. But, is that a contradiction? No. It would be if it was said that there were only one and only two. That's a contradiction. But, one of the writers could have seen just one and wrote about that one, while another could have seen both there. It's not necessarily a contradiction.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:That's an extremely precarious argument to raise in defense of the notion of Biblical inerrancy, Ultimahero. In a court case today, if two witnesses to a crime were questioned, and one said that there were two suspects and the other said there was one, significant effort would be taken to ascertain which one was right. If, in fact, there were two suspects, then the person who said that there was one is, in fact, in error. He's made a mistake. That mistake might not say anything at all about his honesty--it's quite likely that he honestly believes there was only one--but it does say something about his powers of observation. It would especially say something about his powers of observation if the person he failed to notice was had an appearance like lightning and clothes as white as snow.

:Accepting that the authors of the Bible were fallible men, capable of errors of this sort, is an absolute denial of the concept of inerrancy.

:Your argument is also flawed in another respect: the authors of these books ''weren't at the tomb.'' They didn't see anything--not one angel, not two. Their accounts aren't based on first-hand observation, but on the reports of the witnesses who ''were'' there: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (I suppose the guards at the tomb could also have given an account, but it seems unlikely, given that they were ordered to lay the blame on the Apostles.)

:Thus, the several Apostles received the same account of the episode at the tomb from the same witnesses.

:There are stronger arguments for the difference in accounts; it would be prudent to raise these arguments rather than then one you raise.

:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 09:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's say that you and a friend were walking down the street and saw a car crash happen right in front of you. If the police asked you and your friend to give an account of what happened, do you think that you would both give the same story down to the exact details? Of course not. In a court of law, if two independent witnesses gave the exact same testimony with the exact same language and not even the slightest difference, those testimonies would be thrown out. It would be obvious to the judge that they had gotten together and collaborated the evidence. Similarly, if the disciples had reported the exact same things with no variations at all, then they would instantly be discredited.

Now if the variations they give contradict one another, then there's a problem. But they don't. For example, John says that Mary Magdalene was at the tomb. He doesn’t say "only" Mary, just says that Mary was there. Mark, on the other hand, says, Mary Magdalene and th other Mary were there. That's no contradiction. Neither said that it was only those they were mentioning. They most likely just considered that the ones they mentioned to be the only relevant ones. There's no mistake there. And the women came back and told the disciples, and there were several women, so they had different accounts, as well. Maybe on woman told Peter something and another woman talked to John. That isn't a contradiction. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:...but, again, it tacitly acknowledges that what the authors of Scripture write may not be the ''whole'' truth...which is a very risky road to pursue when arguing for Biblical inerrancy. If the authors can leave things out in one place, they can leave things out in other places; who's to say what those things might be, and whether or not they might be important?

:I remain unable to embrace the grammatical-historical doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Though I accept and believe in the Truth of the Bible, I do not believe that God would restrict true knowledge of His Word to a select few elite scholars capable of semantically parsing the autographic texts.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 21:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

It was written by men, that's certainly true. But these men were inspired by God to write what He put in them. Spiritually speaking, God was writing it through them. They left out the things that they considered unimportant, but everything that mattered is in there. The miracles of Jesus, His divinity, crucifixion, burial and resurrection, etc.

What leads you to believe that God has revealed other spiritual truths anywhere else? 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is inspired by God...". The Bible itself claims it's inspired. Granted, this isn't an essential issue, so not holding to Biblical inerrancy doesn't negate your salvation. (I'm assuming your a Christian.) But, it does lead down to the path of liberalism in regards to Christianity and can lead to heresy. Not trying to judge you, just saying. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:36, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Let's qualify that stetement a bit, Ultima. As I'm sure you know, not every translation of the Bible renders 2 Timothy 3:16 in the same fashion. My New American Standard does, indeed, say that "All Scripture is inspired by God." My King James says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." On the other hand, my reprint of the American Standard Version says "Every scripture inspired of God..." My Wycliffe says "For al scripture inspirid of God is profitable..." Other translations, if I recall correctly, use more metaphorical language (the phrase "God-breathed" springs to mind, though I can't immediately recall which edition employs that metaphor...ESV, perhaps?)

:Now: I know that some of these translations are regarded as having greater validity than others. Certainly, I would tend towards the NASB in matters of serious Bible scholarship. However, it is important to keep in mind that we're dealing with interpretation on many levels. The authors of the various editions engaged in interpretation when formulating the modern English wording; I am engaging in interpretation when I select one translation over another.

:Assuming we can agree on a translation, there's also the matter of what is actually said. The NASB confirms that all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for instruction; it does not say that all Scripture is literal. Clearly, that is not the case, and I don't think anyone with a serious interest in the Bible would claim that it was; Christ's parables were certainly "profitable for instruction" (and more than inspired by God, since they came directly from the source.) They were not, on the other hand, meant to be taken literally.

:There's also the matter of "Scripture" (or alternately, "Writing" in certain translations) versus "Bible." 2 Timothy doesn't say "The Bible is inspired..." It says "All Scripture is inspired." What, then, of the Apocrypha and other texts rejected by the early Church? Did they overstep their boundaries in using fallible human judgement to determine which writings were a part of "All Scripture" and which were not? (One might argue that God would not permit them to make an error in such a selection, but I am not familiar with any textual support for that notion in the Bible. Certainly, history teaches us that the Church is capable of serious error and corruption.)

:As a result, while mindful of, say, 2 Peter 1:20's warning that "...no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," it seems to me as if it's impossible to engage in a study of the Bible WITHOUT engaging in interpretation. To claim that 2 Timothy establishes that the Bible is inerrant is certainly a valid interpretation, but it IS an interpretation, and not the only one.

:To touch upon your question of spiritual truths elsewhere, I should think that would be self-evident: God's will is revealed to us when we earnestly seek him through prayer. (I find Jeremiah 29:11-13 to be a particularly moving affirmation of this.) The Bible is the map by which we may begin our search for Him, but the search itself takes a lifetime.

:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's eliminate the problem of differing English interpretations right off the bat. Let's look at the Greek, which the New Testament was originally written it. The word inspired is "theopneustos", literally meaning "God-Breathed". All Scripture comes from God.

As far as literal interpretation compared to figurative, the answer is to look at what it says. If Jesus is giving a parable, as you said, then obviously it is intended to be a figurative story used to illustrate a spiritual truth. If the Bible says, "Jesus went to Jerusalem", then that's literal. What does it say? Also the book that it comes out of is important. Things coming out of the Book of Revelation deserve more scrutiny when coming to literalism because it's a book filled with symbolism. Compare that to the four Gospels, which are accounts of what Jesus did and said.

The cannon of the Scripture was established by the early Christians. They new which books were inspired and which weren't. The four Gospels were written by the people who either traveled with Jesus personally (Matthew, John) or by those who associated with those close to Jesus (Mark was a companion of Peter, Luke that of Paul). Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written within a generation of the death of Christ. This means that the people who were around at the time could easily determine if they were lying or not. That gives legitimacy to them. John was written towards the end of the 1st century, by Jesus' close disciple and friend. He knew what happened. Compare these to some of the other alleged gospels that were left out. They were written hundred of years after the death of Christ and were obviously not written by those they were attributed to. And a lot of those other accounts contain things that are simply untrue. That Christ never died, etc. These were clearly not true as they went against the understanding of what happened to Christ. It things like this that made it easy to figure out what was Scripture and what wasn't.

Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, the think about this. Christ says that He is "the way, the TRUTH and the life." (John 14:6) And, He says that He alone reveals the Father (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22). So if Jesus is the Truth, and He alone reveals the Father, then how do you find God? Only through Jesus. No one comes to the Father but through Him. (John 14:6). You have to go through Jesus. And where is Jesus revealed? In the Bible. Only the Bible can teach about Christ. So logically, you have to go through the Bible if you want to find the truth, Jesus, and want to find God. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:...but that's precisely it. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Bible is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Old Testament is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Bible is valuable, but it is a starting point--not an end. The Pharisees and Saducees were quite proud of their learning and knowledge of Scripture, but their ability to quote the law of the Old Testament did not make them holy; if anything, it pulled them away from God, for it made them prideful.

:Consider the number of Christians throughout history who have lived and died without ever reading a single word in the Bible. Consider the fact that the early Christians dealt with such fragments of Scripture as they could find; and that although the canon was established by the fourth century AD (and much of it was generally accepted by the third,) Bibles with significant variations in text would continue to be circulated and used for many, many years past this point. The Wycliffe Bible springs to mind, as do the (comparatively recent) examples of Bibles containing the Apocrypha.

:How, then, were those early Christians brought to the Word? Through the witness of Christians, most of whom had ''also'' never read the Bible. The conclusion, I think, is inescapable: while the Bible is important, it is entirely possible to come to salvation without it; the Gospel was meant to be spread through witness. Christ commanded His followers to go forth and spread his Word actively. I believe that that would have happened regardless of the establishment of canon, and regardless of the development of the printing press.

:While you assert that the fathers of the early Church would be able to select which books were and were not canonical and inspired with accuracy, I think that's by no means certain. Consider the huge docrtinal schisms of the early church over such fundamental issues as whether Christ was God or Man and the nature of the Trinity. There was a great deal of uncertainty as to the meaning of God's revealed Word in the early church.

:Moreover, I think some of their choices remain questionable to this day. The book of Enoch is rejected as part of the canon, but it's explicitly quoted in Jude 1:14-1:15. Those responsible for establishing the canon concluded that Enoch was probably not the author, even though Jude clearly says that those were Enoch's words, and even though many of the early church fathers considered it a prophetic text and inspired of God. If Jude is inerrant Scripture, and Jude clearly says that the words of Enoch as referenced in Enoch 1 were prophetic, then was the early church truly right to exclude it from the canon?

:As to the subject of what is literal and what is figurative, it's important to bear a number of things in mind. Languages change over time, and figurative language is especially susceptible to this. If I say "Hold your horses" to a group of friends today, it is clearly understood as a metaphor for "Be patient." Thus, it's possible and even likely to miss metaphors due to a lack of shared cultural context.

:Even a few hundred years ago, such an injunction would have been taken as a literal command. Mastery of idiom in the modern version of a language does not guarantee mastery of idiom in the ancient version. Consider how much difficulty the typical English speaker would have with the comparatively recent writings of Geoffrey Chaucer, for instance. Scholars can, by using historical accounts, arrive at a reasonably accurate understanding of such language, but it's still an approximation.

:I have faith in God and in Christ. I do not have as much faith in the ability of man to know His will infallibly; even if the original authors of Scripture were inspired of God and incapable of error (a position which I acknowledge can be derived from Scripture,) I remain skeptical that subsequent generations were similarly infallible in their decisions concerning these writings, and that those of us alive today are infallible in our ability to interpret His Word. Minds far better than mine have misinterpreted the Bible in the past, and so been led to erroneous conclusions about the nature of the universe; Martin Luther believed in the firmament, for instance. If the finest minds of the Church could and did make errors of comprehension, I consider it prideful in the extreme to believe that such errors cannot occur today.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But Christ is represented in the Bible. You have to go to the Bible to get the history of Christ’s death and resurrection. I agree that Biblical knowledge isn’t going to impress God. It’s important and we should study it, but it doesn’t save us. If we rely on our own efforts and our own knowledge for salvation, then we’re lost. It’s faith in Christ and what He did that saves us. But we can only learn about that from the Bible.

In the early Christian church, they’re were people who had traveled with Christ and knew Him personally. So they could understand things in a way that we couldn’t, due to the personal connection. And even in the first few hundred years, they did have the written words of the Apostles. But, they consisted of a much smaller group that what we see today, so there wouldn’t have needed to be as spread out as Christians are today, so it would be easier to spread the Gospel.

The Apocrypha was written in the four hundred year gap after the Old Testament was completed and before the time of Christ. It was rejected by the Jews, so there is no reason to accept it today. If the Jews didn’t put it into their Scripture, why should Christians who built upon that original Old Testament?

I would certainly agree that you don’t have to read to the Bible to be saved, because, again, it’s about what Christ did on the cross that cleanses us from sins. But, you have to go to the Scripture to find the truth, which is Christ. And only the Bible contains the Truth.

There were certainly debates about various doctrines in the early church. But, we have the written work he main church fathers, the Apostles, in our hands. We can see what the correct doctrines are because we can see what they taught.

As far as Enoch goes, it’s debatable whether Jude was quoting from the Apocryphal book of Enoch or something else. But, for arguments sake, let’s say he was quoting that specific book. That doesn’t make it inspired. That just means the author got it right on that one point. Besides, Paul quotes Epimendies, who was a Greek philosopher from the 6th Century BC in Titus 1:12. That doesn’t make Epimendies inspired.
And most Christian fathers didn’t accept the book of Enoch. Some did, but the majority didn’t.

Yes, culture is absolutely important. But scholars can reconstruct what the culture was like at the time based on early writings from that time period. It may not be perfect, but it’s really good, and the only thing we have to indicate that they’re wrong is the assumption that they are.

The Bible has been meticulously worked on to make sure it was translated correctly for generation to generation. In fact, it has been better preserved than any other ancient document. There are over 5,600 early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, all written within 100 years of it’s completion. Compare that with the next well-transcribed document, Homer’s Iliad. That had 643 manuscripts and were written 500 years after it’s completion. The New Testament just blows everything else out of the water. We have very good reason to believe that it an accurate version of what was originally written.

Anyone can make mistakes. I would never claim that I’ve got everything perfectly figured out. But, I do look at the evidence and conclude that the Bible is extremely accurate and is the inspired word of God.

Not to change the subject, but you said something interesting. You said, “I have faith in God and in Christ.” Do you consider God and Christ to be different entities, or do you think Christ is God? I’d be interested to hear our opinion on that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Err...well, the only answer I can give to that question is "Yes." Yes to both; Christ is God, and Christ is a distinct entity...God and the Son of God. My choice of phrase was most likely an echo of the Nicene Creed (which was drilled into me pretty thoroughly at a young age.)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:11, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

So would that mean that there are two Gods? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:42, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, that would mean that there is one God with three distinct and equal aspects: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here, Ultima; short of resurrecting Arianism, how could any Christian believe otherwise? While we may disagree on whether certain truths in the Bible are literal or allegorical, the nature of God is such a central tenet that I don't think you can reasonably call a faith that rejects it Christian.

:Please don't take offense, but it seems as if you're trying to interpret acceptance of the Holy Trinity as something unusual or exotic.

:--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:10, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Hold on, now. Don’t assume anything. You don’t know what I believe on the subject because I haven’t stated anything yet. I simply asked about what you believe. I actually do hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is the Biblical truth. I was simply trying to follow up on what you said about different Christ and God being different entities. If they are, then Christ couldn’t be the one God. Because by definition two entities are two entirely separate beings, so God and Christ wouldn’t be the same. That’s why the Trinity is referred to as one God, three persons, not three separate beings. But it sounds like you hold to the doctrine as well, so we agree on that. Perhaps it’s just a communication error. I wanted to make sure you weren’t rejecting the divinity of Christ. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:30, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

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

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==No Grave Errors==
After reading through this article there are too many angles to be discussed all at once, and it's a long article. The bible doesn't have grave errors, but of course, they can be if one WANTS it to be. I'm not saying this in your case, but am suggesting it as an option. Now the good thing about the bible is that the bible answers the bible. I will answer only one at this stage. If you feel you'd like to comment, please feel free, or ask about another...I'll take the lineage of Christ in the two gospel accounts, as has already been approached. Jesus' true father was Jehovah of course, not Joseph, but as the scripture states, "...being the son, as the opinion was,..."then goes into one lineage. The other lineage shows the other family line. Obviously, one is "Dad" even though step-dad, and the other is Mum. For scriptural proof of this being acceptable, you can consider brother-in-law marriage, and also Ruth and Naomi and whose child although truly Ruth's child, is said in Ruth 4:17 "Then the neighbour ladies gave it a name, saying: "A son has been born to Naomi", when we know very well it was Ruth who was the mother. So not so much grave errors, but more so errors with understanding other angles that may be easily overlooked.

Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?

2014-08-06T16:01:09Z

Exwikipediaperson:

{{Debate}}
I just thought it was strange that He would care whether or not we go to church and worship Him when He is all powerful. Surely He would just be happy with us living good lives and not require us to worship and believe in Him in order to get in to heaven when we die.

:I find this question mostly offensive. The Devil believes in God but no way will Heaven accept the Devil. 'He is all powerful' think about it. God could have destroyed us all for our sins and started over but God loves us more than we know. We are alive thanks to God, we are here for God. It has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with love. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:59, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:If we suppose ourselves to know the mechanisms of God, then why would it be still God? The answer is, we can't, and we probably are not supposed to know how God works. [[User:FrankK|FrankK]] 19:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I am not trying to be offensive here. I am not questioning whether or not God is worthy of our praise and worship, the magnificence of His creation clearly demonstrates that He is. I merely have trouble with the idea that God would demand from us recognition of His great deeds, why would he be looking for anything in return from us when we were created, except for us to go about life in a just way. Why would God need our worship and praise when He knows Himself that He is right and doesn't need us to convince Him? His actions are selfless and out of love for us. Claiming that He cares about whether we worship Him or not implies that He acts not out of love for us but out of a love of being praised.

:That is blasphemy. The Bible is clear that we are to praise the Lord for his love and creation. Do not presume to know the mind of God, for that is hubris. [[User:ISharma|ISharma]] 14:52, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

The argument "God could have destroyed us but he didn't so we should love him" is like saying "My husband could have beaten me but he doesn't so I should love him"
In other words, your love for god is based on threats that he may destroy you.
And the statement made by FranK confirms why Creationism is not scientific. {{unsigned|YesisLol}}
:Wrong, your argument is baseless. God, didn't destroy us but could have IS NOT love him or fear him. It is God loves, in the natural order of the world, you love somebody when they love you back. It is a bond of love, a reciprocating love. Unless an atheist, then you just love yourself and your supposed brilliant mind. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Neither one of you is understanding this properly. God is not elevated if you worship Him, and He is not lessened if you don't. Remember the admonition Christ gave when asked what what thing a man should do: love God with all your heart and soul. There are not many legitimate frames of mind that a man can adopt when faced with his creator. He can adore Him and love Him. Or we can resent the hell out of Him. When we're talking about the infinite, there really isn't an in-between. The in-between you imagine (hang out, kind of acknowledge the big guy, playing it cool, but trying to remember to give Him a friendly nod when you see Him in the hallway) doesn't work. Casual respect is incompatible with genuine belief. Personally, I don't necessarily think that going to church is necessary. There are a bunch of churches I suspect do more harm than good, even. But worship itself is simply what you naturally do when you really believe. He doesn't care in the slightest that you join a throng and make noises, waving your hands in the air (actually He does, see Biblical references to "hypocrites"). It's the internal process that matter. Love Him with all your heart and soul. If you don't, it's not He who suffers. It's you. And it's not because He'll be ******. It's because you'll be totally unprepared to be in his presence. Retain your ego, you're desire to be His peer, and you're not going to be prepared for the infinite. (Because remember: you won't be the one who is infinite, but you'll be in His presence.) -[[User:Ronbo|Ronbo]]
:Did you really join only to hammer out an unintelligible screed? For future writing, paragraphs are very important, ''you're'' is ''you are'' while ''your'' is a possessive pronoun. And do not use foul language on this site. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 11:21, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes, this question could be considered offensive, but I think it can be healthy for us to realize the privilege of worship. Why does God care? My opinion is that we will worship SOMETHING. It could be our jobs, families, sports teams, and the list could go on. The truth is that where we spend our energy and focus our attention becomes a form of worship. Why worship God? Because, He is! It is not an ego with God. He created us with will and choice. Our choice to celebrate to no end when our favorite team wins the big game, memorize meaningless stats about our favorites players, or just learn all that we can about our favorite actors (actresses). The question is not about why does He care about the fact that He is worshiped, as much as He cares that we worship HIM. I think this is a healthy question, and one that is not blasphemous, but more inquisitive.

God created all of us and loves us. Either you believe that or the debate topic is nothing but an opportunity for you to take a pointless shot at other people's beliefs. God does not care if we worship him because he is insecure or not omnipotent, but because he is the cause of all that is and our worship of the divine creator is the natural and appropriate expression of our love and thankfulness for him and the world he created. The question asked in the debate topic is really silly - would you refuse to revere your mother and father for the gift of bringing you into the world? Would you refuse to thank a classmate for even a small gift? No. Only the truly arrogant and hopeless go through this world without the ability to be humble because of the gifts and accomplishments of others, both great and small. Regardless of how one worships, for one to refuse to love God for his gift to us is to exclude himself from being deserving of God's love. It's no different than what should happen if you fail to give the most basic courtesy of thanking your family for gifts they give - they won't give them anymore if you appear to be so self-entitled that you can't even express gratitude. I prefer to be thankful for all of the gifts I'm given and particularly reverent of a creator generous enough to create a world so rich and beautiful. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:16, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Can people please stop misreading the question? The question is NOT asking why we should worship him. It is NOT asking how it benefits us. It is NOT saying we shouldn't worship God (so stop with all the 'you shouldn't worship him out of fear' etc. comments). It is asking if us worshipping God benefits God! <end rant> My answer: It's not our worship which he cares about, but our relationship with him. And our relationship (usually) includes worshipping him. - JamesCA, June 7 2011

To JamesCA: I agree that it seems that there is a lot of knee-jerk misreading of this question. Here is my answer to it:
God wants us to worship Him, not because he has a fragile ego or anything like that. He wants us to worship him because through our devotion to Him, we move closer to him, we travel a path that returns us to him. In other words, He wants us to worship Him for '''our''' sake, not for His. I don't think it's for '''His''' benefit because God is infinite and doesn't need any benefits from us. I hope that helps.

==Children==
It is always a pleasure when our children say "Thanks Dad", or "Thanks Mom". It is also a pleasure as a parent to be able to provide good things to our children. Therefore, the benefit being that God, being love, gets the glory of being loved by his creation which firstly, he is fully entitled to as we belong to him, and secondly, we should give because of all the good things we have. Love is a two way street.

Do you have a close friend? Is he/she a close friend because you get to tell them everything or show them everything but there is no feedback, like talking to a crash-test dummy? Of course not! God made us in his image. In other words, think of what makes YOU enjoy the love of your friends and family and compare the same to God. Of course God doesn't NEED us to love him, as he's perfect, but he created us out of an expression of love, as you more than likely would have if you have children.

Best wishes.
[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 12:01, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?

2014-08-06T15:55:33Z

Exwikipediaperson: /* Punish? Technically no */

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Jesus Christ will be our judge and if you read the Bible at all then you will know that Hell is for eternity. And there is no once saved always saved. you can fall from grace as many have.

I disagree with BOTH of the current posts. First of all, the Elect are "once saved, always saved". They would not be truly saved if they fell from grace. Second, I am entirely unable to tolerate to any degree those who claim that all will be saved - the ones who answer "No" to this question. Citing the ultimate and infallible truth, the holy and inspired Word of God, Matthew 25:41 says "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels". It does not say, "Depart from me, those who sinned even though I love them, into temporary fire", but "Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING fire". Finally, this seems to indicate that one can choose to believe in God. This belief is very common, very heretical, and eliminates the need for a savior. The Elect alone will be saved, as indicated by Ephesians. Some claim that Romans contradicts this, but the Bible clearly says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9. We are enabled to believe in Christ through faith in him which is given us by God's saving grace. If Christ needs us to choose him of our own accord then we are all lost eternally. --[[User:Lorr|Lorr]] 12:38, 11 January 2011 (EST)Indeed, the influential and moving theologian, Jonathan Edwards, analyzed Psalm 73:18. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction". Edwards came to the conclusion that for humans
"There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God."- Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

:Yes, below are some excellent sermons on this matter:

'''Heaven:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMBycd6MBWs Few People Make it to Heaven - Pastor Tim Conway]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC9PlvKwz4I Live for Eternity - Paul Washer]

'''Hell:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/illbehonest#p/a/u/2/bF7t6rDLcFw Hell is Necessary - Tim Conway (Full Sermon)]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDZCEE0V8UY Most People Go to Hell - Pastor Tim Conway]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:03, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Our nature is greater than we often imagine when we consider the eternity of Hell (or the eternity of the Heavenly/Earthly Paradise). We are eternal in nature. Hell is the (in my opinion, optimum) physical environment conducive for humans to exist outside all relationship to God. God is unhappy that people must exist there, but there is no other place of existence for those who reject the very source of their existence. [[User:GiLGiJ|GiLGiJ]] 18:24, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

===To Destroy Evil===
Yes, God should. It's ironic that the same people who say God shouldn't punish sinners are the same ones who ask how God can exist if He allowed Hitler to rule, and yet condemn God for punishing the nations in the book of Judges, when they're all the same issue. That issue is that God needs to punish evil, and humans and Satan ARE the source of evil. God can't destroy evil and have a universe devoid of evil without punishing sinful humans and removing/separating them from everyone else. God destroyed the nations in the book of Judges because as seen from Leviticus 18, they were practicing numerous abominations, including sacrificing their own children by burning them alive. Such evils needed to be stopped from spreading to Israel and other nations, just as God needed to stop Hitler (which I believe He did intervene to do - see Nietzsche's prophecy warning the Jewish people 50 years earlier e.g.).

As Paul says in Romans 3, "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?" The plain truth of the Bible is that God needs to wipe out humanity to destroy sin and evil. He gave an example of His willingness to do so with Noah, and only preserved Noah because He decided there was some hope still for the human race in Noah's godliness. Jesus is the answer not because through Jesus we can be forgiven, but rather because through Jesus we can be changed to become new people who will stop sinning, who are committed to God and are given new hearts and new minds designed for righteousness and not wickedness. Only because of these new natures CAN we be forgiven. Salvation is the key not because of forgiveness but because through it we are changed so we can inhabit God's new coming universe without messing it up with evil and harming others the way we have this one. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 17:16, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

==No==

God doesn't punish sinners at all. And Hell is not permanent. It is Satan who is the accuser of the brethren, not God. God is all about love and forgiveness.

However, there is a difference between [[right and wrong]]. And we do reap what we sow. If we are selfish, we will suffer the consequences. In particular, [[homosexual acts]] are very selfish. There is no true love - in a conjugal sense - other than between a man and his wife.

It is sometimes argued that homosexuality couldn't be a sin: "Would God consign his children to an eternity of punishment in hell for loving another man?" This question presupposes that any punishment (or harsh consequences) of sin comes from God. Yet the Bible says, "The wages of sin is death" without saying who the paymaster is! The question also confuses [[love]] (which is a good thing, in general) with homosexual [[fornication]] which is a sin.

All this confusion can be cleared up if a person genuinely wants to know (1) Does God exist? (2) Does God love me? and (3) What is the best way to lead my life? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, we are all sinners. The questions should be stated, Does God punish the evildoers for eternity? Matthew 25:45-46 Jesus says, "I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my Brothers and Sisters, you were refusing to help me. And they will go away into Eternal Punishment, but the Righteous will go into Eternal Life."

:But the questions remains "Does God punish?" No, God doesn't punish. By being cast out of the eternal life of Heaven (through mans own fault), the devil punishes those who end up in Hell. For the devil hates man, made in the likeness of God.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:44, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

"God is all about love and forgiveness"?? 
No, He is NOT. This is what social gospel preaches, but not from the bible. God is about love and forgiveness, but He is also holy and just (a not PC view in this post modern culture, and sadly some churches purposely ignore this part, afraid saying God is holy and just, and all people are sinners, will offend people). 
Because He is holy and just, He MUST punish EVERY sin. Some will even say that it is because He is love, so He cannot left injustice unaccounted for.([[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 18:03, 30 March 2010 (EDT))

Yes that's true, but God also loves every person and if they repent then he does not punish them. The fable "The Last Judgement" by Carel Kapek is very helpful to understand one theory about the trials of sinners.

==Punish? Technically no==

There are some very strong scriptures that are used in the bible which people use to show that God punishes people forever, but look at it this way...if your child did something wrong, would you punish him forever? Why would God, who made us in his image, be any different?

Also, note this scripture, Revelation 20:10. The word "torment" can also mean "jailed". So continuing from this scripture, we see these false prophet and the wild beast being tormented forever here, but a few verses later, it says this, in verse 13. "And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades (Hell or the Grave) gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death the lake of fire. Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire."

So, if "Death" is hurled into the lake of fire, then is death a person, or is it symbolic of something? Also, what is this hades? How is hades hurled into the lake of fire? The scripture actually explains it, by saying it is "the second death". In other words, when Christ spoke of memorial tombs, and a resurrection, those who receive the second death have no more need for a memorial tomb, for they won't be remembered, but will be destroyed forever. This is what happens to death, and this is what happens to "hades", or the grave. There is no more memorial tombs as such, but there is only life, and everlasting cutting off.

So no, God doesn't punish sinners for eternity. When someone is dead, they are dead. Yet there is a resurrection for those who are asleep in the graves as such until this time when Revelation is fulfilled. To understand the state of death, we can consider Ecclesiastes 9:5. Have a look for yourself.

As for punishing every sin, the bible states that "the wages of sin is death", so that those who have already died have already paid for their sin. Therefore, when they are resurrected, for instance when "the sea gives up the dead in them, and death and hades give up the dead in them", they will be judged according to their deeds during a period of time. This is why it says in Revelation 20:5 "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended), as they are still "dead" in the sense of not having the full application of Christ's ransom over them as they are still able to die, as they would have to live a life which shows their submission to their creator during that period.

For more information, I suggest going to jw.org.
[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 11:55, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?

2014-08-06T15:52:45Z

Exwikipediaperson:

Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong

2014-08-06T15:36:45Z

Exwikipediaperson: My opinion

There is a proliferation of 'revealed texts' within the world's major religions, with many contradictions and inconsistencies between them about the way to worship, how to behave, and the different stances that should be adopted, not to say accounts of how the universe is ordered and was created.

Either God couldn't make his mind up as to what people should do, OR not all of these accounts can possibly be correct. If it is the latter, then if let us assume that most of them are inferior copies of the 'one true revealed text'. How then, is one supposed to know which that would be, and follow the right path? If we assume that God is not deliberately deceitful, and that he is omniscient, he would not have put mankind in such a position that we had to choose the one true text from amongst all the others, with no clear guidance. Hence, it must be the case that none of these is correct, and we have to make our own mind up.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There are basically only two religions: Grace - (unmerited favor - which is given through Holy Spirit quickening) and Works - which the "carnel" mind and the "natural" man believes) ie, I can find acceptance with God through my good works: Both contrasted in Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, the Pharasee and Publican.
All religions, except true Christianity, (encluding the religion of atheistic humanism - the worship of mans wisdom) are works religions. Some people who profess christianity, but rely on their supposed goodness for their salvation (like the Pharasee) are are part of the works group. It's interesting to consider that the Communist atheists used claims such as: we will have a "workers paradise" and a "utopia" - by the strength of mans mind and work. Anyhow, since we know that life exists, isn't it more REASONABLE to assume it always has been? (and that's God)
==We are on to you!==
Hey, Humanist, we all know how much you are down on all of the worlds religions. We've read all of your manifesters. It's funny when keep bashing God even though you really don't believe there is one. Keep telling us of your superior intellect that is able to single handedly make decisions for the common good of us all. Please, keep posting all of those baiting debate questions that show the rest of us foolish religionists who pray to our non-existing God.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, i think that you should actually read what was first posted with an open, interested mind. Make an attempt to understand what is being said, as i am confident that you do in fact have a good intellect, you just need to use it in a more open way. What was said is quite interesting even for an atheist like myself, and raises a few interesting questions for religion. That is not to say that it disproves Gods existence, simply that i think that you would find it a lot more enjoyable if you took it upon yourself to either disprove what has been said in a logical and fair manner, or to supply a different theory, again in a logical manner. Please do attempt this, as i have found it far more entertaining then (in my case) simply insisting that there is no proof of God. Sincerely [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:09, 19 April 2007

::Gee, I thought I was just being sarcastic. Hint: I believe God exists and isn't being indecisive about it. So you think I don't have an open and interesting mind? Sorry to hear that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i've seen a few of your posts in other topics and from what i see, it seems that you are not prepared to listen to what other people have to say in a fair manner. I may be way off the mark here, im just calling it as i see it. That you believe that is fine, its just that i think that you should be open to other ideas and opinions rather then barricading yourself behind a wall of sarcasm and just general lack of manners. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:02, 20 April 2007

::So you went to the effort to profile me? I'm honoured! Maybe this is a cultural thing but sarcasm isn't wall building. Neither is it malicious. Responding to a post from my own unique viewpoint isn't ill mannered to me. So, yes, way off the mark here. Let's agree to just stay on the topic of debate.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i think sarcasm is wall building as it can make having a serious discussion quite difficult, especially on a web page where it isnt always easy to tell sarcasm. Maybe i am taking your blunt speech to seriously and seeing it as insulting rather then just you. But yes, i agree. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:52, 21 April 2007

==Alternate suggestion==
God is omnipotent. That is, all things are possible for God. Ergo, it is entirely possible that all religions are correct simultaneously, but we humans, being confined to simple binary-based logic, are not able to perceive this. QED. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, that is a totally different religion based on Theosophy. A belief that all religions are actually just one. A believer of any other religion won't buy into that. Not because they are binary thinkers, but because their beliefs have distinctions that set them apart from other beliefs.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:: True; you are following the line of thinking of [[David Deutsch]] and [[David Kellogg Lewis]], whose philosophies claim that if you can create al logically possible world, then logically that world, can in fact exist, and under some definitions of reality, do existe somewhere in the [[Multiverse]].--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Different Point==
If I have an axe to grind, it is this: Whether or not you choose to believe in God, believing in a particular religion is a completely separate and independent personal decision. You can believe in god, and not be associate with any religion at all, and many people do in fact follow this path. However, there are many adherents of very different religions who claim that theirs is the only true text, and in following that logic, are prepared to kill & maim people of the opposite persuasion for no reason other than they see them as a threat to their beliefs. I cannot believe (I am sorry to those who say you cannot know the mind of God, but if God is minded to want me to go out and kill and maim other human beings in his name, then he is no god of mine) that any God worthy of the name would actually have created such a situation deliberately, by proliferating contradictory messages. This means that MOST of the world's religions must have invented their texts for their own reasons. How are we then expected to decide between these? On what basis? and how is it that they all attract adherents who are single minded, and so convinced that they are right? There is, to my mind, something fundamentally wrong with the idea of religion, per se, and following my logic above, wouuld lead me to conclude, not that god is indecisive, or that he doesn't exist, but that IF he exists, he would NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have provided a 'one true text', simply because it is so easy to produce facsimiles which have all the attributes of a true text. but are, in fact false. Following this line of thinking would lead logically to a rejection of all organised religions, and to declare all revealed texts to be a sham.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have found it a futile and vain exercise to presume what God will do. In the same manner that one would be able to presume what manner of logic a person would use to accuse the people of the worlds religions of being a sham. Especially when some of those religions have been around for thousands of years. History has taught us that some have used these religions for their wars and aspirations to power over others. It sounds like you prefer nihilism. Every person forms their own beliefs into doctrines that give them faith. This is the very definition of religion. If you hate all other religions it is only because your own demands it. Nihilists have been around for a long, long time. Who knows, maybe someday nihilism will be one of the major religions. But then it couldn't be, could it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

There are many different paths to heaven.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are indeed. I've gone down many of those paths only to find out they were just cunningly devised fables. Often their version of Heaven is nothingness, oblivion. Sometimes just a fantasy. Many paths leading to many heavens with a god under every rock. Sorry, but I've already rejected all of the pagan religions. Why worship the creatures when their Creator is right there in front of you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't comment on whether or not God is indecisive as I don't think the One who created me is subject to my opinions. I do however believe that most of the world's major religions are not following the Biblical principles and have taught their own traditions in their place. i.e. Most religions keep Sunday as the Sabbath because they suscribe to the authority of the Roman church to change a law made by God Almighty.The powers that be in the Roman church have always admitted that Saturday was the 7th day Sabbath and claim the authority to change God's law by reason that most of the world has followed their lead. That doesn't make it right. The Bible says that the way is narrow and few will find it, meaning that most of the world will be deceived into false doctrines rather than taking the time and effort to discover the Biblical truth with prayer and diligent study. Salvation does require some effort on our part. We need to search for the truth and not be satisfied with what the common opinion appears to be at the time. www.sabbathtruth.com has some excellent information from members of all denominations on t his subject.``InHisImage

The sabbath commandment and law of Moses was a covenant for the people of ancient Israel which was fulfilled by the life of Jesus. I think to keep Sunday special is the best thing, but is up to your own conscience. Adam

Sunday has been celebrated because of the resurrection. Saturday is the Sabbath but NT teaches to keep all days Holy because they all belong to God. God also said he would write his law on ours hearts. Interesting to note that durind development of a fetus the first thing to form is the heart. However the first cells formed for the heart are brain cells. So the true word is in your heart, so it is actually being able to listen to it that makes the difference.

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Unknown Quote==
The bible says that God made man in his image, yet a certain unknown (to me) person said "Man makes God in his image", and this is the problem with society. There is the ability to trace back religions to the same place where languages are also traced back, yet thanks to arguing scientific bodies using theories, but not facts (and not in agreement with each other) we have a big mess as to what is the origin. Still, the bible says that God will use the governments of the world shortly to remove all false religion (it's God who decides what is true/false) and in turn God's kingdom will remain. Want the scriptures? Daniel 2:1-45, and Revelation 17:1-19:2. In other words, yes, the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong. For instance, fancy God having people of the same religion on opposing national sides killing one another. Commonplace today, but that's the devil's work, not God's. How can one love their enemies when they're dropping bombs on them? True and false religion is exposed by their fruits, and as for the bible, the message has been spread throughout the earth for only a small minority to get the point while others use it as a tool of oppression. God is not indecisive. He has forewarned us about the future, and it is certain. If you want to survive the up and coming "great day of God the almighty" it's time to read what's written, and ask for an explanation (or many) where there are difficulties. God's words can't and won't be changed. He will prove to be what he will prove to be.

Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?

2014-08-06T15:25:01Z

Exwikipediaperson:

Not a fair question. That's like asking "Was Mozart not intelligent enough to produce Bach's Tocatta and Fugue on his own?" Even if a god exists, his existence doesn't make it necessary for him to create every possible thing in every possible location. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:43, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]

Agreed with SEdwin. The question implies that intelligence and intelligent creation requires creation life on Mars, which makes absolutely zero sense. There's no reason life needs to be created on Mars as well as on Earth. God could have reasons for creating life on one planet in the solar system and not on others, e.g. wanting it all in one place for easy travel and communication. But there's no reason to assume not creating it on other planets in the solar system means a lack of intelligence. Rather, the question shows fallacious, illogical thinking on the part of the questioner. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 17:07, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

He knows all. He knows that life on Mars and life on Earth would both wipe each other out, and nothing would live to be in His image.
[[User:Deltaepsilon|Deltaepsilon]] 21:54, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Hi--new conservative user here and very proud of it! :D Anyway, if I can inject my two cents into this issue, I would like to respectfully disagree with Deltaepsilon. Why would life on other planets, if created in God's image, by default kill each other? I can understand if our biology is so foreign and our languages are so incompatible with one another, a la the modern nihilistic scientists' view on things--but I have a more idealistic view of the universe, given the fact that I believe in God and that I believe He created life on other worlds as well as this one. If it was His intent that we eventually contact each other, He would facilitate such possibility, no? [[User:YoungAmericanPatriot|YoungAmericanPatriot]] 19:50, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Does not make any sense. As others mentioned, the question assumes that intelligence requires creation of life on Mars. Debate could be why did god not create life on Mars.--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 22:33, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

==A matter of timing and purpose==
We don't know what God will do on his eighth day. The scriptures state that God rested on the seventh day, and is still resting on it. Therefore, who is to know what will happen on the eighth day? Maybe he will, maybe he won't. It isn't about God's intelligence or perceived lack of it, but our perception of from where we stand and what angles we see. If it is only the seventh day in God's eyes (Genesis 2:2-3) then it is very early in history of God's creative works. He even gave us the week to think about and the day off (the original weekend of the bible). We should probably focus now on surviving the end of this day, so that we may enjoy whatever new creations abound in the future.

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2014-08-06T15:19:26Z

Exwikipediaperson:

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

:Why is the anthropic principle unsatisfactory? [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 09:58, 10 December 2012 (EST)

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: Right. There is no such thing as nothing. The act of philosophy is not a primary mental function, but an abstraction of the practical function which the human mind would have in regard to moving within, and manipulating, the physical world.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 20:51, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:A complex set of deeply implicit presupositions are within any personal perception of the 'unsatisfactoriness' of a philosophical position, such that 'unsatisfactory' is an overall description of the 'subjective' result. The problem, of course, is whether a given set of presuppositions is coherent. Many are not, but which are perceived as coherent by their vaguely understood results in their contrast to their favorite straw men.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:02, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

I believe that the relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death. One's purpose is to create the other. There is such a thing as a healthy forest fire. It destroys dead and decaying trees-causing death-but out of the ashes healthy new saplings spring up, and continue the life of the forest.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:The moral, ethical, and philosophical decay of a population causes the congruent environments to become imbalance toward that population, so that, if the decay is too extreme, then destructive forces impose the death of both young and old alike. But, trees are just trees, so that the young are no more or less worthy than the old, and that, only by the failures of humans (congruent local or planet-wide) can their congruent trees be so diseased as to require their destruction by torrents of flood or fire.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:23, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

The relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death, but not because one's purpose is to create the other. Rather, it's because the latter is the absence of the former. It is not the purpose of death or nothing to create life (that's impossible) and it's not the purpose of life or something to create death or nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

If there was nothing, we simply wouldn't be here to observe it. -- [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]] 18:34, 30 September 2009
:That answers '''how''' we know there's something, not '''why''' there's something. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
::: If we didn't exist, how could we possibly be discussing this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

By addressing the state of "nothing" we are causing something so there will always be something rather than nothing. In the same way one can try to "clear your head" but this fails because in the act of clearing one's head one is filling it with the task of clearing the head/the mind. In this way we must always have something rather than nothing. Even in a vaccuum, the absence of everything is something. [[Bealecr]] 15:21, 30 April 2009

:This seems to be a topic of duelisms. Cold is the absence of heat. Absolute Zero is the absence of movement. Can't we just agree that "nothing" is a theory of the mind, thus making it something again?
:And in a random bit from a while ago, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ebayer_sells_nothing/ someone attempted to sell "absolutely nothing" on eBay]. Oh, and [http://cgi.ebay.com/Box-of-Nothing_W0QQitemZ130334037303QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e58839537&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 here's a current listing] [[User:EricaS|EricaS]] 19:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
::If I don't find it to be the genuine article, I'll do whatever necessary to get my money back! :) Which is the problem, because no one can actually convey (much less possess) such an article. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:30, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== The dysjunct ==

If there is (or were) nothing, then there would be neither an answer to the question, nor the question. But, in so far as there is both 'something' and a questioner apart from that 'something', then there must be answer, and it must not be in that 'something', for, what is a thing worth if it have no one to place a worth upon it, nor even anyone to ask anything about its worth? So, if (or, since) there is something (including a questioner), then there is, therefore, an answer to the question, despite that many people look in the wrong place for an answer and so 'find the question impossible to answer non-trivially'.

Now, if whatever is that which most basically, necessarily exists is non-trivial, then the answer is non-trivial. For, that which necessarily exists, if it be non-trivial, cannot actually create something which is, ''at root'', trivial, since that root is none other than itself. And, what it creates is a reflection---albeit a contingent and synthetic reflection---of itself. Only trivia a can create trivia, and it is doubtful whether trivia can create the non-trivial.

So, in so far as we measure ourselves to be non-trivial, who are but contingent knowers (and, thus, questioners) the answer is more non-trivial, by far, that are we. Something besides ourselves exists, but, that of which we have empirical access is all measured by us to be of less worth than ourselves: rocks and trees, stars and lifeless planets, even gravity, electric lighting, and animals. But, all these things are worth much in our minds, so long as, without us, at least the animals and the plants exist, for such things a reflections of us, however dim. ''Silent Running''.
[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==The Biblical answer==
There is something rather than nothing because it pleases God. Revelation 4:11 says, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (KJV) "You deserve, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power. You have created all things, and for Your pleasure they are and were created." (Conservative Bible) [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Regrettably this is not really an answer because surely God himself is something rather than nothing. Even prior to the creation of the universe one could still then ask, "Why is there something (i.e. God) rather than nothing"? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 21:20, 10 December 2012 (EST)
::It seems that you're trying to set up the problem of [[infinite regression]]. The answer to that is that since God is the Prime Mover, it's meaningless to ask ''why'' God exists. You might as well ask who created God and why. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:46, 11 December 2012 (EST)
:::I'm not trying to "set up" anything. I merely pointed out that if you are attempting to answer the question, ''Why is there something rather than nothing''? it is no answer at all to say "because it pleases God". If God is "something" then you are left with the original question still unanswered. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the question cannot be answered? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 19:52, 12 December 2012 (EST)
::::If you are serious about not trying to set up the problem of infinite regression, then you have to accept that at some point, something ''just is,'' without a "why." That something is necessarily God. If I'm mistaken, then let's have your Biblically backed explanation as to why God exists. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:50, 17 December 2012 (EST)
::::To clarify my previous response, there is a difference between a question that cannot be answered and one that makes no sense. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:40, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:::::If, at some point one must just accept that something "just is", then I assume that you take the view that the question cannot be answered. Is that right? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:57, 19 December 2012 (EST)
::::::No. As I said in the comment directly above yours, there is a difference between a question that cannot be answered and one that makes no sense. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 16:15, 8 February 2013 (EST)

==Spiritual Creator==
You can explain the existence of matter, energy, and life from a purely physiological perspective. According to the probabilistic dictates of quantum field theory, even an apparently perfect vacuum seethes with particles and antiparticles popping into and out of existence. With advances in quantum field theory, and physics the day will eventually come when science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

==Reasoning==
That is because it gives us something to think about rather than nothing.

Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?

2014-08-06T15:17:15Z

Exwikipediaperson: Input

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]If the universe is defined as everything then of course anything which is not part of everything is outside the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: The phrase "being outside the universe" is an oxymoron. The universe contains all of space. You can't be outside of something which contains every point that exists. It's a nonsensical idea. It's like "whiter than white". Good poetry, bad logic. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 14:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I guess that was my point. It's just semantics and not a real question or a real answer. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Please see the entry on the [[Multiverse]]. If this debate is to begin to make sense, then it needs to incorporate current ideas on how "the universe" might actually be constituted.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, you might want to read up on the [[string theory]]. This theory states that there are twelve dimensions, and MANY universes. It also has a pretty good explanation of the big bang.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 01:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

With the current level of technology that humans have to explore space we won't be able to answer this question definitively for a long time. Though we won't be able to test any hypotheses that are created to answer this question both Pacman and Everwill are wrong that the question is semantic based because with the technology we do have at our disposal we can prove that the universe is expanding, leaving the question "expanding into what?" The answer to the question might come with a breakthrough into the nature of dark matter and dark energy or maybe the only way to find out is to break space-time. Its a long way off. --blutengel

Many Scientists belive that there are alternate universes that exist out of our space and time

Separate "does the universe exist and does it include 'everything'?", from "what is the universe?" - if you can't tell the difference between the questions, abandon your -pedia, it's valueless.

The universe is one entity by definition. The question then becomes what exacly is the question. Is the quesion: "Is there anything beyond what we know exists in the universe?" to which the obvious question is yes. Is it: "Is there anything beyond what there is somewhere beyond what we know exists in the universe?" which is what I believe the initial question was, and which I question its asking. or is the question: "is there anything which is unaccessable to our universe" to which there is speculation, but needlessly as if it is not accessable it will forever be unknown and if it becomes known it is no longer inaccessable.

Can an ant comprehend or even see the birds?

==No==
God is outside the universe. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 22:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

He is also inside - aka omni-presence. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 23:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What I mean is, God is infinite, he is not, and cannot be contained in the universe. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:26, 27 January 2008 (EST)
==Yes==
God can be outside the universe He created. But He is not physical.
[[User:Deltaepsilon|Deltaepsilon]] 21:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ayn Rand taught me the notion of an '''invalid question''', which is tied to the concept of an [invalid concept]. Asking about a ''qualified, physical'' universe avoids the heart of the matter. As stated above, the universe, by definition, includes '''ALL''' that exists, not merely all that ''physically'' exists. This concept is not something for scientific observation to "prove" or "disprove."

To say the universe is both finite and growing are natural corrolaries of understanding the concept of all that exists. For instance, what is beyond the edge of the universe is an invalid question because it refers to something that does not exist. How do I know? Have I been to the edge of the universe? No. It is not a matter of ''perception''; it is a matter of ''conception''.

String theory may suggest multiple dimensions but conceptually, each dimension is part of a connection with all that exists, i.e., the universe. A property of existence is that it is part of the universe. It is not that God cannot exist "outside" the universe, it is that "outside" has no reference. As the distance between matter expands, space is created, thereby enlarging the universe.

==Semantics==
This debate is a semantic debate. What is a "universe?" If the universe contains everything, then nothing can be outside everything. This is a mathematical fact easy to prove. If God exists, he must exist within the universe. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:44, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:To elaborate, if you define the universe as "everything physical" then there can be non-physical things outside it (if non-physical things exist). Some people define it as the (forgive me, but I use wikipedia links) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe observable universe], which only includes objects we can observe from Earth. This is why it's a semantic debate, until you know what each side is talking about. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 21:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

==Paradoxical==
If we consider the idea that "everything" is included in the universe, does that then include the universe itself? It is the general paradox of Set Theory in mathematics: if we define something that includes everything, does it also include itself? It is the thing that has been defined, but is a separate entity BECAUSE of that definition; thereby by existing, defies it's own definition.

==Meaning of Universe==

A universe is a oneness by name, yet even in scientific sources, there are theories of other universes. I like the former paradoxical argument, in that what is meant by a universe? The physical? God isn't restricted to physical. Neither is science. There are parameters that are unable to be understood because of this universe perspective. So I disagree with the universe including everything...as first of all, we don't know what everything is, and second of all, we are in a sense in the centre looking out at an ever expanding space with lots of things in it (not just things...LOTS of things!!!)

[[User:Exwikipediaperson|Exwikipediaperson]] 11:17, 6 August 2014 (EDT)

Jehovah

2014-08-06T15:09:29Z

Exwikipediaperson: Clarification on the pronunciation of "JHVH" and why it's acceptable.

'''Jehovah''' is the personal name of [[God]] used in the [[Bible]].

It is the best known English pronunciation of the Divine Name, although many Hebrew scholars prefer “Yahweh.” The oldest Hebrew manuscripts represent the Divine Name by the four consonants יהוה (read right to left), also known as the Tetragrammaton (from Greek ''tetra-'', meaning “four” and ''gram’ma'', meaning “letter”). They have been transliterated into English as JHVH or YHWH.

Although the consonants are known, the vowels associated with the Divine Name are not thus rendering the original pronunciation uncertain. In most Bible translations the titles [[GOD]] or LORD (note both are in all capitals) are used whenever the Divine Name appears in the original Hebrew text.

The Divine Name appears over 6,000 times in the Hebrew-Aramaic portion of the Holy Scriptures, but until the destruction of the [[Second Temple]] it was only pronounced by the Jewish high priest on Yom Kippur. Over time, the practice of substituting "Adonai" (Sovereign Lord) or "Elohim" (God) to avoid accidentally profaning the Name became Rabbinic tradition, and the name's true pronunciation was lost. The pronunciation "Jehovah" comes from inserting the Hebrew vowels of the word "Adonai" into the Latinized tetragrammaton ("JHVH") and likely bears little resemblance to how the Name was originally pronounced, although to consider this theory, we would also have to reconsider the pronunciation of Jesus, Jeremiah, Jehu, Jehoram, Joshua, and many other people and place names, to make sure that these names sounded closer to the original.

==Meaning==

Rooted in the imperfect state of the causative form of the Hebrew verb הוה (''ha•wah'', "to become"), the Divine Name indicates progressive action. This can be seen by the context of Exodus 3:14, 15. Moses inquires who he said say has sent him to the captive Israelites. Where some translations render God's response as, "I am who I am" (King James), other translations show the dynamic nature of the Divine Name by rendering the Hebrew text as "I Will Be What I Will Be" (The Torah) or "I Shall Prove To Be What I Shall Prove To Be" (New World Translation) indicating that rather than a simple statement acknowledging His existence, He indicates that He can do whatever is necessary to accomplish His purposes.

==Origins==

Originally Biblical Hebrew was written without vowels, the reader having been educated to know the appropriate vowels to insert when reading. As the proper pronunciation of Hebrew was being lost through lack of fluency a group of Hebrew copyists, the [[Masoretes]] invented signs to be placed around consonants to indicate accents and proper pronunciation of vowels.

When it came to copying the Divine Name, the Masoretes provided vowel points for יהוה so that it now appeared as יְהוָה, following the accepted tradition of using "Adonai" (Sovereign Lord) or "Elohim" (God) in place of the Divine Name.

According to the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]], some scholars hold Jehovah dates only from the year 1520. However, writers of the sixteenth century, regardless of religious background, were familiar with the word. The name has been found as early as the 13th century in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745).

With the publication of the [[King James Bible|King James]] or Authorized Version of the Bible in 1611 AD, the name Jehovah would become widely known; it appears at [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 6:3; Psalm 83:18; [[Book of Isaiah|Isaiah]] 12:2; 26:4.

==Translations Featuring==

The following translations use Jehovah, either directly or in references:

* The King James Bible (1611)
* The Living Bible (Tyndale House Publishers, 1971)
* The Bible In Living English (translated by Steven T. Byington, published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1972)
* The Oxford Annotated Bible - Revised Standard Version (Oxford University Press, 1962)
* American Standard Version (International Council of Religious Education, 1929)
* The New American Bible - Michaelangelo Edition (Catholic Press, 1970)
* The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1984)
* Young's Literal Translation
* Darby's Translation

*'''Psalm 83:18'''
** That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. (King James Version)
** And they know that Thou -- (Thy name [is] Jehovah -- by Thyself,) [Art] the Most High over all the earth! (Young’s Literal Translation)
** That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth. (Darby Translation)

==References==

* Catholic Encyclopedia (1917 edition) - [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm]
* The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever (1984) - [http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm?article=article_03.htm]
*Angel Fire ''Yahweh'' [http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/chester/imagedir/yahweh.htm],[http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/chester/imagedir/bibleinfo.htm]
*Encyclopedia Judaica ''Names of God'' [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N]

'''External Links:'''

* Bible Online – [http://bibleresources.bible.com]
*Hebrew-English Interlinear [http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm]

[[Category:Bible]]

User:Exwikipediaperson

2014-08-06T14:53:34Z

Exwikipediaperson: Introduction to me.

Hi all.

I got sick of the editing on wikipedia where whole articles were destroyed based on the editor not actually reading the links. It wasn't the first thing. Wikipedia has made me sick of society (wikipedia society) of self-righteous wrong people. I wish I could close it down personally, but that isn't my prerogative. Maybe in the future with the way the world's going, the world governments will close it down anyhow. I mean how many works of art by a chimp can sell for thousands of dollars? Thousands? Or just one or two novelties?

Anyway, excuse my sarcastic introduction.

My background is a basic scientific background, as well as a manufacturing one. On top of that I've been involved in quality systems, and development of such. I love God, and have a fair understanding of scriptural things. I'm trying hard not to be a hypocrite, in that I'm working on the things I know are unscriptural but haven't mastered them yet, but thanks to the ransom of our Christ, there is still hope. I need to master my bad mouth mainly now. I'll be sure to minimise it on here, if not totally eliminated.

I love individuals, but dislike society. Society is corrupt, yet all those people are just pawns doing their best to make ends meet at home...or at least the majority of them. The ones who are to worry about are hidden away somewhere.

I look forward to providing some input from my angle and way I see things. For some this may mean I need to explain it another way, as I have a "knack" of explaining things in a way that some say is tangential where others say crystal clear.

I enjoy good conversation, but will only go so far with an argument as long as there is a point, and that both sides are acknowledged. If it is a one-sided argument, then you win, and I hope you become the president of the moon.

I don't know how long I'll edit for, but I do enjoy a good conversation...and especially am grateful that there is an alternative wiki to the unspeakable one that has two closed ears and one big mouth.