Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Keynesian economics

2010-03-13T00:40:35Z

JesusSaves: Created page with 'I am no economist, but my undergraduate classes in it lead me to believe that it was *not* Keynes that asserted that unemployment and inflation were "opposites", The relationshi...'

I am no economist, but my undergraduate classes in it lead me to believe that it was *not* Keynes that asserted that unemployment and inflation were "opposites", The relationship between them was first discovered by an economist named Phillips (hence it was called the "Phillips Curve") in the 1950s, after Keynes' death, though based on Keynes' model of the economy. Milton Friedman then (correctly, as I understand it) theorized that the real relationship between the two was that set forth in the "expectations augmented" Phillips Curve. That refinement is not at odds with Keynesianism, and is generally accepted by Keynesians.

That said, I'm no expert so hesitate to change the article to delete the reference, without at least giving someone the chance to put me in my place. Besides, my undergraduate classed were Keynes-heavy and therefore possibly biased. Jesus Saves 19:40, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-19T23:34:17Z

JesusSaves:

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?

2008-03-19T23:22:58Z

JesusSaves: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==

* [[Role-playing]] games do not reinforce evil, but "get it out of your system".
* Anyway, it's just a game.

==No==

* Acting out mental fantasies of sorcery, theft, etc., encourages these evil tendencies.

:It seems to me that "'''of course''' they are bad" is the obvious and correct conclusion. People tend to escalate in behaviors in which they indulge. When I started collecting guns, I bought one, and it was cool, so I bought a second...then my collecting got more and more pronounced. Now I actually have to budget my income to make sure I don't inadvertently indulge the hobby too much. The same goes for '''bad''' behaviors. Pedophiles, murderers, drug users, criminals, all are known to escalate over time, not start off at the top and then, the "pressure" released, revert to ordinary citizens. It's called "escalation behavior" and it's why no one, children or adults, should casually play RPGs in my opinion. Part of the reason we (meaning conservatives) seem to have, on the whole, a very relaxed attitude towards sexual and occult imagery and influences of things like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and [[Harry Potter]] are that the influences are everywhere and we "get used to them." Though I have my issues with Catholicism, the Pope is absolutely right to refer to the "[http://www.explorefaith.org/news/08_02_05.html subtle seductions] of fictional representations of the occult. They normalize things which should be categorically condemned. Jesus Saves 19:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?

2008-03-19T23:22:04Z

JesusSaves: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==

* [[Role-playing]] games do not reinforce evil, but "get it out of your system".
* Anyway, it's just a game.

==No==

* Acting out mental fantasies of sorcery, theft, etc., encourages these evil tendencies.

:It seems to me that "'''of course''' they are bad" is the obvious and correct conclusion. People tend to escalate in behaviors in which they indulge. When I started collecting guns, I bought one, and it was cool, so I bought a second...then my collecting got more and more pronounced. Now I actually have to budget my income to make sure I don't inadvertently indulge the hobby too much. The same goes for '''bad''' behaviors. Pedophiles, murderers, drug users, criminals, all are known to escalate over time, not start off at the top and then, the "pressure" released, revert to ordinary citizens. It's called "escalation behavior" and it's why no one, children or adults, should casually play RPGs in my opinion. Part of the reason we (meaning conservatives) seem to have, on the whole, a very relaxed attitude towards sexual and occult imagery and influences of things like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and [[Harry Potter]] are that the influences are everywhere and we "get used to them." Though I have my issues with Catholicism, the Pope is absolutely right to refer to the "[http://www.explorefaith.org/news/08_02_05.html| subtle seductions] of fictional representations of the occult. They normalize things which should be categorically condemned. Jesus Saves 19:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?

2008-03-19T23:21:41Z

JesusSaves: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==

* [[Role-playing]] games do not reinforce evil, but "get it out of your system".
* Anyway, it's just a game.

==No==

* Acting out mental fantasies of sorcery, theft, etc., encourages these evil tendencies.

:It seems to me that "'''of course''' they are bad" is the obvious and correct conclusion. People tend to escalate in behaviors in which they indulge. When I started collecting guns, I bought one, and it was cool, so I bought a second...then my collecting got more and more pronounced. Now I actually have to budget my income to make sure I don't inadvertently indulge the hobby too much. The same goes for '''bad''' behaviors. Pedophiles, murderers, drug users, criminals, all are known to escalate over time, not start off at the top and then, the "pressure" released, revert to ordinary citizens. It's called "escalation behavior" and it's why no one, children or adults, should casually play RPGs in my opinion. Part of the reason we (meaning conservatives) seem to have, on the whole, a very relaxed attitude towards sexual and occult imagery and influences of things like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and [[Harry Potter]] are that the influences are everywhere and we "get used to them." Though I have my issues with Catholicism, the Pope is absolutely right to refer to the "[http://www.explorefaith.org/news/08_02_05.html| subtle seductions] of fictional representations of the occult. They normalize things which should be categorically condemned.

Talk:Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld

2007-12-14T22:11:48Z

JesusSaves:

All the decision means is that we'll hear from them again. And Congress stripping habeas from the courts is just... frightening. Anyone who celebrates such a decision is not an American that the Founders would have enjoyed meeting.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't bother me, even slightly, that the Court's ability to hear cases involving foreign terrorists might be limited by Congress. That said, wWhen you wrote: "They were never American citizens, and were captured in foreign lands for suspected terrorist activity. They are called “enemy combatants” for that reason." Shouldn't these facts, at least, be verifiable by a court? Suppose, hypothetically, that that Bill Jones, 12th generation American, was snatched off the streets of Lubbock, Texas, held in federal custody in the U.S. and the government falsely maintained that he was in in Cuba, was a muslim terrorist, taken prisoner in a foreign country and not at all a citizen (if fact, an executive order could strip him of his citizenship, as if no court has the authority to hear a challenge to that order, what's to stop it?). Obviously that would be "BAD BEHAVIOR" by the executive branch and is therefore unlikely, but the upshot would seem to be that Mr. Jones's only remedy is to hope the Congress (another political branch) finds a way to check the Executive despite its veto. I have no idea what the law is on this point, but I think I am happier with the Court having some ability to prevent chicanery and massive screwups, at least as it relates to citizens...but, again, determining citizenship requires at least some minimal level of jurisdiction in all cases. Jesus Saves 17:11, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Korematsu v. United States

2007-12-14T21:39:55Z

JesusSaves:

I am uncomfortable making this change, because I fear not being knowledgable enough about the topic, but my understanding was that it was *not* merely "resident aliens" caught up in the Japanese internment and suspicions (as the first paragraph states), but full-fledged citizens of the United States, some families having had citizenship for several generations, of japanese ancestry who were also interned. If I'm correct the references to it relating to "resident aliens" is too constrained (though I suppose Korematsu himself may have been an alien, rather than a citizen).

I'm not sure why the first paragraph talks about "aliens" and the rest of the entry relates to all peoples of Japanese ancestry in the U.S. Can someone who knows more about the case confirm?

[Edit: I also note that there seems to be a word missing in the last line: "a report in 1983 condemning President Roosevelt's removal order the Supreme Court decision" Possibly "'''''and''''' the Supreme Court''''''s''''' decision."?] Jesus Saves 16:33, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Korematsu v. United States

2007-12-14T21:35:46Z

JesusSaves:

I am uncomfortable making this change, because I fear not being knowledgable enough about the topic, but my understanding was that it was *not* merely "resident aliens" caught up in the Japanese internment and suspicions (as the first paragraph states), but full-fledged citizens of the United States, some families having had citizenship for several generations, of japanese ancestry who were also interned. If I'm correct the references to it relating to "resident aliens" is too constrained (though I suppose Korematsu himself may have been an alien, rather than a citizen).

I'm not sure why the first paragraph talks about "aliens" and the rest of the entry relates to all peoples of japanese ancestry in the U.S. Can someone who knows more about the case confirm? Jesus Saves 16:33, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Korematsu v. United States

2007-12-14T21:33:33Z

JesusSaves: New page: I am uncomfortable making this change, because I fear not being knowledgable enough about the topic, but my understanding was that it was *not* merely "resident alients" caught up in the J...

I am uncomfortable making this change, because I fear not being knowledgable enough about the topic, but my understanding was that it was *not* merely "resident alients" caught up in the Japanese internment, but full-fledged citizens of the United States, some families having had citizenship for several generations, of japanese ancestry who were also interned. If I'm correct the references to it relating to "resident aliens" is too constrained (though I suppose Korematsu himself may have been an alien, rather than a citizen). Can someone who knows more about the case confirm? Jesus Saves 16:33, 14 December 2007 (EST)

George Washington

2007-12-14T21:02:52Z

JesusSaves: /* French and Indian War */

{{President
|image=George washington 3.jpg
|seq=1
|party=None
|term_start=1789
|term_end=1797
|vp=John Adams
|previous=
|next=John Adams
|birth_date=February 22, 1732
|birth_place=Westmoreland County, Virginia
|death_date=December 14, 1799
|death_place=Mount Vernon, Virginia
|spouse=[[Martha Dandridge Custis Washington]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]]
}}

'''George Washington''' '''(February 22, 1732 - December 14, 1799)''' was born to Augustin and Mary Washington<ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, George Washington]], Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1986.</ref> and was the unanimously elected first [[President of the United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref> He was also a devout [[Christian]], with his adopted daughter once stating that: <blockquote>"If you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref></blockquote>

Washington endeared himself to generations of Americans by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years. Towards that end, he sought to emulate the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison that is truly testament to Washington's greatness, and one that drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in England, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in [[New York city| New York City]]'s [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759.

==Early years==
Born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on February 11 (old style), 1732, George Washington was the eldest son of Augustine Washington and his second wife, Mary Ball Washington, who were prosperous Virginia gentry of English descent. He was baptised an [[Anglican]].[http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/26/hh26f.htm] George spent his early years on the family estate on Pope's Creek along the Potomac River. His early education included the study of such subjects as mathematics, surveying, the classics, and "rules of civility." His father died in 1743, and soon thereafter George went to live with his half brother Lawrence at [[Mount Vernon]], Lawrence's plantation on the Potomac. Lawrence, who became something of a substitute father for his brother, had married into the Fairfax family, prominent and influential Virginians who helped launch George's career. An early ambition to go to sea had been effectively discouraged by George's mother; instead, he turned to surveying, securing (1748) an appointment to survey Lord Fairfax's lands in the Shenandoah Valley. He helped lay out the Virginia town of Belhaven (now Alexandria) in 1749 and was appointed surveyor for Culpeper County. George accompanied his brother to Barbados in an effort to cure Lawrence of tuberculosis, but Lawrence died in 1752, soon after the brothers returned. George ultimately inherited the Mount Vernon estate.

By 1753 the growing rivalry between the British and French over control of the Ohio Valley, soon to erupt into the French and Indian War (1754-63), created new opportunities for the ambitious young Washington. He first gained public notice when, as adjutant of one of Virginia's four military districts, he was dispatched (October 1753) by Gov. Robert Dinwiddie on a fruitless mission to warn the French commander at Fort Le Boeuf against further encroachment on territory claimed by Britain. Washington's diary account of the dangers and difficulties of his journey, published at Williamsburg on his return, may have helped win him his ensuing promotion to lieutenant colonel. Although only 22 years of age and lacking experience, he learned quickly, meeting the problems of recruitment, supply, and desertions with a combination of brashness and native ability that earned him the respect of his superiors.

==French and Indian War==
In April 1754, on his way to establish a post at the Forks of the Ohio (the current site of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Washington learned that the French had already erected a fort there. Warned that the French were advancing, he quickly threw up fortifications at Great Meadows, aptly naming the entrenchment Fort Necessity, and marched with Native American allies to intercept advancing French troops. At the end of resulting skirmish, the French commander, Joseph Coulon de Villiers, Sieur de Jumonville, was taken captive and thereafter killed by the Seneca chief Tanacharison (also known as "Half King"). Taking most of the French forces prisoner, Washington pulled his small force back into Fort Necessity where he was overwhelmed (July 3) by the French, led by the brother of of de Jumonville, in an all-day battle fought in a drenching rain. Surrounded by enemy troops, with his food supply almost exhausted and his dampened ammunition useless, Washington capitulated. Under the terms of the surrender signed that day, he was permitted to march his troops back to Williamsburg.

Discouraged by his defeat and angered by discrimination between British and colonial officers in rank and pay, he resigned his commission near the end of 1754. The next year, however, he volunteered to join British general Edward Braddock's expedition against the French. When Braddock was ambushed by the French and their Indian allies on the Monongahela River, Washington, although seriously ill, tried to rally the Virginia troops. Whatever public criticism attended the debacle, Washington's own military reputation was enhanced, and in 1755 at the age of 23, he was promoted to colonel and appointed commander in chief of the Virginia militia, with responsibility for defending the frontier. In 1758 he took an active part in General John Forbes's successful campaign against [[Fort Duquesne]]. From his correspondence during these years, Washington can be seen evolving from a brash, vain, and opinionated young officer, impatient with restraints and given to writing admonitory letters to his superiors, to a mature soldier with a grasp of administration and a firm understanding of how to deal effectively with civil authority.

==Virginia Politician==
Assured that the Virginia frontier was safe from French attack, Washington left the army in 1758 and returned to Mount Vernon, directing his attention toward restoring his neglected estate. He erected new buildings, refurnished the house, and experimented with new crops. With the support of an ever-growing circle of influential friends, he entered politics, serving (1759-74) in Virginia's House of Burgesses. In January 1759 he married Martha Dandridge Custis, a wealthy and attractive young widow with two small children. It was to be a happy and satisfying marriage. After 1769, Washington became a leader in Virginia's opposition to Great Britain's colonial policies. At first he hoped for reconciliation with Britain, although some British policies had touched him personally. Discrimination against colonial military officers had rankled deeply, and British land policies and restrictions on western expansion after 1763 had seriously hindered his plans for western land speculation. In addition, he shared the usual planter's dilemma in being continually in debt to his London agents. As a delegate (1774-75) to the First and Second Continental Congress, Washington did not participate actively in the deliberations, but his presence was undoubtedly a stabilizing influence. In June 1775 he was Congress's unanimous choice as commander in chief of the Continental forces.

==American Revolution==
Washington took command of the troops surrounding British-occupied Boston on July 3, devoting the next few months to training the undisciplined 14,000-man army and trying to secure urgently needed powder and other supplies. Early in March 1776, using cannon brought down from Ticonderoga by Henry Knox, Washington occupied Dorchester Heights, effectively commanding the city and forcing the British to evacuate on March 17. He then moved to defend New York City against the combined land and sea forces of Sir William Howe. In New York he committed a military blunder by occupying an untenable position in Brooklyn, although he saved his army by skillfully retreating from Manhattan into Westchester County and through New Jersey into Pennsylvania. In the last months of 1776, desperately short of men and supplies, Washington almost despaired. He had lost New York City to the British; enlistment was almost up for a number of the troops, and others were deserting in droves; civilian morale was falling rapidly; and Congress, faced with the possibility of a British attack on Philadelphia, had withdrawn from the city.
[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|300px|right|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'', by Emmanuel Leutze, 1850]]
Colonial morale was briefly revived by the capture of Trenton, N.J., a brilliantly conceived attack in which Washington crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 and surprised the predominantly Hessian garrison. Advancing to Princeton, N.J., he routed the British there on Jan. 3, 1777, but in September and October 1777 he suffered serious reverses in Pennsylvania--at Brandywine and Germantown. The major success of that year--the defeat (October 1777) of the British at Saratoga, N.Y.--had belonged not to Washington but to Benedict Arnold and Horatio Gates. The contrast between Washington's record and Gates's brilliant victory was one factor that led to the so-called Conway Cabal--an intrigue by some members of Congress and army officers to replace Washington with a more successful commander, probably Gates. Washington acted quickly, and the plan eventually collapsed due to lack of public support as well as to Washington's overall superiority to his rivals. After holding his bedraggled and dispirited army together during the difficult winter at Valley Forge, Washington learned that France had recognized American independence. With the aid of the Prussian Baron von Steuben and the French marquis de LaFayette, he concentrated on turning the army into a viable fighting force, and by spring he was ready to take the field again. In June 1778 he attacked the British near Monmouth Courthouse, N.J., on their withdrawal from Philadelphia to New York. Although American general Charles Lee's lack of enterprise ruined Washington's plan to strike a major blow at Sir Henry Clinton's army at Monmouth, the commander in chief's quick action on the field prevented an American defeat.

In 1780 the main theater of the war shifted to the south. Although the campaigns in Virginia and the Carolinas were conducted by other generals, including Nathanael Greene and Daniel Morgan, Washington was still responsible for the overall direction of the war. After the arrival of the French army in 1780 he concentrated on coordinating allied efforts and in 1781 launched, in cooperation with the comte de Rochambeau and the comte d'Estaing, the brilliantly planned and executed Yorktown Campaign against Charles Cornwallis, securing (Oct. 19, 1781) the American victory.

Washington had grown enormously in stature during the war. A man of unquestioned integrity, he began by accepting the advice of more experienced officers such as Gates and Charles Lee, but he quickly learned to trust his own judgment. He sometimes railed at Congress for its failure to supply troops and for the bungling fiscal measures that frustrated his efforts to secure adequate materiel. Gradually, however, he developed what was perhaps his greatest strength in a society suspicious of the military--his ability to deal effectively with civil authority. Whatever his private opinions, his relations with Congress and with the state governments were exemplary--despite the fact that his wartime powers sometimes amounted to dictatorial authority. On the battlefield Washington relied on a policy of trial and error, eventually becoming a master of improvisation. Often accused of being overly cautious, he could be bold when success seemed possible. He learned to use the short-term militia skillfully and to combine green troops with veterans to produce an efficient fighting force.

After the war Washington returned to Mount Vernon, which had declined in his absence. Although he became president of the Society of the Cincinnati, an organization of former Revolutionary War officers, he avoided involvement in Virginia politics. Preferring to concentrate on restoring Mount Vernon, he added a greenhouse, a mill, an icehouse, and new land to the estate. He experimented with crop rotation, bred hunting dogs and horses, investigated the development of Potomac River navigation, undertook various commercial ventures, and traveled (1784) west to examine his land holdings near the Ohio River. His diary notes a steady stream of visitors, native and foreign; Mount Vernon, like its owner, had already become a national institution.

In May 1787, Washington headed the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convension in Philadelphia and was unanimously elected presiding officer. His presence lent prestige to the proceedings, and although he made few direct contributions, he generally supported the advocates of a strong central government. After the new Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification and became legally operative, he was unanimously elected president (1789).

==Constitutional Convention==
The problems of travel and trade on river systems caused the states to call for a conference to work out the differences between the states. Washington asked that the states meet in Annapolis, Maryland. Only five states attended this meeting in 1786. The next meeting was scheduled for Philadelphia in 1787. Congress was also asked to act on the matter of calling a convention but they did not. It was not until the 25th of May that a quorum was available.

The first act of the convention was to elect George Washington as the president of the convention. When he was elected to the post of President Washington decided that the meetings ought to be secret. Washington held the belief that the government should have coercive power, but he did not know what the extent of that power would be. Washington also held to the idea that the government should have three branches. They should be called the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. George Washington felt very strongly about a Federal Court System as early as 1775. This system should also have an appeals system. Because he was a Virginian, Washington favored what is called the Virginia Plan.

While Washington himself does not write much about the convention, so it becomes necessary to read between the lines of the other delegates to find out that Washington favored. Sources indicate that he did have feelings about presidential life tenure and he supported the compromise of the convention on the setup of the House and Senate.

George Washington had returned to Mount Vernon to wait for the ratification of the Constitution. While he did not speak publicly on the subject, Washington did pass on private support and advice to those who would favor the new Constitution. George Washington was such a popular figure the public felt that it was the correct action to ratify the Constitution. During the ratification process Washington continued to support the Constitution. It has been suggested that before the ratification was done people were already selecting George Washington as the first President.

==President==
[[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right|George Washington painting at the Oval Office]]
George Washington was at Mount Vernon when Charles Thompson, the long-term secretary of the Continental Congress brought him the news that he was elected President. The arrival of the document at Mount Vernon made it legal. Washington left on April the 16th traveling to New York City, the temporary capital of the new Republic. On April 30, George Washington stood on the balcony of New York City Hall to take the oath of President of the United States.

Washington acted carefully and deliberately, aware of the need to build an executive structure that could accommodate future presidents. Hoping to prevent sectionalism from dividing the new nation, he toured the New England states (1789) and the South (1791). An able administrator, he nevertheless failed to heal the widening breach between factions led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Because he supported many of Hamilton's controversial fiscal policies--the assumption of state debts, the Bank of the United States, and the excise tax--Washington became the target of attacks by Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.

Washington was reelected president in the [[United States presidential election, 1792|1792 Presidential Election]] and the following year the most divisive crisis arising out of the personal and political conflicts within his cabinet occurred--over the issue of American neutrality during the war between England and France. Washington, whose policy of neutrality angered the pro-French Jeffersonians, was horrified by the excesses of the French Revolution and enraged by the tactics of Edmond Genet, the French minister in the United States, which amounted to foreign interference in American politics. Further, with an eye toward developing closer commercial ties with the British, the president agreed with the Hamiltonians on the need for peace with Great Britain. His acceptance of the 1794 Jay's Treaty, which settled outstanding differences between the United States and Britain but which Democratic-Republicans viewed as an abject surrender to British demands, revived vituperation against the president, as did his vigorous upholding of the excise law during the [[Whiskey Rebellion]] in western Pennsylvania.

The White House was built mainly by George Washington's government. (Construction began on October 13, 1792 and was ready for occupancy on about November 1, 1800).

==Retirement and Assessment==
By March 1797, when Washington left office, the country's financial system was well established; the Indian threat east of the Mississippi had been largely eliminated; and [[Jay's Treaty]] and [[Pinckney's Treaty]] (1795) with Spain had enlarged U.S. territory and removed serious diplomatic difficulties. In spite of the animosities and conflicting opinions between Democratic-Republicans and members of the Hamiltonian Federalist party, the two groups were at least united in acceptance of the new federal government. Washington refused to run for a third term and, after a masterly Farewell Address in which he warned the United States against permanent alliances abroad, he went home to Mount Vernon. He was succeeded by his vice-president, Federalist [[John Adams]].

Although Washington reluctantly accepted command of the army in 1798 when war with France seemed imminent, he did not assume an active role. He preferred to spend his last years in happy retirement at Mount Vernon. In mid-December, Washington contracted what was probably quinsy or acute laryngitis; he declined rapidly and died at his estate on Dec. 14, 1799.

Even during his lifetime, Washington loomed large in the national imagination. His role as a symbol of American virtue was enhanced after his death by [[Mason L. Weems]], in an edition of whose ''Life and Memorable Actions of George Washington'' (c.1800) first appeared such legends as the story about the cherry tree. Later biographers of note included [[Washington Irving]] (5 vols., 1855-59) and [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1896). Washington's own works have been published in various editions, including ''The Diaries of George Washington'', edited by Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig (6 vols., 1976-79), and ''The Writings of George Washington, 1745-1799'', edited by John C. Fitzpatrick (39 vols., 1931-44).

==Christianity==
Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work and believed in the deep friendship between religion and government. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment:

<blockquote>"The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref></blockquote>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address:

<blockquote>"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency."<ref>''Id.''</ref></blockquote> Comments such as this one have led some modern historians to conclude that Washington was a deist rather than a Christian.

Of course Washington has also been quoted as saying: <blockquote>"You do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ... Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.<ref>Original Intent, David Barton, 2004, Pg. 168</ref></blockquote>

Washington declared in his Farewell Address: <blockquote>"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref></blockquote>

==Freemason==
On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==George Washington's expenses==
Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:

<blockquote>''Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.''</blockquote>

It should be noted that some people will try to create a controversy where none exists. For instance certain recent writers will note that Washington's expenses in his eight years of generalship came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money.<ref>http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/washington/</ref> while leaving out that the Continental dollar in use at that time was next to worthless, requiring large quantities to buy even basic supplies, and it got worse during the war. We only have accounts of Washington's expense statements because Washington himself was meticulous in creating and keeping his expenses and turning them over to Congress. It should also be noted that Congress paid them all, to the penny, and never showed any reservation.

Once he had been elected President, Washington once again offered to forego a salary and only have his expenses paid. Congress felt the position required a salary, and instead gave Washington $25,000 a year for his services, a meaningful amount as the currency situation of the United States had stabilized.

==Quotes from George Washington==

*The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. (To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224

*Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.)

*There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. (To THE SECRETARY OF STATE in ''Writings,''34:266.)

----
==Links==
*[http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/index.html Papers of George Washington at the University of Virginia]
*[http://www.livingtrustnetwork.com/content/lwt/wills/washingtonwill.php Last will and testament]
*[http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/gwlife/ Text of the 1807 biography by David Ramsey]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html White House biography]
*[http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/ PBS biography]
*[http://georgewashington.si.edu/ Smithsonian Institute biography]
*[http://www.mountvernon.org/ George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate]
*[http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/gwashington.html Internet Public Library, list of links]
*[http://gw.ffc.navy.mil/ USS ''George Washington'' CVN-73]

==Notes & References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category: American Revolutionary War Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:American Revolutionary War]]
[[Category:Founding Fathers]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-09-07T23:42:50Z

JesusSaves: /* Game play */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not suggest doing this. In fact, an entire "mature" supplement (though there is no age restriction on who may buy it), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>Book of [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The players are also allowed to choose a variety of different "races" for their characters, including elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarfs and humans. Many supplements have added still more such "races" to the game from which players may choose, including overtly monstrous races, although these races are not considered to be standard or "core." It has also been confirmed that in the upcoming 4th edition of the game humanoid creatures spawned from demons and devils, called "tieflings," will be included as a "core" race<ref>Tieflings as [http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm "Core"]</ref> that players may select, placing them among the primary personas players will adopt in the game.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5. Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was officially announced at Gen Con on August 16, 2007; the first of the new edition's core rulebooks, the ''Player's Handbook'', is scheduled to release in May 2008.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the slaying of monsters and the accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24).

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. Many Christian players get around this by altering the world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils.

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus).

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-09-07T23:42:04Z

JesusSaves: /* Game play */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not suggest doing this. In fact, an entire "mature" supplement (though there is no age retriction on who may buy it), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>Book of [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The players are also alloewed to choose a variety of different "races" for theor characters, including elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarfs and humans. Many supplements have added still more such "races" to the game from which players may choose, including overtly monstrous races, although these races are not considered to be standard or "core." It has also been confirmed that in the upcoming 4th edition of the game humanoid creatures spawned from demoons and devils, called "tieflings," will be included as a "core" race<ref>Tieflings as [http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm "Core"]</ref> that players may select, placing them among the primary personas players will adopt in the game.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5. Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was officially announced at Gen Con on August 16, 2007; the first of the new edition's core rulebooks, the ''Player's Handbook'', is scheduled to release in May 2008.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the slaying of monsters and the accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24).

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. Many Christian players get around this by altering the world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils.

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus).

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]

[[Category:Games]]

Talk:Moral relativity

2007-07-26T23:51:51Z

JesusSaves: New page: This topic should probably become a subsection of Moral relativism, as that (short) article at least defines the term, whereas this article appears to be solely concerned with the rela...

This topic should probably become a subsection of [[Moral relativism]], as that (short) article at least defines the term, whereas this article appears to be solely concerned with the relationship between moral relativism and the Theory of Relativity.Jesus Saves 19:51, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fourteenth Amendment

2007-07-22T00:57:44Z

JesusSaves:

An article containing very little except the text of the amendment is not very useful. There are more convenient sources for the bare text of the Amendment than Conservapedia. No one goes to an encyclopedia looking for the text of a document..they go to the document itself. Encyclopedias are used to provide a broader context. It would be like looking for an article on George W. Bush and finding only a photograph of him. At the very least someone familiar with the area should write an article called "Legal Analysis of the 14th Amendment" and then link to it from here.--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:57, 21 July 2007 (EST)

The last sentence of "The U.S. Supreme Court has used this Amendment to invent new rights, such as abortion and a separation of church and state, which were never intended by those who drafted or ratified it." is factually incorrect and should be removed from the article.

:First, sign your entries to the talk page using the signature box above. Second, those are factual statements and I've never heard anyone dispute them. Do you really think the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to protect abortion? Please.

:More generally, don't delete factual material simply because you disagree with it, or you will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)

The right to an abortion was granted as a continuance of the right to privacy granted by the precedent set in Griswold as well as the due process clause of the XIV amendment. To claim that the courts solely used this amendment for its decision in Roe is false.--[[User:Moniker|Moniker]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::Moniker, abortion was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is essential to Roe. You deleted something that was factual, perhaps due to misinformation that you've learned elsewhere, or perhaps due to bias. Such deletions are inappropriate here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::: Whether or not he was correct factually, he deleted unsourced information. Given that you've threatened to block people for adding sourced information it hardly seems reasonable to threaten this user for removing unsourced info. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:50, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, that doesn't follow. This project is in its infancy and of course not everything is sourced yet. But that does not authorize a visitor to delete material that is obviously true, albeit unsourced, in order to advance a biased agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Um, the statement as phrased isn't obvious to me nor apparently to this editor. I would presume a large amount of the matter would hinge on how you define terms. Furthermore, it isn't clear to me how any other "unsourced" claim you've complained about has been any less "obvious" nor for that matter where the Conservapedia Commandments make a distinction between "obvious" and "unobvious" unsourced claims. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:03, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Actual legal analysis ==

I have changed this article significantly, but all in keeping with accepted Constitutional law. Please address any problems you have with my legal analysis here, and I will deal with it. Note that I have dealt with only established legal or historical facts with very precise citations to either firm case law, or legal case books. I think you all should like it...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Substantive due process

2007-05-16T01:20:56Z

JesusSaves: Lochner overturned *state* laws relating to bakeries, not federal minimum wage laws. Minimum Wage laws were struck down in Adkins v Children's Hospital (1923)

{{discrimlaw}}
== The Doctrine ==
===Usage of the Doctrine ===
Substantive due process is the idea that the due process clause of
the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] regulates not only the procedures due a
citizen, before revoking a right (procedural due process)<ref>Procedural due process is dealt with in the [[Mathews v. Eldridge]] framework.</ref>, but also what rights may be revoked at all.

It has become a legal theory tied uniquely in the area of
[[fundamental rights]] jurisprudence - or, the protection of certain
inalienable, yet undefined constitutional rights. [[Antonin Scalia]]
sharply dissents from almost all cases upholding substantive due
process, believing that there are no fundamental rights if they are not
defined by the constitution, or discoverable from American history.

===Standard of Review===
Substantive due process protects all rights from deprivation without [[rational basis review| rational basis]] - that is to say, the Government may not burden exercise of a right without having a reason for doing so. However, this reason may be pretextual or barely sufficient under rational basis review, and thus the protections of substantive due process for blanket rights are very weak indeed.<ref>[[Lawrence v. Texas]] may have changed this. See the article for a discussion.</ref>

Rights that are deemed "fundamental," though, may only be abridged if a compelling state interest exists, and the abridgment is narrowly tailored to suit that interest. In other words, to abridge a fundamental right, the state must pass "[[strict scrutiny]]."

The question of what rights are fundamental is essential to this doctrine, as the nature of the right determines if its abridgment receives cursory or fairly in-depth review. Defining rights as "fundamental" is a popular judicial sparring ground for conservative and liberal jurists. Different formulations have been used, based on the shifting tides of Supreme Court opinion, to define when a right is fundamental. Conservative jurists, like [[Antonin Scalia]] or [[William Rehnquist]], state that a right is only fundamental if it is deeply rooted in the nation's history, or in the text of the Constitution, or necessary to the foundations of "ordered liberty" in a civil society.<ref>Washington v. Glucksberg, Rehnquist, C.J., for the Court.</ref>

In contrast, liberal jurists prefer a formulation that protects all rights against "arbitrary restraint."<ref>Glucksberg, Stevens, J., concurring.</ref> This formulation protects "liberty's more transcendent dimensions" from encroachment by the majority, and is a more robust conception of due process.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy, J., for the Court.</ref> This formulation also has support in earlier cases.<ref>Poe v. Ulman, Harlan, J, dissenting.</ref> Also, liberal jurists suggest that a desire to enforce "the morality of some" upon the entirety of society compromises "the liberty of all". This view is currently the dominant one, although the tenure of Chief Justice Roberts may see a renewed ascendancy of the alternative view.<ref>Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania v. Casey, Opinion of the Court, Part I.</ref>

The standard of review defines the scope and utility of the doctrine. The "arbitrary restraint" formulation makes substantive due process a robust counter-majoritarian doctrine, designed to protect the rights and actions of the minority against abridgment by a majority eager to enforce its view of morality upon the nation. The alternative conception - the "tradition" based inquiry noted above in ''Glucksberg'' - rather makes the due process clause fairly weak in substantive protection, conceiving of the judiciary as too limited to serve as a robust counter-majoritarian branch.

== Doctrinal History==
=== Lochner Era, and Before ===
The justly reviled decision ''Scott v. Sanford''
was the first to suggest that the Constitution protects certain rights
(free use of "property," in this case) from intrusion by the government,
even if constitutional safeguards had led to a procedurally "correct"
taking.<ref>I'll do the cites later</ref> Although ''Dred Scott'' was
thankfully overturned by the [[Reconstruction]] Amendments, the seeds of
substantive due process were sown in the constitutional landscape.

The doctrine was later, famously, picked up by the Court in ''Lochner'',
a decision which held that a New York State law regulating the hours and working conditions of bakery employees intruded too far
into the "fundamental right" for an employee and an employer to freely
contract. This fundamental right could not be abridged even by fair
legislative processes. This line of jurisprudence - which came to be
known as "economic" substantive due process - came to an abrupt end in
the wake of the [[Great Depression]], which forced a nationwide crisis
of conscience in the doctrines of full and free [[laissez-faire]], the
philosophical underpinnings of ''Lochner''.<ref>See generally Casey v.
Planned Parenthood</ref> It was fully overturned in ''West Coast
Hotel''.<ref>cites later</ref>

Another famous case picked up substantive due process as a constitutional "hook" before it became popularized in the 1970s - the famous case outlawing [[miscegenation]] statutes, ''Loving v. Virginia''. The Lovings,a mixed-race couple, sought to have their marriage accepted in their home state of Virginia, which, like many other Southern states, had outlawed mixed-race marriages. Although the Court invalidated this ban (forcing Virginia to recognize the Lovings' marriage and striking another blow against [[Jim Crow]] laws and racism) on equal protection grounds, the case included a line near the end, almost as an afterthought, describing the right to marriage as a substantive right, fundamental to human life, which the state could not lightly intrude upon.<ref>Loving v. Virginia, pincite to follow when less busy</ref> Due process, though, would not be picked up again by a discrimination case for another 40 years.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, resting a decision to invalidate a Texas law criminalizing sodomy on substantive due process grounds, with a hint of equal protection rhetoric.</ref>

===Griswold v. Connecticut===
The case [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] emerged as a test case of a rarely-enforced 1879 law. Specifically, Connecticut had forbidden by statute the sale of contraception materials. Griswold, the petitioner-physician in the case, was indicted for selling condoms. The case came to the Supreme Court, where the Court struck down the Connecticut statute as abridging a fundamental right to privacy in the "marital bedroom."

Specifically, the Court stated, building on the "enumerated/implied" distinction set forth in early Supreme Court jurisprudence<refer>See e.g. McCulloch v. Maryland.</ref>, that the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights emanate "penumbras," filled with subsidiary rights that give meaning to the enumerated rights, and without which the enumerated rights would have no meaning. The Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment guarantee of freedom from search & seizure, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression, and others, all accumulated to prove a right to freedom from intrusion into a couple's intimate affairs. By regulating condoms, the state had gone too far, and run afoul of this fundamental right.

=== The Roe Controversy, and its Progeny ===
A special case of substantive due process jurisprudence are those rights which involve a degree of "third-party harm"; that is, the chance that someone or something else may suffer by exercise of the right. Depending on the nature of the right involved, and its balance against the possibility of harm, rights involving a third-party harm may be curtailed or completely engulfed by the potential for harm. The right to assisted suicide, for instance, is wholly subsumed by the potential for abuse.<ref>Washington v. Glucksberg.</ref>

The right to choice in family planning, or, the right to an abortion, is another right carrying a possibility of a third-party harm . The Court held in ''Casey'' that this right, by nature of the balance of the harm against the right, would be managed by the "undue burden" test.<ref>Casey, supra.</ref> That is that the exercise of the right will not be unduly burdened. A burden that is "due," however, may be one that recognizes the state's interest in preventing abortions where avoidable. This is the ultimate synthesis of the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' debate, an attempt at a synthesis between the far-left view (abortion is a right that cannot be abridged) and the far-right view (abortion is always wrong) that allows for exercise of the right under limited circumstances. This framework fits neatly within Justice Stevens' view of fundamental rights law as an expression of the freedom from "arbitrary restraint": that is, the restraint upon abortion rights, where not "undue," are not "arbitrary."

== References ==
<references/>

Viking

2007-05-16T01:00:08Z

JesusSaves: See Comment in Discussion section

{{Middle Ages}}
"Viking" is the name used for the warrior/trader people of [[Scandinavia]] ([[Norway]], [[Sweden]], and [[Denmark]]) from about 750 A.D to 1050 A.D. In their own culture, the word "viking" referred only to their pillaging raids on other people, usually carried out by sea in distinctive boats that were advanced for their time. These raids were famously devastating, and had a major impact on the history of [[England]] and [[France]].

Along with their destructive habits, Vikings were also well-known traders, explorers and settlers. They settled the islands of [[Iceland]] (870) and [[Greenland]] (985), and tried to start a settlement in North America (1000), almost 500 years before [[Christopher Columbus|Columbus]]. They founded the city of [[Dublin]], Ireland, as a trading center. Vikings also expanded toward the East. They were involved in the founding of [[Russia]], and were important in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire at [[Constantinople]].

At home, Vikings were industrious farmers and fishermen. They had a distinctive culture that valued honor, hospitality, and generosity.

Vikings were [[pagan]]s. They had many gods, such as [[Tyr]], [[Odin]], [[Thor]], and [[Freya]]. Stories about these gods are now called Norse Myths.

Vikings who are still famous in our time are [[Noggin the Nog]] and his son Knut Nogson, [[Eric the Red]] and his son [[Leif Ericson]].

==References==

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/

http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/start.html

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/

http://www.nogginthenog.co.uk/
[[Category:anthropology]]
[[Category:History]]

Talk:Viking

2007-05-16T00:58:46Z

JesusSaves:

WRT the claim about days of the week: Sunday = Sun Day (Sunna), Monday = Moon Day (Mani), Tuesday = Tiw's Day (Germanic form of Tyr), Wednesday = Woden's Day (Anglo-Saxon form of Odin), Thursday = Thor's Day, Friday = Frigga's Day or Freya's Day, probably the former. Only Saturday = Saturn's Day is a Roman reference. Interesting side note: in most pagan mythologies, the sun is male and the moon is female, but in Norse mythology, it's the other way around. --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 13:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know that that's right. See Online Etymology Dictionary which indicates that Sunday and Monday are loan translations for "day of the sun" and "day of the moon", and doesn't mention the names of the "gods" you mention.

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Sunday&searchmode=none Sunday]]

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Monday&searchmode=none Monday]]

: You will find [http://www.crowl.org/Lawrence/time/days.html] [http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500637_761573003_-1_1/Days_of_the_Week.html] to be a good refrence for reading.
: Monday - Moon Day
: Tuesday - Tyr's Day. Tyr = Norse god of war. In French (from Latin) it is mardi - Mars Day. Mars = Roman god of war
: Wensday - Odin's Day. Odin = Norse god of the traveler. In Frech, it is mercredi - Mercury's Day. Mercury = Roman god of travel.
: Thursday - Thor's Day. Thor = Norse god of lightning. In French it is jeudi - Jupiter's Day. Jupiter = Roman god of lightning
: Friday - Frigga or Freya's day. Frigg and Freya were both ferility goddesses. In french it is vendredi - Venus's Day. Venus = Roman god of fertility
: --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Abell has asserted that Sunday and Monday are named for Sunna and Mani, but neither the Concise Oxford English Dictionary on my shelf nor the Online Etymology Dictionary bear out this assertion. I'd propose that someone confirm the etymology of the two days' names with the full OED and we accept that as the final source on the matter. In any event, the Anglo-Saxons were not Vikings....they were a Germanic culture made up largely of conquered Celts, so why is the sentence on the days of the week being named after Anglo-Saxon gods at all relevant to the Viking entry? I'm going to delete the sentence, but it might be added into an article about Scandivaian/Teutonic mythology, as trivia, or an article on the Anglo-Saxons. : --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Viking

2007-04-26T01:17:38Z

JesusSaves: typos

Talk:Viking

2007-04-26T01:17:01Z

JesusSaves:

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2007-04-09T07:56:59Z

JesusSaves:

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

Yes. Three major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying American citizens. We had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens. Three, we were experiencing a slump in our economy and needed something to drive the prices back up.
--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Another reason not listed above is that in early 1917, Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, sent a coded telegram to Germany's ambassador to Mexico promised that if Mexico declared war on the United States, Germany would help give back Mexico the territories it lost (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, also known as the Mexico Cession) in the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War.
--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 16:54, 17 March 2007

==='''no...'''===

Because the Americans brought the so called 'Spanish flu' with them and that fearful disease managed to kill off nearly 20 million mostly young European citizens far more than were actually killed by the war. Of course it wasn't in any way meant. If the American soldiers had not been crowded together in their vast training camps perhaps the virus would not have developed and the many Americans who died from this pandemic would also have been saved.

If the Europeans would have settled their issues on there own, there would have been a tie in the end, or maybe Austria/Germany would have won. In that case Hitler would not have arisen and WWII would never have occured, many Eastern European countries wouldn't have suffered communism.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler wouldn't have risen to power in Germany had it not been forced to pay war reparations as declared in the Treaty of Versailles. Woodrow Wilson didn't want to punish Germany as harshly as our allies did but no one really listened to Wilson. This is an example of Europeans settling their issues on their own which in turn caused WWII. Also, another example Europeans settling their issues on their own is when The Black Hand assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started WWI. So clearly your argument about letting Europeans settling their issues on their own is faulty.--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 22:12, 22 March 2007

::Kdude, you need read more closely what I wrote. My point is that Germany wouldn't have lost the war if the United States wouldn't have supported UK and France. So there would have been no need for reparations, ergo: no Hitler!--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 12:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no reason for America to interfere. THis was just a case of Russian imperialism in the Balkans and xenophobia towards Germany. Germany's creation in 1871 and subsequent rise to power alarmed many of the old school Metternich balance-of-power European political strategists. Germany's military buildup was not out of aggression, but rather out of Wilhelm's fear of war by way of aggression from Russia. His fear was justified. America's excuse for entering the war - Germany's sinking of ships was ridiculous. Americans were warned that ships entering the war zone around Britain took the risk of being sunk. Also the Lusitania was carrying weapons aboard bound for Britain. The Germans had to sink it. Everyone needs to get over this phobia of Germany. In this war, they were the good guys. [[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:So can we conclude the Wilson administration, illegally arming Britain like in the [[Lusitania]] incident, was akin to the Reagan administration illegally arming the [[Contras]] in the 1980s, only in the Lusitania incident American lives, including that of children and infants, were being used a hostages to insure safety of passage for the illegal contraband? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I mostly think we should of stayed because of what could have been avoided. If Germany had won Hitler would have remained a painter instead of trying to take over Europe. This would be because Germany would not have gone into a depression where they would look for any kind of change. The British and the French would not have divided up the Ottaman empire for their own means. Three Ottoman provinces were combined to form modern day Iraq leading to three groups who hate each other. This could have all been avoided if the U.S whose arrival turned the tide of the war would have stayed out. CARNESJW

:Ya but if [[Xerxes]] would've lost at [[Thermopylae]] what you just outlined may have been a different story, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Germany would have won "but for" the U.S. The entry of the U.S. into tht war, in my estimation was just the last nail in the coffin for the Kaiser. We may have accelerated the end of the war, but Germany didn't have the resources to pull it out. They might, however, have been able to stretch the war out long enough to force a settlement on better terms than they did, this (possibly) preventing the rise of Hitler (though virulent anti-Semitism and an oddly powerful sense of cultural superiority was rampant in Germany for a long time before the Nazis, who merely seized on them, so who knows whether a better settlement would really have prevented the rise of Nazism). [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?

2007-04-09T07:34:35Z

JesusSaves:

{{debate}}

Would Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic be considered examples of foreign languages? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't see a real point. I'd rather kids learn German, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, or some other useful language in school rather than Italian, Spanish and French. I'd also rather we start teaching kids foreign languages much earlier before English Language patterns are set.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spanish can be useful down in South-West US, places such as Arizona or New Mexico, so I don't see the problem with it.. But French is such a commonly taught language in North America; how useful is it really? Anyways, I quite agree with what Elamdri states.--[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]
:When I say useful, I mean languages that are more sought after in the business and government spheres. Yeah, Spanish can be helpful if you work at McDonalds in New Mexico, but other than that, your limited. German and especially Mandarin are the other two languages of big business besides English. Farsi and Arabic are important languages right now for anyone looking into careers in government, military, and espionage.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You do know that there are countries to the south of the United States right? You do know that these countries represent one of the largest trading blocks to the United States? Just wondering. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They aren't going to be NEARLY as important in the near future as Southeast Asia is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Having worked at a Burger King in New Mexico, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be all that useful. If you want to work at a decent restaurant here, though, Spanish might help. Or, you know, if you want to attempt to talk to the people who do the jobs you don't want to do, keep the American economy from collapse, etc. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I was being sarcastic. Of course Spanish is useful, but it is more of a region specific language. If you aren't doing business in the southwestern United States, then its practically pointless. Someone like me in the Midwest has no use for it. French and Italian are so pointless they aren't even worth mentioning.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you plan on, say, doing business with people who speak those languages. We're a country of immigrants, so we're going to have quite a few people who aren't speaking English here. Additionally, the more international the world becomes the more useful-- moneywise as well as culturewise-- it will be to be able to communicate with people who don't speak English. Expecting everyone to learn our language just because we have a puffed up idea of ourselves is naive at best and xenophobic at worst. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your mistaking what I say. For starters, most people learn those languages in high school. Now, how many high school students honestly know they want to do business with people that speak that language? Besides, for the most part, if your an immigrant to the United States, you pick up the basic English needed to survive or you have your children do it for you. With most immigrant families that I have come across, the native tongue dies out after the first generation, because the children simply learn the English and rarely speak the older language. It isn't a bad thing to expect everyone who lives IN the United States to learn English. And honestly, because it is the established lingua franca, I don't see much harm in asking people around the world to agree to an already established common language (unless your really into all that Revelations stuff). If we don't do it now, we might loose our chance if China surpasses us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::High school students don't know a lot of things about what they do with their lives-- that doesn't mean we should put off letting them choose between Statistics and Calculus until they decide what business they want to go into. I really wish they would've done more foreign language stuff when I was a little kid, though-- I might just be bitter/annoyed at myself that I still don't know Spanish despite having lived in New Mexico for almost 17 years. Oh, and one other thing-- I seriously doubt we're going to have a problem with people needing to learn Chinese. Chinese is terrifyingly difficult. Japanese, Arabic and Farsi, though-- we're going to need a lot more people speaking those really soon.
:::::::I dunno, what happens if China does become the economic juggernaut that some have predicted?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: Oh, and I have one other reason I want everyone to use Spanish: maybe English will come to its senses and pick up a second person pronoun other than "ya'll." Ustedes FTW.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::English language tip: the correct spelling of the second-person pronoun in English is "y'all", not "ya'll". Go back to Mexico where you belong, Kathlene!! --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 09:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, okay, I get what you mean. Thanks! --[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]

Generally speaking, yes. Being bilingual never hurts. People whose native language is English/American have a sort of choice since it's a very widely-used language. Everybody else should at least learn English as a second language. For the English-speaking people, I'd suggest French, German, or something like that, if just to appreciate how easy English is. ;) Overall, it depends on what you want to do, like Elamdri pointed out. But being able to communicate in a language other than your first one can be a true asset. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:In my opinion, being bilingual is just a boon really. There's always going to be SOMEONE who knows the language, so really, unless we come across some sort of shortage on translators, we really don't have a problem. Plus, English is pretty much the lingua franca these days. If you go almost anywhere worth going on this rock, you can probably get by just knowing English ("Getting by" in not really the best way to travel though, so its best to invest in some sort of guide if you can). I would however advise against French. Its rather case specific in it's use, and like Spanish, some English and Italian, it's Latin based, meaning that the words share common roots. This makes Spanish, French, and Italian somewhat easier to learn for English speaking students. Thus, people who speak these as a second language are more "dime a dozen." Non Latin based languages, especially the Asia and Middle Eastern languages, are much harder for English speaking students to learn. This means that people who aren't from those regions, who know those languages, are in higher demand. Also, jobs that tend to require those specific skills tend to be much more high profile careers.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your best bets for a second langauge would be any language formerly used by a colonial power. Spanish, French, German, Portugese, and Dutch are languages that are spoken throughout the world. Some variant of Chinese or Japanese would be helpful too, but good luck learning Chinese languages.

In my experience, Spanish is very useful in business and German not at all. I even have several German clients (Deutsche Bank, Bayerische Hypo- und Veriensbank, Commerzbank, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, and others, but (i) the people who work there disproportionately speak English and (ii) outside of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, virtually no one else does. While I have no clients based in Spanish speaking countries, the number of business opportunities that arise in Latin America are quite substantial. They have an abundance of natural resources and often need first-world help to exploit them. I *wish* I spoke Spanish (or Portuguese, for Brazil alone). --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:34, 09 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?

2007-04-09T07:15:33Z

JesusSaves:

'''Damnation Warning'''
If you consider this hypothetical you will be committing the unforgivable sin. You will not be able to take back this mistake so for the sake of you immortal soal do not go any further.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
{{debate}}

==NO==
Aside from God, might makes right. God dictates morality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

It really depends how you define morality. If morality is what is right and wrong, as set down by God, then of course no morals exists if God does not exist. However, many people would give morality a broader definition. For example, most atheists would say they attempt to hold to some set of morals which they believe to be right. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Man is still answerable to his fellow man. A morality dictated by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In other words majority rules... might makes right. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ummm.... no? Might makes right is a little over simplistic. Look back in to the origins of religion and you will see that the moral code was based on how best for a community to survive. Fragile communities fragment when people steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, etc. God telling people what is right and wrong... that is might makes right. Morality ''not'' from God is people deciding what is best not just for themselves, but for the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Your view that "God telling people what is right and wrong... is might makes right" reveals a very limited view of God and implies that His motives are those that a selfish man would have were he to be given infinite power. Who would be better qualified to inform creatures who are limited in understanding and moral character than the infinite God who created them? Surely His wisdom is far superior to ours and although He is indeed mighter than we shall ever be, His credentials for informing us of what is right and wrong flow not primarily from His infinite power but rather from His infinite knowledge and perfect moral purity. We would do well to listen to Him. God (I am talking about the God of the Bible here, not the god of one's own understanding or definition) is by definition Holy, Right and Good. These things cannot be defined or have meaning apart from the Creator of the universe. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

In the absence of God's morality, what incentive does a man have to do anything other than that which gratifies himself? Why should anyone care about the good of the community?--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Examine the golden rule and you will see some form of it in almost every religion and philosophy from Aboriginal beliefs to Zoroastrianism. Life is not necessarily defined by personal hedonism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't take much intellect to realize that that which benefits the community benefits the members of that community. Including your straw man hedonist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe in god but I still believe everyone should be a good person no matter what. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean anything. You shoudl treat others how you want to be treated. What goes around comes around. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:But how can you know what "good" is without God? Anything else is just something made by a flawed human being. A perfect moral code can only be created by God. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you wish to take that stance, one could argue then how could man be imperfect? One of the biggest criticisms of Plato's forms was that imperfect cannot be derived from true perfection (an absolutely perfect being cannot create imperfection, it's not in their nature), thus if God is truly perfect, then humans must be perfect, yet Christians argue that is not the case. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not recognize the existence of god. I do however have morals, thanks to [[Aesop]], the legitimate father of morals. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Assume God does not exist, and that my parents, me and all the other religious folks are simply wrong. Since there is no way to prove the non-existence of God, the (by assumption, falsely) religious amongst us still have a code that they follow that they regard as "morality." Rather than being derived from God, that moral code likely was derived either from other men or possibly arose as a result of certain fundamental qualities of mankind as social beings (social "animals" I suppose). If that were the origin of morality, would the resulting rules no longer be "morality." It's a semantic game at that point, but I'd have to say that, in substance, there would still be rules of conduct that we would each choose to follow. In such a world though, I fear that the moral relativists would be right to assert that no particular morality has any primacy. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questioning the Question==

If God does not exist, then all material in the bible, all theology and all material written by an army of believers is of highly dubious origin. At the very least it is 'informed speculation'; at its worst it is dangerous nonsense. That could (but does not have to) potentially mean that all 'morality' derived from a fear of hell, damnation and/or a vengeful god is invalid, and therefore irrelevant or even subversive. Many of our 'Rights and wrongs' are derived from this belief system, and our morality is the code which encapsulates the 'rights' (as opposed to the 'wrongs'). The 10 Commandments for example are an encoding of such values, which appear to rely for their validity and upon their enforcement upon a belief in an aggressive and vindictive deity.

However, there are alternatives. Humanists also derive moral codes without the need for a supporting deity. Transhumanists who believe that after a [[technological singularity]] has occured, human beings will transcend the form that we currently inhabit, are intensely concerned with ethical issues. God is nowhere in these debates; they are all about how we have a responsibility to the universe, the earth and our fellow creatures, both now and in the future. This is not about being 'right' or 'wrong', it is pragmatism and it is the responsible use of intellect and the application of prudence and common sense.

This means that morality based purely on a belief in God is highly fragile, for if someone chooses NOT to believe in God, their moral code fractures and they can basically behave with impunity. In medieval times where theological & scientific understanding of the world was in the hands of a few, and the horizons of the common people were limited, and the idea of God was an understandable extrapolation of the patriarchal system of family and local government, a god-based morality might have worked extremely well.However, a simple belief in a universal God in a world where we are citizens of a global community with different sets of core beliefs, different religions and therefore different moral codes, does not work at all, and, it can be argued leads to the very situation we find ourselves in today, with disillusioned sections of society who do not accept conventional moral and ethical norms of behaviour.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Common Good==
So then as your own deity you can transform morality to fit your own worldview? You also seem to say there is no right or wrong to base common sense on. Then as a Humanist you can create your own morality to whatever you feel will benefit your universe. I would question where you feel responsibility toward something greater, such as the universe, while at the same time rejecting something else greater than yourself that is acknowledged by your fellow creatures.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:No man or woman is an island. There is society, and there is consensus. Whatever makes society work, and perform its functions will be an effective moral code. Different societies will do it differently. It is not an individual choice. Look at it this way. In England we drive on the left; all other European countries drive on the right. This is purely convention and is completely arbitrary, but we do it to allow traffic to flow smoothly. It is also convention that we do not murder, pillage and rape. However, there are (and have been) occasions where moral codes have allowed these. In war we are allowed to murder people. Pillaging was a common event in historic times: the Romans, Greeks, the Vikings all engaged in it. Rape was a feature of life in medieval England; at one time the Lord of the Manor had the right to sleep with any new bride. All of these people had gods, and their behaviour was condoned by their theology. The fact is that some theologies (such as that of the Aztec's) required murder. Abraham was quite willing to kill his son, because he expected his god to require a sacrifice.
Morality = the set of conventions which allow a particular society to operate, that's all. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 20:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Of course?==

Anyone can come up with a moral code. The problem is that since its source is only human then it will subject to anyone wanting to change it. Inalienable rights will no longer exist since they merely come from people who will give or take them away whenever it's politically beneficial to whomever is in charge at the time. That would not be good for morale, would it? But of course, the question begins with the word if. If you are a godless individual then morality will be something you can change whenever it will benefit your behavior. A person who acknowledges God will not be able to play free and loose with morality set in stone. So then, who would you tend to trust your children with?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think I would trust my children with people who I know and have grown to trust, regardless of whence came their morals. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 19:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Anyone can come up with a moral code, and many do. However, society invents moral codes for its effective functioning and continued survival. It is not in our collective interest to have murder, mayhem and thievery rife. We need at least a consensus of behaviour from most people to have society function effectively, and in the main the moral code is devised to do just that. However, there are some biblical moral codes, such as 'an eye for an eye', which we have dispensed with because they are now deemed inappropriate. To kill a member of someone's family because one of their family has killed one of yours may have worked in biblical times, but not in today's society, where families are nuclear, and the code would end up destroying two families. Even the bible recognised this, when it was superseded by 'turn the other cheek'. Moral codes need to change according to circumstance and need. If there is an absolute code, backed up by a deity, things can never change, because there is always some sacred text which is held inalienable. A hard & fast code tied to a supreme deity also runs the risk of subversive re-interpretation of the code by deviants with vested interests (witness the re-interpretations of the Q'uran by radical scholars). We have seen how this can happen, and should not think that it is impossible to happen in the West. The existence of the US is testament to the fact that there were radically different interpretations of biblical moral codes in the 16th & 17th Centuries. In reality whatever moral code exists, and whatever its basis it will always be coloured with political expediency.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So you say that you would do away with having inalienable rights? Just because people have their own liberal interpretations of moral codes negates their usefullness? --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You keep on bringing up inalienable rights? What do inalienable rights have to do with God? One can believe in the inalienable rights of freedom of expression and self determination without acknowledging God. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: "Inalienable" (or "unalienable") is a term in English common law. Property rights were alienable (could be sold) or inalienable (could only be inherited). Inalienable here simply means something which is taken to be fundamental, and therefore unquestionable. The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundlesss. claiming that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. In the piece above I was pointing out that some people hold their sacred texts to be unalienable, that is they cannot be questioned. This is a ''very bad thing'', especially where sacred texts are in conflict with one another, as it denies discussion and negotiation. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It can be argued that those who accept Christianity are far more dangerous in straying from their morals than others, since any sin (aside from blasphemy) is forgivable. This, in effect, grants Christians a free pass to do whatever as long as they ask for forgiveness. I know the common responses, that repentance means making an effort not to commit such sins again, that Christians should want to live like Jesus and try not to sin, etc., but the fact remains that Christianity gives its followers the right to do almost anything they please. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: But not only Christians - any religion can be guilty of this. Look at the way that radical Islam has subverted the Q'uran to its own ends. It is the presupposition that there is a text 'revealed by God' which is the problem. By the very nature of language and human development, words change meaning over time, we constantly interpret and re-interpret. What words mean to one generation, may mean something completely different to another. The word 'gay' used to mean, light, jolly and carefree. 'Groggy' was a description of a course-grained material (grossgrain), not a state of semiconsciousness. If you suppose that a deity has revealed to you a text for all time, then because words change in meaning, it is clear that each generation will, by necessity, be forced into creating their own meanings from that text. This is where the danger lies. Let us assume that the 'revealed' word ''is'' the word of God. It is absolutly clear that not all re-interpreters of the code do, or even in principle ever could, agree; many are in conflict with each other, and some appear to be in direct contravention of the fundamental tenets of their faith. How can an ordinary person possibly be expected to decide what is right and what is wrong in this maelstrom? The fact is that we don't; moral codes are informed by, but not dictated by, religious beliefs. Moral codes are basically human social constructions, and are shared understandings of what is required to live peaceably, and ensure the continued survivial of our genes and memes into the next generation. A believer might claim that their 'god' has inspired them to do this, and I can't argue with that, as it is their belief. However, that does not explain why atheists, pagans and other non-monotheists would choose to live their lives according to the same shared moral codes as them. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Christianity does not give its followers the right to do almost anything they please. Nor do Christians have a free pass to do whatever. Anyone that hides behind a label they think will protect them from harm are mistaken. Chances are that they have abandoned all morality their religion requires of them. It seems that everyone here lives in some sort of Christianized society here. So that when the God word is invoked only the Christians are thought of. The Inalienable rights of morality that are common to all such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't need to come from God. You can let those things be given or taken at the pleasure of your local autocratic official by invoking the common good. Since there is no such thing as a moral right or wrong. When people are unable to discriminate between good or evil they will not recognise any moral wrong. A Humanist doesn't recognize any higher authority and may change the morality at their pleasure, whatever that may be. From the 1st Humanist Manifesto to the Amsterdam Declaration. The Christian can't do this since their original texts don't change. If you're a Humanist, what moral rights do you have that are guaranteed permanent? Or considered to be inalienable that won't be changed with a subsequent manifesto?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the love of all that is good and decent, now you're saying a humanist can't recognize good and evil? These are not concepts that require a God! You are slandering large portions of the world population.

:::*Humanists can change their morals at a whim
:::*Humanists can't recognize good and evil

:::It's a shame your concept of God-given morals doesn't include one about civil behavior. Mine does, and my morals don't come from God. Funny how that works out. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, but it's alright when Christianity is being slandered here. I don't object to different viewpoints, even incorrect ones, without accusations of slander. I'm being as civil as anyone else on this. If you are a Humanist, you still haven't answered my question. It's an honest question? But if you won't then yes it would funny indeed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, no, it's not all right for Christianity to be slandered. You have made too points which are deeply offensive to people and aren't true. That's slander and it is uncivil. As for your question, please define "moral rights" and I'll give it a swing. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Human rights are basically moral rights. But how do you claim to derive these rights from? I claim inalienable moral rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being endowed upon me by my Creator. Freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to defend oneself would be moral and human individual rights. Are yours from God or an institution? If from God then they can't be taken away by others. If from an institution such as a government then they can be taken away in an instant. What is the guarantor of your rights that are human and moral? If God doesn't exist then moral rights and wrongs can be considered relative to the whim of those in authority over others. So that an individuals morality of right and wrong will be rendered meaningless. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I derive those rights based on a couple things. The fact that, in general, my fellow man knows that the benefit of the community is to his benefit as well. And, failing that, that my fellow man knows that if he denies those rights to someone, that those rights will be denied him.

::::More importantly, morals are not rights. They are responsibilities. They are the responsibility of everyone that lives in a community.

::::And while the Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges a creator, enumerates those rights in a general way, it also dictatates that: to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And that it is the Constitution of the United States, which does not mention a creator, which delineates and enforces those rights. Both documents, of course, are products of the Enlightenment. You should learn about the Enlightenment. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-04-05T06:56:53Z

JesusSaves: Fixed joke link

'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game. It was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref> The game almost always takes place in a pre-modern alternate world (in theory, players could create any world that comes to their imagination, however) inhabited by mythical creatures such as elves, dwarves, orcs, and dragons, where magic is commonplace. Its players create and adopt the personae of fantasy heroes that populate this world and undertake a series of adventures or quests in order to further the goals of these characters. One player takes on the role of Dungeon Master (DM). The DM is essentially a narrator who controls the overall plot of the game as well as the actions of Non Player Characters (NPCs). In addition, dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game's moral alignment system allows players to play either good, neutral, or evil characters. (Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.) The game may include elements that some consider to be occult, including the use of ghosts, spirits, demons and devils which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit.

The game settings manufactured by Wizards of the Coast (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic pantheon of deities and reject real-world religions as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can kill enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was choosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
The Combat system in Dungeons and Dragons is a [[dice]] based system. The [[dice]] that are used in the combat system are have 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. The rules will refer sometimes to a 100-sided die used to role percentages, but in play this is simulated with two ten-sided die for reasons of practicality. In combat there are three different ways that a character can deal damage to NPCs or PCs (Player Characters): Melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking a PC is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Controversy ==

Although the original game deliberately used a system of magic that was not found in any actual occult or religious system, the game came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting witchcraft, satanism and murder. Its dangers were well and succinctly summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by fundamentalist Christian thinker Jack Chick.<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref> These attacks came in the form of calls for censorship as well as boycotts and lawsuits. These worries have not been taken very seriously outside certain conservative Christian groups although the [[Israeli Defense Force]] has expressed concern that players may be "detached from reality".<ref>Ynetnews: [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3052074,00.html "Army frowns on Dungeons and Dragons"]</ref> Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective.<ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/> Some view fears of occult influence in [[Harry Potter]] novels as a repeat of the Dungeons and Dragons concerns.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Games]]

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-19T00:05:15Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T23:16:54Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T16:18:23Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T16:17:31Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

Genesis

2007-03-18T16:11:44Z

JesusSaves:

[[Image:Genesis1.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Genesis as seen in the [[Bible]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' the book of beginnings, and the first book of the Jewish [[Torah]] as well as the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of all life on [[earth]] and the social and cultural formations of mankind. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the nation of Israel, and of the earliest promises of the coming redeemer.

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the First Book of Moses by the name of ''bereisheet'' or ''be'reshith'', meaning "in the beginning", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language version of the Old Testament, rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the Greek word ''genesis'', meaning "origin". (Unger, pg. 396)

==Overview==
The book can be divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Issac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]], although there is a continuous genealogy connecting these two parts.

===The Creation===
''In the beginning, God [[creation|created]] the [[heaven]]s and earth''. This is one of the most famous statements in the Bible, and it starts the account of God's creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:
*The first day, the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and light (Gen. 1:1 through 1:5).
*The second day, the creation of a "firmament" or ''expanse'', separating the waters (Gen. 1:6 through 1:8).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life (Gen. 1:9 through 1:13).
*The fourth day, the creation of the Sun, the moon, and the stars, to mark the seasons (Gen. 1:14 through 1:19).
*The fifth day, the creation of the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air (Gen. 1:20 through 1:23).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man (Gen. 1:24 through 1:31).

The fall of mankind into sin began when the serpent questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], and convinced [[Eve]] to eat the fruit, followed by [[Adam]]. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the [[Garden of Eden|garden]], to live a life of subsistence farming and painful childbearing, and eventually dying. Genesis 3:15 is also cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

===The Flood===
The wickedness of mankind is so great the God repents of His creation and decides to destroy it all through a flood. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an ark to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth with water, the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of Ararat. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a rainbow.

Noah is also the first planter of a vineyard, and during a drunken sleep one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon his son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers Shem and Japheth. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the Table of Nations, which ends Noah's story.

===Abraham===
Genesis 11 begins the story of Abram, who leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards Canaan, where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being barren tells Abram to take Hagar, his Egyptian handmaiden, as wife. Hagar becomes pregnant with Ishmael, and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "Abraham”, and Sarai becomes "Sarah." A sign of the new covenant is the circumcision of all males. Abraham is also told of the fact that Sarah will bear a son who will be named Issac, and it is through Issac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two angels appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is very great, and God will shortly punish them, Abraham asking if the cities be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Lot, much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers; the townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by fire and brimstone; Lot’s wife turn back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham obeys God during his ultimate test: the sacrifice of his beloved son Issac; just as he is about to thrust the knife God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, ‘’full of years”, and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in Hebron, which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Isaac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would deliver a child through Rebekah’s barren womb. He does, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins Esau and Jacob; but prior to the birth God had predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, had despised his own birthright and sold it for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to Haran, the home of his uncle Laban. Along the way he has the dream of the ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants; he names the spot Bethel in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), and Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan.
*From Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin.
*From Zilpah: Gad, Asser.
*From Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali.

===Joseph===
Joseph, having angered his brothers through the dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him in addition to a colorful coat given to him by his father, is bound and sold into slavery by his brothers’ wickedness, and claim to a bitter Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal. His dreams while a slave in Egypt come to the attention of Pharaoh, who was troubled by a dream of seven withered cows and stalks of corn which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interprets the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful harvests, followed by seven years of severe famine, and follows it up by asking Pharaoh to appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself in this position, and during the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph is still alive, sends his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The brothers appear before Joseph, but do not recognize him; Joseph however, recognizes them, and after a series of tests which convinces Joseph their characters have changed, reveals himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and tells them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt. Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones when they eventually return to the Promised Land.

==Critical view==
Some biblical scholars have claimed to have identified five separate authors of the five books of Moses<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. Although unidentified, each of these authors had been given the name of a letter:
* J who uses JHWH (or ''Jehovist''), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Judah]].
* E who uses Elohim as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]].
* D who wrote Deuteronomy.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code''.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This theory has gained in popularity since it was first postulated in the late 19th century. However, it is a traditional product of modern rationalistic skepticism and applying literary criteria. Opponents of this interpretation point to its enmity against historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which are basic to the first five books of the Bible (Unger, 397; Young, pp. 183-276).

==Creation science importance==

==Archaeological importance==

==References==
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T16:10:51Z

JesusSaves:

Talk:Richard Plantagenet

2007-03-18T15:38:57Z

JesusSaves: New page: While Richard the Lionheart (Richard I) was a Plantagenet king, so were Richard II and Richard III (whose picture in in the article). This article should be changed to Richard I of Englan...

While Richard the Lionheart (Richard I) was a Plantagenet king, so were Richard II and Richard III (whose picture in in the article). This article should be changed to Richard I of England or Richard the Lionheart and the picture deleted or replaced. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 18 March 2007 11:38 (EDT)

Seraphim

2007-03-18T15:23:03Z

JesusSaves: Deleted silliness from SteveMonroe

The highest choir of angels in heaven. They are said to be beings of light and fire with six wings and 4 faces. It is said that those who look upon one of the Seraphim are instantly incinerated by their brilliance.

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T15:17:40Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T15:17:12Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

Genesis

2007-03-18T15:11:24Z

JesusSaves: Reverted edits by Karajou

[[Image:Genesis1.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Genesis as seen in the [[Bible]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' the book of beginnings, and the first book of the Jewish [[Torah]] as well as the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of all life on [[earth]] and the social and cultural formations of mankind. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the nation of Israel, and of the earliest promises of the coming redeemer.

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the First Book of Moses by the name of ''bereisheet'' or ''be'reshith'', meaning "in the beginning", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language version of the Old Testament, rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the Greek word ''genesis'', meaning "origin". (Unger, pg. 396)

==Overview==
The book can be divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Issac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]], although there is a continuous genealogy connecting these two parts.

===The Creation===
''In the beginning, God [[creation|created]] the [[heaven]]s and earth''. This is one of the most famous statements in the Bible, and it starts the account of God's creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:
*The first day, the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and light (Gen. 1:1 through 1:5).
*The second day, the creation of a "firmament" or ''expanse'', separating the waters (Gen. 1:6 through 1:8).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life (Gen. 1:9 through 1:13).
*The fourth day, the creation of the Sun, the moon, and the stars, to mark the seasons (Gen. 1:14 through 1:19).
*The fifth day, the creation of the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air (Gen. 1:20 through 1:23).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man (Gen. 1:24 through 1:31).

The fall of mankind into sin began when a serpent in the Garden of Eden (believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent) questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], and convinced [[Eve]] to eat the fruit, followed by [[Adam]]. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the [[Garden of Eden|garden]], to live a life of subsistence farming and painful childbearing, and eventually dying. Genesis 3:15 is also cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

===The Flood===
The wickedness of mankind is so great the God repents of His creation and decides to destroy it all through a flood. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an ark to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth with water, the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of Ararat. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a rainbow.

Noah is also the first planter of a vineyard, and during a drunken sleep one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon his son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers Shem and Japheth. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the Table of Nations, which ends Noah's story.

===Abraham===
Genesis 11 begins the story of Abram, who leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards Canaan, where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being barren tells Abram to take Hagar, his Egyptian handmaiden, as wife. Hagar becomes pregnant with Ishmael, and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "Abraham”, and Sarai becomes "Sarah." A sign of the new covenant is the circumcision of all males. Abraham is also told of the fact that Sarah will bear a son who will be named Issac, and it is through Issac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two angels appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is very great, and God will shortly punish them, Abraham asking if the cities be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Lot, much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers; the townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by fire and brimstone; Lot’s wife turn back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham obeys God during his ultimate test: the sacrifice of his beloved son Issac; just as he is about to thrust the knife God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, ‘’full of years”, and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in Hebron, which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Isaac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would deliver a child through Rebekah’s barren womb. He does, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins Esau and Jacob; but prior to the birth God had predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, had despised his own birthright and sold it for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to Haran, the home of his uncle Laban. Along the way he has the dream of the ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants; he names the spot Bethel in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), and Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan.
*From Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin.
*From Zilpah: Gad, Asser.
*From Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali.

===Joseph===
Joseph, having angered his brothers through the dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him in addition to a colorful coat given to him by his father, is bound and sold into slavery by his brothers’ wickedness, and claim to a bitter Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal. His dreams while a slave in Egypt come to the attention of Pharaoh, who was troubled by a dream of seven withered cows and stalks of corn which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interprets the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful harvests, followed by seven years of severe famine, and follows it up by asking Pharaoh to appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself in this position, and during the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph is still alive, sends his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The brothers appear before Joseph, but do not recognize him; Joseph however, recognizes them, and after a series of tests which convinces Joseph their characters have changed, reveals himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and tells them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt. Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones when they eventually return to the Promised Land.

==Critical view==
Some biblical scholars have claimed to have identified five separate authors of the five books of Moses<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. Although unidentified, each of these authors had been given the name of a letter:
* J who uses JHWH (or ''Jehovist''), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Judah]].
* E who uses Elohim as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]].
* D who wrote Deuteronomy.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code''.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This theory has gained in popularity since it was first postulated in the late 19th century. However, it is a traditional product of modern rationalistic skepticism and applying literary criteria. Opponents of this interpretation point to its enmity against historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which are basic to the first five books of the Bible (Unger, 397; Young, pp. 183-276).

==Creation science importance==

==Archaeological importance==

==References==
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T15:08:51Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T15:08:23Z

JesusSaves: /* Serpent versus Satan */

Talk:Odin

2007-03-18T14:56:08Z

JesusSaves:

I'm not sure that Odin should be called a "Viking" god. He (along with Thor and the rest of the "Norse" pantheon) existed in all pre-Christian Germanic religions as well (under the names Woden, Wotan, etc.). That Old English (Anglo-Saxon) incorporated their names into the names for days of the week, demonstrates that these gods were worshiped by more than just the Vikings.

On that related topic, I think only four, not six as stated in the entry for [[Viking]], days are named after Teutonic gods: Tuesday (Tyr, aka "Tiw" in Anglo-Saxon), Wednesday (Odin, aka "Wodnes" in Anglo Saxon), Thursday (Thor, aka "Thunor" in Anglo-Saxon) and Friday (Frigga, aka "Frige" in Anglo-Saxon). Saturday was named for Saturn, a Roman God. Sunday was named for the Sun. Monday was named for the Moon (there is some suggestion that Monday was named for the Anglo-Saxon god of the Moon, Mona, but the name for the god and the Moon were identical. The etymological sources I have available say the relevant origin is for the Moon. See, for example, the [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Monday&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary Entry]. If anyone has access to the Oxford English Dictionary, it if usually taken as the definitive best source for such things. [[User: JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 17 March 2007 23:59 (EDT) 

The term mythology should be replaced with religion. Those who follow the old Norse Pantheon are still around.

Viking

2007-03-18T14:55:12Z

JesusSaves:

"Viking" is the name used for the warrior/trader people of Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) from about 750 A.D to 1050 A.D. In their own culture, the word "viking" referred only to their pillaging raids on other people, usually carried out by sea in distinctive boats that were advanced for their time. These raids were famously devastating, and had a major impact on the history of England and France.

Along with their destructive habits, Vikings were also well-known traders, explorers and settlers. They settled the islands of Iceland (870) and Greenland (985), and tried to start a settlement in North America (1000), almost 500 years before Columbus. They founded the city of Dublin, Ireland, as a trading center. Vikings also expanded toward the East. They were involved in the founding of Russia, and were important in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople.

At home, Vikings were industrious farmers and fishermen. They had a distinctive culture that valued honor, hospitality, and generosity.

Vikings were [[heathen]]s. They had many gods, such as [[Tyr]], [[Odin]], [[Thor]], and [[Freya]]. In modern English, four of the seven days of the week are named for Viking gods or demigods. Stories about these gods are now called Norse Myths.

Two Vikings who are still famous in our time are [[Eric the Red]] and his son [[Leif Ericson]].

==References==

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/

http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/start.html

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/

Talk:Genesis

2007-03-18T04:12:03Z

JesusSaves:

Genesis

2007-03-18T04:07:01Z

JesusSaves: /* the Creation */

[[Image:Genesis1.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Genesis as seen in the [[Bible]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' the book of beginnings, and the first book of the Jewish [[Torah]] as well as the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of all life on [[earth]] and the social and cultural formations of mankind. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the nation of Israel, and of the earliest promises of the coming redeemer.

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the First Book of Moses by the name of ''bereisheet'' or ''be'reshith'', meaning "in the begining", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language version of the Old Testament, rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the Greek word ''genesis'', meaning "origin". (Unger, pg. 396)

==Overview==
The book is essentially divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Issac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]].

===the Creation===
''In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth''. This is one of the most famous statments in the Bible, and it opens up Genesis to a view of the world as being formless and void, just before God acted out His creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:
*The first day, the creation of light (Gen. 1:2 through 1:5).
*The second day, the creation of the firmament of the waters (Gen. 1:6 through 1:8).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life (Gen. 1:9 through 1:13).
*The fourth day, the creation of the Sun, the moon, the stars, and the seasons of earth (Gen. 1:14 through 1:19).
*The fifth day, the creation of the animals of the sea and the fowl of the air (Gen. 1:20 through 1:23).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man (Gen. 1:24 through 1:31).

The fall of mankind into sin began when a serpent in the [[Garden of Eden]] (believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent) questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the tree of life, and succeeded in talking Eve into eating the fruit, followed by Adam. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the garden, to live a life of subsistence farming and painful childbearing. Genesis 3:15 is also cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

===the Flood===
The wickedness of mankind is so great the God repents of His creation and decides to destory it all through a flood. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an ark to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth, the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of Ararat. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a rainbow.

Noah is also the first planter of a vineyard, and during a drunken sleep one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon his son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendents would be slaves to the his brothers Shem and Japheth. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the Table of Nations, which ends Noah's story.

===Abraham===
Genesis 11 begins the story of Abram, who leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards Canaan, where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being barren tells Abram to take Hagar, his Egyptian handmaiden, as wife. Hagar becomes pregnant with Ishmael, and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "Abraham”, and Sarai becomes "Sarah." A sign of the new covenant is the circumcision of all males. Abraham is also told of the fact that Sarah will bear a son who will be named Issac, and it is through Issac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two angels appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is very great, and God will shortly punish them, Abraham asking if the cities be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Lot, much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers; the townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by fire and brimstone; Lot’s wife turn back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham obeys God during his ultimate test: the sacrifice of his beloved son Issac; just as he is about to thrust the knife God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, ‘’full of years”, and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in Hebron, which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Issac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would deliver a child through Rebekah’s barren womb. He does, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins Esau and Jacob; but prior to the birth God had predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, had despised his own birthright and sold it for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to Haran, the home of his uncle Laban. Along the way he has the dream of the ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants; he names the spot Bethel in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), and Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan.
*From Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin.
*From Zilpah: Gad, Asser.
*From Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali.

===Joseph===
Joseph, having angered his brothers through the dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him in addition to a colorful coat given to him by his father, is bound and sold into slavery by his brothers’ wickedness, and claim to a bitter Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal. His dreams while a slave in Egypt come to the attention of Pharaoh, who was troubled by a dream of seven withered cows and stalks of corn which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interprets the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful harvests, followed by seven years of severe famine, and follows it up by asking Pharaoh to appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself in this position, and during the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph is still alive, sends his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The brothers appear before Joseph, but do not recognize him; Joseph however, recognizes them, and after a series of tests which convinces Joseph their characters have changed, reveals himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and tells them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt. Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones when they eventually return to the Promised Land.

==Critical view==
Some biblical scholars have claimed to have identified five separate authors of the five books of Moses<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. Although unidentified, each of these authors had been given the name of a letter:
* J who uses JHWH (or ''Jehovahist''), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Judah]].
* E who uses Elohim as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]].
* D who wrote Deuteronomy.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code''.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This theory has gained in popularity since it was first postulated in the late 19th century. However, it is a traditional product of modern rationalistic skepticism and applying literary criteria. Opponents of this interpretation point to its enmity against historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which are basic to the first five books of the Bible (Unger, 397; Young, pp. 183-276).

==Creation science importance==

==Archaeological importance==

==References==
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

Talk:Odin

2007-03-18T04:00:36Z

JesusSaves:

I'm not sure that Odin should be called a "Viking" god. He (along with Thor and the rest of the "Norse" pantheon) existed in all pre-Christian Germanic religions as well (under the names Woden, Wotan, etc.). That Old English (Anglo-Saxon) incorporated their names into the names for days of the week, demonstrates that these gods were worshiped by more than just the Vikings.

On that related topic, I think only four, not six, days are named after Teutonic gods: Tuesday (Tyr, aka "Tiw" in Anglo-Saxon), Wednesday (Odin, aka "Wodnes" in Anglo Saxon), Thursday (Thor, aka "Thunor" in Anglo-Saxon) and Friday (Frigga, aka "Frige" in Anglo-Saxon). Saturday was named for Saturn, a Roman God. Sunday was named for the Sun. Monday was named for the Moon (there is some suggestion that Monday was named for the Anglo-Saxon god of the Moon, Mona, but the name for the god and the Moon were identical. The etymological sources I have available say the relevant origin is for the Moon. See, for example, the [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Monday&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary Entry]. If anyone has access to the Oxford English Dictionary, it if usually taken as the definitive best source for such things. [[User: JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 17 March 2007 23:59 (EDT)

Talk:Infidel

2007-03-17T22:11:37Z

JesusSaves:

This article wrongly stated that "infidel" was a term only related to Islam when in fact, it has been used by Christianity and Judaism.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful -- more at FIDELITY
1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective [http://m-w.com/dictionary/infidel| (source)]

I think this article is a little silly. Since most Muslims do not speak English, the term "infidel" is not often used to describe Christians. "Infidel" is sometimes used as a translation of the Arabic word kafir (which means any non-believer of the Muslim religion or, more generally, anyone who hides the truth), but the word "infidel" itself is hardly limited to use by Muslims. I would think an entry on the word kafir would be more appropriate, with the notation that it's often translated as "infidel" in English. --[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves] 18:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Infidel

2007-03-17T22:10:38Z

JesusSaves:

This article wrongly stated that "infidel" was a term only related to Islam when in fact, it has been used by Christianity and Judaism.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful -- more at FIDELITY
1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective [http://m-w.com/dictionary/infidel| (source)]

I think this article is a little silly. Since most Muslims do not speak English, the term "infidel" is not often used to describe Christians. "Infidel" is sometimes used as a translation of the Arabic word kafir (which means any non-believer of the Muslim religion or, more generally, anyone who hides the truth), but the term itself is hardly limited to use by Muslims. I would think an entry on the word kafir would be more appropriate, with the notation that it's often translated as "infidel" in English. --[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves] 18:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Karl Marx

2007-03-17T21:59:20Z

JesusSaves:

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German economist who codified communist theory in his book "The Communist Manifesto" (1848), which he co-authored with his associate Fredriech Engels. The book declared, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class [economic] struggles." Communism prohibits a full right of private property and in its place attempts to force people to be equal in wealth.

Marx predicted that the proletariat (working class) would overthrow the wealthy in a capitalistic society, and then establish a new system that would be socialism in its early stage and pure communism in its later stage. Socialism differs from communism in that socialism does not require full equality in result and does not deny all private property. But socialism was considered by Marx to be an early stage of communism.

Marx was born in Prussia, educated in Germany, and a writer in London. His most famous work in the field of economics was "Das Kapital" ("Capital"), in which he declared economics to be the guiding force of history and that owners pay workers just enough for them to support their families. The value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "surplus value" is literally stolen from workers by owners. Owners took this surplus value and perpetuated this unfair system by investing it into more machines and consumption by the wealthy. Inevitably, class struggle by the poor against the rich, and the poor would violently overthrow the rich and end capitalism.

Marx drew heavily on the ideas of the German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] and collaborated closely with another German philosopher, [[Friedrich Engels]].

Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion ... is the opium of the people." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of the oppressed, which he felt prevents people from seeking to cure the conditions which cause that suffering. It is often cited as evidence of Marx's atheism and generally reflects Marx's disdain for those who have found belief in powers higher than man himself.

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Utilitarianism

2007-03-17T21:26:11Z

JesusSaves:

I edited this for accuracy. The ends justify the means according to Bentham and other utilitarians only so much as they promote human flourishing and happiness. I am a former utilitarian, and have a fairly thorough knowledge of the subject, but rejected it for a number of reasons.

I deleted the statement that utilitarianism goes against "Christianity" because such an argument, though probably true, cannot be accurately supported.--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 08:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Does this topic relate to "marginal utility theory" which underpins most of modern microeconomics? It's seems to me that use of marginal utility theory and its indifference curves to analyze human behavior fundamentally embraces some version of the utilitarian ideal. At a minimum both looks to the maximization of "utility" as the primary good. I am not prepared to say that microeconomics is against Christianity.--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?

2007-03-13T23:56:37Z

JesusSaves:

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Free trade stimulates the economy. A better economy increases demand for a wider variety of goods. In order to meet demand, people will labor to produce more goods. The result of this labor is an increase of wealth; Labor + raw materials = more valuble product.
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

From a global perspective, free trade certainly increases the overall amount of wealth in the economy. By eliminating barriers to trade, governments encourage members of the economy to specialize in doing whatever they do best and then trading to fulfill their wants and needs. When trade is efficient, a firm can focus its production capability entirely on the area in which it has a comparative advantage. Thus, opportunity costs are minimized and each firm is as productive as possible. Production will be greater, and production costs will be lower than they were without free trade. However, it is crucial to realize that this analysis is from a global rather than national point of view. Free trade certainly does redistribute wealth, and it is quite possible that free trade will benefit the economy as a whole, but harm a specific nation by redistributing wealth away from that nation. Free trade can put industrialized nations such as the United States at a disadvantage relative to less developed nations. Businesses in the United States are heavily restricted by health, labor, and environmental regulations. This often makes production in less developed nations less expensive than production in the US. While free trade is optimal from a worldwide perspective, it may be very dismal from our point of view. EWJ

Mr. Schlafly's arguments carry great weight from a global perspective. The People's Republic of China is a prime example both of Mr. Schlafly's defense costs argument, and of EWJ's argument about the effects of varying levels of regulation in different countries. However, within a stable society wherein all commercial entities are bound by the same regulations, free trade is increases the wealth of all financially competent members of society. In fact, free trade increases wealth by redistributing it to parties who can make more effective use of it. As an example, let us begin with the production of crude oil. The employees of a crude oil company can only utilize an infintesimal portion of thier total productions for thier personal needs. Thus they sell it to a power plant for standard currency, thereby creating wealth for themselves. The workers at the power plant only need a tiny portion of the power they produce, so they sell the power to individual homes and businesses. Each of these homes or businesses uses the power to create wealth either in the form of personal enjoyment or industrial production. All parties involved in this series of transactions end up wealthier than they begin. Obstacles to free trade would only hinder this creation of wealth. Chris J.

: '''REPLY:''' Chris makes an excellent case for trade and [[division of labor]]. By increasing efficient use of labor, overall wealth does seem to be promoted perhaps simply by reducing inefficiencies.

: But the increase in overall wealth is not shared equally, particularly when the example shifts to trade between nations. In fact, the benefits of trade may be virtually enjoyed entirely by one nation. If that nation is an enemy, it will use that increased wealth against the other nation that is enriching it. Should Carthage have enriched Rome at the time when Rome was determined to destroy Carthage? Would it have made sense for the Allies to enrich Japan or Germany in the late 1930s? I don't think so.

: Note also that most of the increase in overall wealth is due to a more efficient [[division of labor]]. When we are considering increasing free trade between countries have hundreds of millions of workers apiece, there seems to be little to be gained by dividing labor further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply about the above Reply''' Is it always the case that two countries benefit highly unevenly with regards to mutual trade? Refrigerators provide a case in point. A Chinese company, Haier, makes refrigerators and many similar products and wanted to sell them in the United States. However a mixture of tariffs and the expense of shipping bulky things like refrigerators compelled Haier to build a factory in South Carolina. The current arrangement is for Haier to make the parts in China, ship them to South Carolina, and have American workers build the final products, which tends to be the most complex and hence highest-paying set of jobs. By using the division of labor that Chris mentioned Chinese workers turn out huge numbers of parts and American workers turn out huge numbers of cheap refrigerators. Since so many units are being built many American workers are employed in the better paying jobs, and American consumers get cheaper refrigerators. Simultaneously some very poor workers in China get to make a living. The automobile industry shows similar characteristics, with many American automakers importing the parts that go into American-built cars.
When it comes to enriching a country's enemies, obviously an odious regime like Nazi Germany shouldn't be supported. At the same time two countries might be kept from fighting each other if they trade a great deal, and increasing trade might make China an increasingly capitalist country, which is all to the good. It just seems to me that everyone getting richer and less likely to fight each other is better than people being poorer and more likely to fight. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)WOVcenter

I think when you notice economies in communist nations where they don't have free trade, you have a higher poverty rate. Communism tries to control prices and control the market, as opposed to free trade when the invisible hand is moved by supply and demand and not some government. However; I would say, that it also depends on the tax rate and interest rate on how wealth is increased. During the JFK years, the wealthy had a 87% tax rate, and wealth had not increased much even if the market was free in the USA. If the government has high taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy are less likely to invest it or spend it, which distributes wealth to the middle-class and poor in the form of jobs, dividends, and buying from small companies so they can employ more people. It is the banks that increase the wealth, because they give out loans and keep 10% of the money deposited in their vaults, which creates the wealth. If the wealthy aren't able to put their wealth into banks, because they are highly taxed, then wealth does not increase. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

All voluntary transactions create value. It's not a zero sum game. In many cases that value can be converted to wealth through the productive use of the assets being traded. For example, let's say that I agree to sell you my old lawn mower for $20. The fact that I am willing to sell it for $20 means it is worth less than $20 to me (or else why would I sell it at that price>). That you are willing to buy it means it is worth more than $20 to you (or else why part with your $20?). Perhaps you'd have been willing to pay $30, or $40. For productive assets, the value you ascribe to it will be at least equal to the present value of the cash flows that asset will generate. Free trade allows assets to more easily make their way to the highest valued use because it removes barriers that might otherwise have prevented the transfer. By funneling assets to their highest values use creates more wealth (obviously) than funneling them less highly values uses.
--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

Free trade is mostly the redistribution of forms of wealth from buyer to seller. The sellers, for example, receive the primary benefit of compensation for their capital and labor. The buyer must perceive a benefit also to induce him to enter into the transaction. But that relative benefit can be, and often is, very small. A one-cent reduction in price brought by increased "free trade" can be the total amount of the benefit to the buyer.

What the seller does with his large benefit can end up cost that buyer more than one cent. The restribution of wealth through free trade to an enemy of the United States can result in the money being spent on missiles directed at the United States, which then has to spend money (perhaps more than one cent per buyer) in defending against those missiles.

Bottom line: Free trade primary redistributes wealth rather than creating it.

Mr. Schlafly

===== NO =====

Free trade is wage arbitrage. Free trade is Bill Gates saying raise the H-1b level to 300,000 further depressing American salaries.
So far free trade has resulted in continuous trade deficits. A continuous trade deficit is money that ceases to circulate in the USA.

I am a Pat Buchanan Conservative so have your counter-arguments make economic sense.

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2007-03-13T11:56:37Z

JesusSaves: /* Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

Talk:Hell

2007-03-13T11:50:49Z

JesusSaves:

There are different theological perspectives on this--whether the people who go there are "wicked" or are simply unbelievers. Many other religions also have some form of hell, and this should be mentioned, even if the Christian theology is discussed the most.--[[User:John|John]] 01:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I'm unsure as to whether other religions actually use the word Hell for their respective damnations. I know that in practice, for instance, many Muslims do, but I'm not sure if that's actually the term they use. In any event, this is an interesting point that you bring up. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:48, 5 March 2007 (EST)

The English word "hell" does not derive from Hebrew "sheol." It is a Germanic word related to the same Indo-European root from which the English word "cell" (i.e., a prison cell) originates. This type of information is readily available in a dictionary or on the internet.

:Agreed. Anyone who doesn't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary (which has comprehensive etymologies) can look to [http://www.etymonline.com/ Online Etymology Dictionary] for etymological questions. In this case the likely etymology of "Hell" can be found [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hell here]. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 07:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Judicial activism

2007-03-13T11:40:55Z

JesusSaves:

GREAT Chevron cite, dude! I love the definition.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with the definition. Roe v. Wade is "established precedent" now, but I wouldn't say that anyone who ever overrules a case (particularly that case) or who issues a ruling that appears to be contrary to it was a "judicial activist" To me, the core of "Judicial Activism" is inventing rights that are not established by the text of the Constitution or other law at issue, but that the judge thinks is "good policy" or otherwise thinks "should be" the law. I would say that overruling or ignoring precedent that itself established such a right is simple correction, rather than a new example of activism. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 07:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hippocrates

2007-03-13T11:23:18Z

JesusSaves:

Not sure the less sentence is necessary or fair. --[[User:John|John]] 23:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:I slightly rewrote it. I think "profit" is not really a neutral formulation, and also, one does not need to be a physician to "profit" from it, but one does need to be a physician to take this oath and be bound by it. Also, I explicitly inserted "in its original formulation", as there are many variants in use today that do not include the statement on induced abortion. One can of course argue whether these are "false oaths", but I think that referring to "the original formulation" is a clear and accurate statement. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 07:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Added crosslink to "Oath of Hippocrates". I considered deleting the restatement of part of the Oath, but decided against it since it is the lead in to the following sentence. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 07:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)